Arctic Sea Ice Extent, Area, and Volume

[LibertyBell]

On 7/30/2020 at 6:16 PM, BillT said:

IF global warming is causing a loss of the ice and going to be catastrophic, why are so many here openly HOPING it is happening?

I like the droughts more, as the higher dew points result in breathing difficulties and more pollution.  

Do you think it will be possible to invent a global dehumidifier to suck out all this excess humidity?  After all, water vapor is a GHG.

 I wouldn't mind if humankind found a way to lower sea levels by reclaiming some of the land lost to the oceans (70% oceans is a little too much, it should be more like 50% ocean 50% land.)

Anything that happens can also be geoengineered away.  It's high time humanity started tinkering with the environment to fix it rather than just let it all go downhill.  Looks like we will be doing the same on Mars within the next few decades, as NASA just sent a rover there that converts CO2 to O2.

 

 

[ORH_wxman]

3 hours ago, Weatherdude88 said:

For 8.11.2020, the NSIDC northern hemisphere sea ice extent single daily value is 5.579 millions of square kilometers. This is a decrease of 16,000 square kilometers from the previous day.

2020 is now in fifth place for the date. 2020 now has more sea ice extent for the date, than 2007,2012, 2017, and 2019. 2020 may fall into sixth place in the next 2 days, as 2016 has some significant losses the next several days.

There's a lot of weak ice in the Beaufort/Chukchi region so I'd expect extent losses to accelerate again soon as a lot of that melts out and/or compacts, but we've lost any chance at a new record. I'm still expecting a top 3 lowest extent and area finish.

[bdgwx]

Unfortunately I cannot find a copy of this newly published study that isn't behind a paywall. But it is said that it supports a 2035 target for the first ice-free summer according to news articles.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0865-2

[ORH_wxman]

I’d take the over at this point on 2035. We’ve basically had no trend in volume loss going back to 2010. You’d like to see something more discernible.

Maybe there is another notable step-down currently in the works that will soon change the odds. 

[skierinvermont]

On 8/10/2020 at 11:38 AM, LibertyBell said:

I like the droughts more, as the higher dew points result in breathing difficulties and more pollution.  

Do you think it will be possible to invent a global dehumidifier to suck out all this excess humidity?  After all, water vapor is a GHG.

 I wouldn't mind if humankind found a way to lower sea levels by reclaiming some of the land lost to the oceans (70% oceans is a little too much, it should be more like 50% ocean 50% land.)

Anything that happens can also be geoengineered away.  It's high time humanity started tinkering with the environment to fix it rather than just let it all go downhill.  Looks like we will be doing the same on Mars within the next few decades, as NASA just sent a rover there that converts CO2 to O2.

 

 

Any biologist will tell you these are terrible ideas. Nature is far too complex to tinker with and not further contribute to our current mass extinction event.

[LibertyBell]

14 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

Any biologist will tell you these are terrible ideas. Nature is far too complex to tinker with and not further contribute to our current mass extinction event.

They might say that but we're tinkering with nature already.  Also, we're going to be tinkering with other planets anyway, like Mars.  The only real way to fix something bad we've done is to neutralize it by doing something good.  Doing "something good" also consists of prosecuting the fossil fuel industry, imprisoning the people who run those companies and fining them to bankruptcy and seizing all their assets, and yes this needs to be done on a worldwide level.  I'm sure by now you've read about how they've been going after lawyers who file lawsuits against them on behalf of third world nations where they cause more pollution and death than anywhere else.

 

 

 

[LibertyBell]

21 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

I’d take the over at this point on 2035. We’ve basically had no trend in volume loss going back to 2010. You’d like to see something more discernible.

Maybe there is another notable step-down currently in the works that will soon change the odds. 

I think the major news over the upcoming decade will be the rapid melting in Antarctica.  

[nycwinter]

5 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

I think the major news over the upcoming decade will be the rapid melting in Antarctica.  

a lot of us won't even be around before ice melt becomes a serious issue..

[LibertyBell]

1 minute ago, nycwinter said:

a lot of us won't even be around before ice melt becomes a serious issue..

How long do you plan to be around though?  I'd put the hard limit at around 2050 which I'm sure 90% of coastal residents living near sea level will have experienced it in some way, shape or form.

 

[LibertyBell]

Chris, Death Valley recorded the first 130 degree temp in the shade in modern history......and if verified, it will be the first verified 130 degree temp ever recorded (all the ones before are being challenged because no other nearby location was nearly as hot.)  While, at the same time, there was a unique severe thunderstorm and heavy rain going on in SF.......

