Arctic Sea Ice Extent, Area, and Volume

[Typhoon Tip]

Probably more for the random thought thread but ... when faced with such alarming and incontrovertible evidence ...delivered in the above cinema like that, the production value in terms of drama/ magnitude I feel is necessary for an entirely apathetic society that doesn't appreciate/respect or "believe" ( because of the specter is too unbelievable for tenability ).

And the latter aspect in that parenthetical, it seems to be proving an unavoidable first responder tact.  It's almost like a longer protracted/staggered variation of the post-morem phasing. 

First denial, eventually leads to anger then bargaining ...  

The tenor of present seems to be somewhere between those three.   

[etudiant]

I'd thought that the primary objection was not denial of the current evidence, but rather claims that similar or warmer conditions were in effect in prior recorded history, for instance during the Norse settlements of Greenland..

That then translates into a claim that there is a natural warm cold cycle, which the current models fail to capture. The Norse settlement was not small, it was big enough to be allocated its own bishop and they were able to sustain cattle and sheep.

Presumably there could be some isotope measurements possible in stalactites or glacier ice which provides some guidance on this issue, but I've not seen anything that really digs into the question.

[donsutherland1]

12 hours ago, etudiant said:

I'd thought that the primary objection was not denial of the current evidence, but rather claims that similar or warmer conditions were in effect in prior recorded history, for instance during the Norse settlements of Greenland..

That then translates into a claim that there is a natural warm cold cycle, which the current models fail to capture. The Norse settlement was not small, it was big enough to be allocated its own bishop and they were able to sustain cattle and sheep.

Presumably there could be some isotope measurements possible in stalactites or glacier ice which provides some guidance on this issue, but I've not seen anything that really digs into the question.

At least some research shows that at least parts of the Arctic today are the warmest in at least the last 44,000 years.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013GL057188

[Typhoon Tip]

14 hours ago, etudiant said:

I'd thought that the primary objection was not denial of the current evidence, but rather claims that similar or warmer conditions were in effect in prior recorded history, for instance during the Norse settlements of Greenland..

That then translates into a claim that there is a natural warm cold cycle, which the current models fail to capture. The Norse settlement was not small, it was big enough to be allocated its own bishop and they were able to sustain cattle and sheep.

Presumably there could be some isotope measurements possible in stalactites or glacier ice which provides some guidance on this issue, but I've not seen anything that really digs into the question.

Yeeeah... if you'll indulge me for a moment ...that (bold) is the "bargainers" saying that. There are those still in the earlier denial phase - if one accepts the 'post-mortem stages of recovery' metaphor to describe this climate change reticence.  I mean... it's still using historical facts to try and justify an inaction going forward - which is technically in the denial..but is also engaging the debate now, which is why it is bargaining.  Otherwise, it would be just denial with raised hands. It's a step in the right direction. 

There's all that... but there's also some poor erudition in diplomacy back-draft consequence from those early years of Neolithic incompetence/bombasting the impending doom ... That's a separate sort of issue that is spanning mutliple generations ... which means it now has a cultural "virtual institutional" root ... great!   That makes it harder.  It goes something like this, ' ...It's gotta be bullshit because it was bullshit in my parent's time and they're now 80 years old and doing fine.'

Also, look harder - there are reams of papers out there that use coring samples and other forensic sciences, to then break matters down to molecular chemistry ... in the areas of/for  paleoclimate and palegeology advancing studies .. I mean come on

[etudiant]

12 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

At least some research shows that at least parts of the Arctic today are the warmest in at least the last 44,000 years.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013GL057188

Thank you, that is a well documented piece of work.

[bdgwx]

The September mean was 4.316 which is the 3rd lowest behind 2012 and 2007. Assuming the last 5 years of means and trajectories would approximate the remainder of the 2019 a top 3 finish in the annual mean seems plausible.

