Arctic Sea Ice Extent, Area, and Volume

[donsutherland1]

12 hours ago, Blizzard92 said:

I think this speaks for itself... (from Twitter)

It does. To date, 2016 has set daily minimum records on 46% of days this year. 

[chubbs]

Global sea ice extent  has moved far outside the historical envelop in the past 3 weeks. Unlikely to get much better in the next week or so with PV splits at both poles.

[roardog]

Once we get into winter, is there a point where a blocky pattern can favor sea ice development? Wouldn't that correlate to lighter winds and less ice being flushed out? 

[bluewave]

Second unprecedented slowdown in the October freeze-up as the Arctic easily surpasses previous records for October warmth and blocking.

This is every bit impressive as the 2007 and 2012 melt seasons along with the record warmth this past winter and spring.

 

 

 

[tacoman25]

A little bit of inconsistency going on in this thread. In recent years when we set a record for fastest fall freeze-up, or reached a high point for that part of the fall, we were told it was meaningless, the min is what really matters.

Now we have a people saying record low ice 2 months past the min is just as meaningful as a record min. 

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

the twilight zone'ish type warming to continue. 

[bluewave]

New October records for Arctic warmth along with 500 mb blocking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[chubbs]

9 hours ago, tacoman25 said:

A little bit of inconsistency going on in this thread. In recent years when we set a record for fastest fall freeze-up, or reached a high point for that part of the fall, we were told it was meaningless, the min is what really matters.

Now we have a people saying record low ice 2 months past the min is just as meaningful as a record min. 

As long as the Arctic Ocean completely freezes in winter, record melt extent will always produce record re-freeze. With all the open water in the Arctic Ocean this year, we will get a record late Fall/early Winter re-freeze at some point.

 

[nflwxman]

4 hours ago, chubbs said:

As long as the Arctic Ocean completely freezes in winter, record melt extent will always produce record re-freeze. With all the open water in the Arctic Ocean this year, we will get a record late Fall/early Winter re-freeze at some point.

 

Right.  In the near term, the record slow refreeze means very little in terms of "climate feedbacks."  The extent in May and June have much larger implications on lasting arctic warmth due to the sun pouring in at that time.  The argument can be made, however, that a record slow refreeze could potentially cause a less solvent ice pack moving into next melting season.

[Jonger]

3 hours ago, nflwxman said:

Right.  In the near term, the record slow refreeze means very little in terms of "climate feedbacks."  The extent in May and June have much larger implications on lasting arctic warmth due to the sun pouring in at that time.  The argument can be made, however, that a record slow refreeze could potentially cause a less solvent ice pack moving into next melting season.

I wonder how much warmth is being released from lower in the water column.

 

[qr7121]

nothing 2 see here plz move along

 

[chubbs]

3 hours ago, nflwxman said:

Right.  In the near term, the record slow refreeze means very little in terms of "climate feedbacks."  The extent in May and June have much larger implications on lasting arctic warmth due to the sun pouring in at that time.  The argument can be made, however, that a record slow refreeze could potentially cause a less solvent ice pack moving into next melting season.

The climate feedback maybe smaller this time of year but the mid-latitude impact is greatest through warming of the Arctic leading to a weaker jet stream. Could be another good I95 snow year.

[skierinvermont]

21 hours ago, tacoman25 said:

A little bit of inconsistency going on in this thread. In recent years when we set a record for fastest fall freeze-up, or reached a high point for that part of the fall, we were told it was meaningless, the min is what really matters.

Now we have a people saying record low ice 2 months past the min is just as meaningful as a record min. 

I don't believe we have ever reached a record high sea ice extent in fall in the last 10 years. That is false. What's impressive is not the rate of refreeze but the fact that we are now well below the previous record for the date. The slow rate of re-freeze would not be all that impressive were we starting at a more normal minimum. But we started at a near-record low minimum and followed it with slow re-freeze to produce a record low extent for this date that is far below the previous record. In other words, highly anomalous.

So no, there is no inconsistency. Your post kind of comes off like you are looking for one where there isn't anything.