 

[stadiumwave]

On 8/17/2020 at 8:28 AM, LibertyBell said:

Chris, Death Valley recorded the first 130 degree temp in the shade in modern history......and if verified, it will be the first verified 130 degree temp ever recorded (all the ones before are being challenged because no other nearby location was nearly as hot.)  While, at the same time, there was a unique severe thunderstorm and heavy rain going on in SF.......

 

 

Of course there's just no way they observed the correct record of 134 in 1913. Just has to be wrong...right?

[bdgwx]

15 hours ago, stadiumwave said:

 

Of course there's just no way they observed the correct record of 134 in 1913. Just has to be wrong...right?

Probably. Yes. There is an incredibly detailed and lengthy write up by William Reid and Christopher Burt regarding the matter. The investigation is still on-going, but unless something has changed it is my understanding that this will eventually be presented to the WMO for official review. 

The following is a lengthy 8-part series summarizing the state of the investigation through March 2020 from William Reid.

http://stormbruiser.com/chase/2013/08/29/death-valleys-134f-record-temperature-study-part-one/

You can review a considerably more consolidated summary on Christopher Burt's blog.

https://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/an-investigation-of-death-valleys-134f-world-temperature-record.html 

[csnavywx]

On 8/14/2020 at 7:16 AM, bluewave said:

While the models have captured the general decline in Arctic sea ice as the planet has warmed, specific regional forecasts have really struggled. Remember how the extreme dipole patterns during the summers just popped up around 2007. They continued through the record minimum in 2012 and then reversed for a while beginning in 2013. We need to be able to forecast those circulation changes far enough in advance to know whether the first ice free summer will be closer to 2035 or 2055. Perhaps the insights from this new study will help clarify the issue leading to  improved regional climate forecasts.

 

 

https://www.awi.de/en/about-us/service/press/press-release/mosaic-expedition-reaches-the-north-pole.html

[csnavywx]

[csnavywx]

That's the North Pole now. As the article states, mush up through 88N and that's what's at the pole. Safe to say that the MYI and thicker ice didn't make it through the melt season unscathed. CAB and the thickest ice took the biggest hit this year. It will be interesting to see what CryoSat shows this fall.

[stadiumwave]

On 8/19/2020 at 2:39 PM, bdgwx said:

Probably. Yes. There is an incredibly detailed and lengthy write up by William Reid and Christopher Burt regarding the matter. The investigation is still on-going, but unless something has changed it is my understanding that this will eventually be presented to the WMO for official review. 

The following is a lengthy 8-part series summarizing the state of the investigation through March 2020 from William Reid.

http://stormbruiser.com/chase/2013/08/29/death-valleys-134f-record-temperature-study-part-one/

You can review a considerably more consolidated summary on Christopher Burt's blog.

https://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/an-investigation-of-death-valleys-134f-world-temperature-record.html 

 

Count me unimpressed. Revisionist history. Maybe they will figure out a clever way to say 100 years from how stupid we were & our temperature data was way off....lol. I mean...come on. This is about setting the stage for new records.

Climate change is real but I'm sorry I'm bothered by this. 

[ORH_wxman]

1 minute ago, stadiumwave said:

 

Count me unimpressed. Revisionist history. Maybe they will figure out a clever way to say 100 years from how stupid we were & our temperature data was way off....lol. I mean...come on. This is about setting the stage for new records.

Climate change is real but I'm sorry I'm bothered by this. 

I’ve always thought there was pretty compelling evidence that the 134F wasn’t real.

Its a much tougher case to say for sure it was under 130F, but I don’t think questioning the 134F is that nefarious. 

[stadiumwave]

39 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

I’ve always thought there was pretty compelling evidence that the 134F wasn’t real.

Its a much tougher case to say for sure it was under 130F, but I don’t think questioning the 134F is that nefarious. 

 

So, let's say it was 132. Who knows maybe it was 135. I still think the driving force is just to think "that just can't happen", so let's investigate a reason to show how bad they missed it. Lets do away with the record. 

So, let's question the 100 degree temp in Alaska in 1915 also. 