[stadiumwave]

On 9/30/2019 at 7:09 AM, donsutherland1 said:

At least some research shows that at least parts of the Arctic today are the warmest in at least the last 44,000 years.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013GL057188

 

I do not have a dog in this fight. Firm believer in AGW...however, the history of Arctic temps is a moving target.

[donsutherland1]

30 minutes ago, stadiumwave said:

 

I do not have a dog in this fight. Firm believer in AGW...however, the history of Arctic temps is a moving target.

A lot of research is ongoing. We'll see what subsequent papers over the next few years show.

[forkyfork]

On 9/20/2019 at 6:12 PM, Weatherdude88 said:

I would not be surprised if we see some record extent gains at some point over the next several weeks. At the very least the cryosphere is in better shape entering the freezing season compared to the lowest minimum years.

you should quit making predictions

[bluewave]

Impressive stall in sea ice extent gains this week. It allowed 2019 to pull a little closer to 2012.

NSIDC extent

 

 

 

 

 

[donsutherland1]

44 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Impressive stall in sea ice extent gains this week. This allowed 2019 to pull a little closer to 2012.

NSIDC extent
 

 

 

 

 

 

At this point in time, ice was growing very quickly in 2012. Unless the rate of ice growth accelerates, 2019 could fall below 2012 within the next 5-7 days.

[Typhoon Tip]

On 10/10/2019 at 10:29 AM, donsutherland1 said:

At this point in time, ice was growing very quickly in 2012. Unless the rate of ice growth accelerates, 2019 could fall below 2012 within the next 5-7 days.

It's the behavioral difference that tell the character of the field imho  - 

These statistical comparisons and variance as elaborated upon, they are very useful as gateways into a deeper realm of "arctic-introspection" - it is only there where the 'gestalt' reveals what is really going on... 

The fact you elucidated above - to me - is a fine expose on a way in which the arctic is shrinking/in crisis, both faster and worse than mere numbers suggest. Because when the edges start receding earlier springs, and the recuperation is being delayed - and allowing further melting while in wait - in autumns, let's consider:  

It really is a matter of time before the instraseasonal melting factors of 2012 will in greater proportion, recur/redux ( I would argue they did not this year; we are just further alone in the assault crisis on the arctic domain so we may be converging on a similar look in that sense).  But when the former does - while there retarded recuperation and earlier erosion dates taking place - that's a synergistic acceleration effect, right there - and it would not be necessarily something suggested by these linear statistical comparison very well.   As well, tell the real story.  

Not you per se/personally .. .but "people" in general don't get that synergy, or 'more than the sum of identifiable/constituent parts' is an emergent property of complex systems.  They are not allows evidence-able.  But when they are, they can have striking presentations.   It just offers another layer in the communication issue/denier political diplomacy headache, in that getting folks around to admitting a problem ( be that by force or not...) is one thing; try then explaining that, 'oh, by the way, this is going to be far worse'   

 

[donsutherland1]

8 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

It's the behavioral difference that tell the character of the field imho  - 

These statistical comparisons and variance as elaborated upon, they are very useful as gateways into a deeper realm of "arctic-introspection" - it is only there where the 'gestalt' reveals what is really going on... 

The fact you elucidated above - to me - is a fine expose on a way in which the arctic is shrinking/in crisis, both faster and worse than mere numbers suggest. Because when the edges start receding earlier springs, and the recuperation is being delayed - and allowing further melting while in wait - in autumns, let's consider:  

It really is a matter of time before the instraseasonal melting factors of 2012 will in greater proportion, recur/redux ( I would argue they did not this year; we are just further alone in the assault crisis on the arctic domain so we may be converging on a similar look in that sense).  But when the former does - while there retarded recuperation and earlier erosion dates taking place - that's a synergistic acceleration effect, right there - and it would not be necessarily something suggested by these linear statistical comparison very well.   As well, tell the real story.  