[tacoman25]

53 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

I don't believe we have ever reached a record high sea ice extent in fall in the last 10 years. That is false. What's impressive is not the rate of refreeze but the fact that we are now well below the previous record for the date. The slow rate of re-freeze would not be all that impressive were we starting at a more normal minimum. But we started at a near-record low minimum and followed it with slow re-freeze to produce a record low extent for this date that is far below the previous record. In other words, highly anomalous.

So no, there is no inconsistency. Your post kind of comes off like you are looking for one where there isn't anything.

I specifically remember members on here claiming, for one reason or another, that the summer min is WAY more meaningful than anything in the fall/winter.

I'm afraid you don't speak for everyone, so no, you cannot claim there is no inconsistency.

[A-L-E-K]

Keep on denying 

[bluewave]

This Brian Brettschneider 925 mb October temperature chart shows how extreme this record warmth was in both absolute value and aerial coverage across the Arctic. As impressive a warm Arctic, cold continent(Eurasia) pattern that you are going to see.

 

 

[skierinvermont]

14 hours ago, tacoman25 said:

I specifically remember members on here claiming, for one reason or another, that the summer min is WAY more meaningful than anything in the fall/winter.

I'm afraid you don't speak for everyone, so no, you cannot claim there is no inconsistency.

As I said before, the main problem is part of your previous post was simply false. There has not been record high sea ice extent in the fall anytime recently. There have been many record lows, including this fall.

If there had been, that would be significant, but it still wouldn't mean much of anything in the big picture. Likewise, I don't think anybody here is saying a record low min on 11/4/2016 means much of anything in the big picture, but the trend certainly does.

It seems, as usual, you are more interested in semantics and playing "gotcha" than the actual issue.

[A-L-E-K]

He's a denier, soooo

[bluewave]

New record low October average extent of 6.40 million sq km. This beats the previous October 2007 record by 400K.

 

 

 

[qr7121]

nothing 2 see here plz move along 

[DaculaWeather]

If they don't, it won't have anything to do with temperatures in the Arctic. 

[qr7121]

this is horrifying

[Cerakoter1984]

3 hours ago, qr7121 said:

this is horrifying

Where can I find that chart? That's a neat way to look at the temperatures.

[tacoman25]

On 11/4/2016 at 9:43 AM, skierinvermont said:

As I said before, the main problem is part of your previous post was simply false. There has not been record high sea ice extent in the fall anytime recently. There have been many record lows, including this fall.

If there had been, that would be significant, but it still wouldn't mean much of anything in the big picture. Likewise, I don't think anybody here is saying a record low min on 11/4/2016 means much of anything in the big picture, but the trend certainly does.

It seems, as usual, you are more interested in semantics and playing "gotcha" than the actual issue.

I never said there was. Read it again. I said record fastest freeze, or a high point in the fall, I never said record high extent.

You're actually the one playing "gotcha" here, but on a misunderstanding.

My point was that several times on here we were told that the summer min is the most important thing, not what happens in fall, winter, etc. But now we have people, probably some of the same ones, claiming this is just as significant as a record low min.

[tacoman25]

10 hours ago, A-L-E-K said:

He's a denier, soooo

100% false.

[donsutherland1]

3 hours ago, Cerakoter1984 said:

Where can I find that chart? That's a neat way to look at the temperatures.

You can find the data here: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

[qr7121]

2 hours ago, tacoman25 said:

100% false.

100% true... liar

[tacoman25]

5 minutes ago, qr7121 said:

100% true... liar

I don't think you've been on this site nearly as long as I have. I have never once denied global warming. 

So you 100% don't know what you're talking about. And I don't appreciate being called a liar.

[qr7121]

5 minutes ago, tacoman25 said:

I don't think you've been on this site nearly as long as I have. I have never once denied global warming. 

So you 100% don't know what you're talking about. And I don't appreciate being called a liar.

i've been here since forever.. you are a denier... unacceptable

sometimes vicki has the best and most accurate GIFs

[Cerakoter1984]

2 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

You can find the data here: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Thank you.