 

[LibertyBell]

On 8/18/2020 at 11:48 PM, stadiumwave said:

 

Of course there's just no way they observed the correct record of 134 in 1913. Just has to be wrong...right?

there have been several of these early readings that have been overturned in recent years.  There has to be a second instrument in a nearby location to provide an adequate proof of what was recorded, otherwise we just cant verify it.  With the 1913 reading, none of the nearby towns were within even 10 degrees of that reading.  

[LibertyBell]

6 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

I’ve always thought there was pretty compelling evidence that the 134F wasn’t real.

Its a much tougher case to say for sure it was under 130F, but I don’t think questioning the 134F is that nefarious. 

Burt provides a compelling case for many of these early readings being questionable.  I believe this is how the 137 reading in Algeria was overturned also.  It's doubtful that instrumentation back then followed "the rules" about sheltering.  I think the 131 reading in Tunisia should be on that list too.  Burt argues that since then those locations have never even approached the temps they supposedly recorded back then and there are several cases of abnormally high readings from that era (1910s to 1930s).

I'm both a high and low temperature buff so I like to keep track of these things.....there have only been a few locations in the world that have approached 130....as a matter of fact, there seems to be some barrier there that is extremely hard to exceed.....besides Death Valley, the "128+ club" consists of Basra, Iraq, Mitribah, Kuwait, Ahwaz, Iran and Turbat Pakistan.....all of these locations have seen high temperatures between 128.6 and 129.6  This reading of 129.9 is the closest we've ever gotten in the modern era to 130.

This excludes the very rare heat bursts of course, which are extremely hard to confirm (aside from burnt crops, burnt trees,  burnt doors, etc.).....if you include them, there was a 140 supposedly in Oklahoma and even a 189 in Abadan, Iran.  I dont know where you stand on anomalous heat bursts, I find them intriguing, but dont think they can realistically be included in the temperature record.

It's really difficult to exceed 126 degrees on this planet, only a few locations have ever done it, and even then only by a couple of degrees at most.

 

 

[LibertyBell]

5 hours ago, stadiumwave said:

 

So, let's say it was 132. Who knows maybe it was 135. I still think the driving force is just to think "that just can't happen", so let's investigate a reason to show how bad they missed it. Lets do away with the record. 

So, let's question the 100 degree temp in Alaska in 1915 also. 

 

that 100 degree temp in Alaska had to be below the arctic circle.  Anyway the 100.4 in Siberia was the first 100 on record above it.

The main reason why any readings above 130 are questioned is because it hasnt happened since- not only that- if the next highest temp at a location is 5 degrees less, then it really has to be questioned.  You'd expect that temperature to be approached again at least once in a 100 years.

 

[LibertyBell]

9 hours ago, csnavywx said:

That's the North Pole now. As the article states, mush up through 88N and that's what's at the pole. Safe to say that the MYI and thicker ice didn't make it through the melt season unscathed. CAB and the thickest ice took the biggest hit this year. It will be interesting to see what CryoSat shows this fall.

I'm going to jump in here on a different topic....what is this warning about that NASA issued this past week?  A hole in earth's magnetic field and they're investigating the South Atlantic Anomaly?

 

[LibertyBell]

5 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

I’ve always thought there was pretty compelling evidence that the 134F wasn’t real.

Its a much tougher case to say for sure it was under 130F, but I don’t think questioning the 134F is that nefarious. 

the other thing that lends credence to my "130 barrier" idea, is that Death Valley has hit 129 on about half a dozen occasions but never hit 130 before this (in modern history at least.)  And neither has any other location on this planet (that we know of.)  

[bluewave]

15 hours ago, csnavywx said:

https://www.awi.de/en/about-us/service/press/press-release/mosaic-expedition-reaches-the-north-pole.html

I agree that the MYI loss is the big story.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2817/with-thick-ice-gone-arctic-sea-ice-changes-more-slowly/

With thick ice gone, Arctic sea ice changes more slowly

The Arctic Ocean's blanket of sea ice has changed since 1958 from predominantly older, thicker ice to mostly younger, thinner ice, according to new research published by NASA scientist Ron Kwok of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California. With so little thick, old ice left, the rate of decrease in ice thickness has slowed. New ice grows faster but is more vulnerable to weather and wind, so ice thickness is now more variable, rather than dominated by the effect of global warming.

Working from a combination of satellite records and declassified submarine sonar data, NASA scientists have constructed a 60-year record of Arctic sea ice thickness. Right now, Arctic sea ice is the youngest and thinnest its been since we started keeping records. More than 70 percent of Arctic sea ice is now seasonal, which means it grows in the winter and melts in the summer, but doesn't last from year to year. This seasonal ice melts faster and breaks up easier, making it much more susceptible to wind and atmospheric conditions.