Not you per se/personally .. .but "people" in general don't get that synergy, or 'more than the sum of identifiable/constituent parts' is an emergent property of complex systems.  They are not allows evidence-able.  But when they are, they can have striking presentations.   It just offers another layer in the communication issue/denier political diplomacy headache, in that getting folks around to admitting a problem ( be that by force or not...) is one thing; try then explaining that, 'oh, by the way, this is going to be far worse'   

 

The slow recovery is certainly disconcerting. Unfortunately, there's still a lot of room for discovery when it comes to ice-related dynamics.

FWIW, below is the difference between 2019 and 2012 in Arctic Sea Ice Extent for the past 7 days (2019 - 2012):

10/4 607,225 square kilometers
10/5 527,475 square kilometers
10/6 459,846 square kilometers
10/7 426,436 square kilometers
10/8 336,167 square kilometers
10/9 231,673 square kilometers
10/10 182,153 square kilometers

2019's slow ice growth relative to the faster recovery following 2012's record low figure may yet lead to 2019 falling below 2012's extent, especially as the Arctic was notably colder at this time in 2012 than it is today.

[bluewave]

On 10/10/2019 at 10:29 AM, donsutherland1 said:

At this point in time, ice was growing very quickly in 2012. Unless the rate of ice growth accelerates, 2019 could fall below 2012 within the next 5-7 days.

The one day NSIDC extent figure is in a virtual tie with 2012 as of October 11th. 
2019...4.998 million sq km....2012...4.964

Five day average difference is a little greater.

2019...4.959...2012....4.684

This is only the second time that the sea ice extent was still below 5 million sq km as late as October 11th.

 

[Typhoon Tip]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

The one day NSIDC extent figure is in a virtual tie with 2012 as of October 11th. 
2019...4.998 million sq km....2012...4.964

Five day average difference is a little greater.

2019...4.959...2012....4.684

This is only the second time that the sea ice extent was still below 5 million sq km as late as October 11th.

 

It's all tedious really ... I mean, not to dissuade others from keeping track. But, this level of detail seeking ... ( not to mention if they are veracious - we are always finding out that a clad data set is found to be flawed, passe' ) it's all stuff that seems more appropriate to those stationed out upon a slab of faux Terra Firma, just slightly too big to actually be defined as a mere ice-floe, with portable sat-dishes and a battery, jerry-rigged to send current in AC to a lap-top.  They're scrambling to get one last empirical data set entered before their scheduled hilo's arrive and whisks them away before the the PV's cryo hell engulfs the setting.  These kind particulars will resonate to those walking sectors of society - and of course are important for discrete sciences back in labs and University desks and white-boards and what have you.  We in here, we're internet junkies finding free publications of their findings, to repackage surrounding our own hypothesis - okay, but for what?

Here's a thought: There's a tendency toward a microcosm of what goes on out there, just colored differently when we play a hedging game with decimals, in here. The reality is that we are obsessing over serrated elevated points and dips along a curve that's descending clearly to hell -  no matter how we cut it up and look at it. The fact that we do, strikes me as a kind of bargaining tact.

It's same shit that is happening out there is society overall.  How?  Those that are finally coming out of the auto-pilot, knee-jerk denial stat and are accepting that there is a problem,  there is a tendency to fall-back rely upon this invented notion, that it is somehow "unclear that Human's are the cause," ..  Um, no.  That's bargaining. It's just taking on a different form/color. 

I don't want to say the word appropriate, because that sounds stilted, and almost toeing the line, and not questioning authority and ...well, for better or worse, I'm too maverick at the core to do that, either.  However, keeping it 100,000 mile perspectives, is the appropriate conclusion nonetheless.  Because, delineating lost ice as less than 2012 given the reality, absolutely should not allay the concerns, certainly not the gravitas ( that is real ) of the problem of a climate change that is highly probably caused by anthropogenic forcing ... Not even by decimal amounts of fear for that matter. 

I don't wanna be out of line?  I just would hope there is not a "bargaining" thing going on here, where one might even be less aware they're doing it. It's where if 2019's data is less than 2012 that somehow, in some deeper way enters a plausible justification for "phew, that was close"  - I mean... close to what?  Irrelevant ... It's not stopping an inevitability to 'make sure' 2019 is decimals less. ha ha. 

Ultimately it doesn't matter... Fact of the matter is, for all the work that's being published to this site's social media depot, I could not locate one general populate out among the provincials to the bourgeoisie, in a random sampling, that [most likely] even knows it exists.  Ha ha.  It's kind of funny - doing endlessly, something, that makes no difference.  Hm.  Kinda flirts with the old insanity definition, huh.  But, we engage in this shit because we are hobbyists, and well.. concomitantly we have an interests.  And that's fine, too -

 

 

 

 

[donsutherland1]

On JAXA, Arctic sea ice extent was 4,880,849 square kilometers on October 13. That figure is now below the 2012 extent for the same date. In 2012, Arctic sea ice extent was 4,911,701 square kilometers.

[bluewave]

39 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

On JAXA, Arctic sea ice extent was 4,880,849 square kilometers on October 13. That figure is now below the 2012 extent for the same date. In 2012, Arctic sea ice extent was 4,911,701 square kilometers.

This is the 3rd October stall in extent gains since 2016. But 2019 is starting from a lower point so it was able to drop lower than 2012.

 

[Typhoon Tip]

4 hours ago, bluewave said:

This is the 3rd October stall in extent gains since 2016. But 2019 is starting from a lower point so it was able to drop lower than 2012.

 

I was talking to Don about this last week - I think - ...about how 'less relevant' the specific comparison is to 2012 or other notable nadir years, vs the general distinction - which is more indicative of the status.   It's a logic principle... but, it's important for conveying to a public hell-bent on using any means plausible to bend/rationalize this into being something else.

Being a little sarcastic there/here ...  But, the point I was making then - as is illustrated above - is that it is less important that 2019 did not absolutely bottom out below 2012, as much as it is important that it fits snugly along a trend line that is going to hell    ... This record above, is just as achieving in paving that course -

[bluewave]

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Being a little sarcastic there/here ...  But, the point I was making then - as is illustrated above - is that it is less important that 2019 did not absolutely bottom out below 2012

Absolutely. Records have been falling throughout the year since 2016. The 2012 minimum is the one record that hasn’t been surpassed since then. Probably a less important data point relative to the bigger picture.

Data courtesy of Zack Labe and NSIDC

Record low #Arctic sea ice extent months - @NSIDC data (satellite-era from 1978/1979) ---------------------

2018 : January

2018 : February

2017 : March

2019 : April 

2016: May

2016: June

2019: July

2012: August

2012: September

2012: October

2016: November

2016: December

 

 

 

[Bhs1975]

Yeap the 2012 record will be normal soon.


.

[Typhoon Tip]

8 minutes ago, Bhs1975 said:

Yeap the 2012 record will be normal soon.


.

Probably sooner than people think at that... a year with "as much" ice as 2012 will become the anomalous summer -

Eyes roll .. ones with dim electrical circuitry in the brain box they serve, but this list of ice loss years provided by Bluewave ?

I am pretty sure they were all ahead of early forecasts ... Please correct this if I am wrong - no ego to bruise here - but I was under the impression that we're witnessing acceleration over the earlier scientific reasoning/prognostics from years ago.   And if so ... it would be illogical to assume we won't keep accelerating - not without sufficiently compensatory and cogently veracious reasons to do so. 

[bluewave]

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.
 

 

[Typhoon Tip]

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.
 

 

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. 

[LibertyBell]

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.
 

 

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?

 

[bluewave]

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.

 

[bluewave]

38 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

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?

 

They usually release it in December.

[LibertyBell]

2 hours ago, bluewave said:

They usually release it in December.

Thanks, I expect they will update this report too then:

https://arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2018/ArtMID/7878/ArticleID/783/Surface-Air-Temperature

 

[bdgwx]

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.

[bdgwx]

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.

[Vice-Regent]