Working from a combination of satellite records and declassified submarine sonar data, NASA scientists have constructed a 60-year record of Arctic sea ice thickness. Right now, Arctic sea ice is the youngest and thinnest its been since we started keeping records. More than 70 percent of Arctic sea ice is now seasonal, which means it grows in the winter and melts in the summer, but doesn't last from year to year. This seasonal ice melts faster and breaks up easier, making it much more susceptible to wind and atmospheric conditions.

Kwok's research, published today in the journal Environmental Research Letters, combined decades of declassified U.S. Navy submarine measurements with more recent data from four satellites to create the 60-year record of changes in Arctic sea ice thickness. He found that since 1958, Arctic ice cover has lost about two-thirds of its thickness, as averaged across the Arctic at the end of summer. Older ice has shrunk in area by almost 800,000 square miles (more than 2 million square kilometers). Today, 70 percent of the ice cover consists of ice that forms and melts within a single year, which scientists call seasonal ice.

Sea ice of any age is frozen ocean water. However, as sea ice survives through several melt seasons, its characteristics change. Multiyear ice is thicker, stronger and rougher than seasonal ice. It is much less salty than seasonal ice; Arctic explorers used it as drinking water. Satellite sensors observe enough of these differences that scientists can use spaceborne data to distinguish between the two types of ice.

Thinner, weaker seasonal ice is innately more vulnerable to weather than thick, multiyear ice. It can be pushed around more easily by wind, as happened in the summer of 2013. During that time, prevailing winds piled up the ice cover against coastlines, which made the ice cover thicker for months.

The ice's vulnerability may also be demonstrated by the increased variation in Arctic sea ice thickness and extent from year to year over the last decade. In the past, sea ice rarely melted in the Arctic Ocean. Each year, some multiyear ice flowed out of the ocean into the East Greenland Sea and melted there, and some ice grew thick enough to survive the melt season and become multiyear ice. As air temperatures in the polar regions have warmed in recent decades, however, large amounts of multiyear ice now melt within the Arctic Ocean itself. Far less seasonal ice now thickens enough over the winter to survive the summer. As a result, not only is there less ice overall, but the proportions of multiyear ice to seasonal ice have also changed in favor of the young ice.

Seasonal ice now grows to a depth of about six feet (two meters) in winter, and most of it melts in summer. That basic pattern is likely to continue, Kwok said. "The thickness and coverage in the Arctic are now dominated by the growth, melting and deformation of seasonal ice."

The increase in seasonal ice also means record-breaking changes in ice cover such as those of the 1990s and 2000s are likely to be less common, Kwok noted. In fact, there has not been a new record sea ice minimum since 2012, despite years of warm weather in the Arctic. "We've lost so much of the thick ice that changes in thickness are going to be slower due to the different behavior of this ice type," Kwok said.

Kwok used data from U.S. Navy submarine sonars from 1958 to 2000; satellite altimeters on NASA's ICESat and the European CryoSat-2, which span from 2003 to 2018; and scatterometer measurements from NASA's QuikSCAT and the European ASCAT from 1999 to 2017.

 

 

[bdgwx]

There was a pretty sharp loss the last 2 days. This brings the daily extent below 2019 as of 8/20 per NSIDC. The 5-day average is still in 3rd place for this date.

[donsutherland1]

21 hours ago, bdgwx said:

There was a pretty sharp loss the last 2 days. This brings the daily extent below 2019 as of 8/20 per NSIDC. The 5-day average is still in 3rd place for this date.

Unfortunately, based on 2010-19 melt rates, it is very likely that 2020 will finish solidly with the second lowest minimum extent on record. It will also be the second consecutive year with a minimum extent below 4 million square kilometers and third such year on record.

[bluewave]

 

 

[chubbs]

Unusual late-season surface melt has dropped NSIDC area slightly below 2012. Looks like we are headed for a strong #2 on most metrics.

[csnavywx]

Yeah, the Chukchi just dropped off a cliff. Now sitting about 350 above 2012 for extent, tied on area and probably lower volume than 2012, given how hard the CAB was whacked.

[donsutherland1]

Arctic sea ice extent fell to 3.995 million square kilometers on JAXA. That makes 2020 the second consecutive year that will have a minimum extent below 4.000 million square kilometers and the third such year on record.