Arctic Sea Ice Extent, Area, and Volume

[LibertyBell]

4 hours ago, Weatherdude88 said:

Here are is peer reviewed literature on how CO2 causes a negative greenhouse effect in Antarctica. This paper claims CO2 radiates heat to space in parts of Antarctica.
 

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL066749
 

Since they specifically mentioned central Antarctica I wonder if they found the difference to be because Antarctica is a continent vs the Arctic.

 

[donsutherland1]

19 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Don did you see the graphs of the different temp rises with different emission rates?  Would you say the most likely scenario is a 3C rise before stabilization occurs (if we achieve net zero by 2050.)  What kind of devastation would we see by a 3C temp rise?

By the way we need to cut down on both CO2 and Methane, otherwise all the efforts will be a huge failure.

They also mentioned a 2 meter sea level rise by 2100!

 

I did.

Tragically, I believe the base case is insufficient effort by countries to curb then eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. I think we’ll go above 2C and at least approach 3C. 

Oil & gas exploration and drilling permits continue to be awarded. That means an expanded fossil fuel footprint, not a smaller one. The time remaining for a relatively smooth transition to clean energy continues to be squandered. Down the road in the 2030s, the magnitude of change would be nothing short of highly disruptive, but I suspect policy makers would rather allow the climate to inflict disruption than their own tough measures. So, even then, the fight to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions will be difficult.

History has more often seen a short-sighted preference for the status quo prevail. The enlightened efforts to address the Ozone hole have been more an exception than the rule. 

The actors responsible for the greenhouse gas pollution, particularly the fossil fuel industry and supporting industries, won’t go quietly into the night. They will seek to extract every possible dollar of profits from every last stored hydrocarbon unless they are compelled to move aggressively to adopt fundamental change. They have deep pockets. They have a partially or wholly captive political party in the U.S. (and in some other countries). They are already pushing “greenwashing” ads that are patently misleading (many ran during the Olympic Games). 

All those factors suggest big obstacles lie in the way of breaking from the status quo. Thus, even as a much better outcome is still within reach, I expect humanity will miss that opportunity and suffer much greater warming (closer to 3C than 2C). 

[LibertyBell]

19 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

I did.

Tragically, I believe the base case is insufficient effort by countries to curb then eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. I think we’ll go above 2C and at least approach 3C. 

Oil & gas exploration and drilling permits continue to be awarded. That means an expanded fossil fuel footprint, not a smaller one. The time remaining for a relatively smooth transition to clean energy continues to be squandered. Down the road in the 2030s, the magnitude of change would be nothing short of highly disruptive, but I suspect policy makers would rather allow the climate to inflict disruption than their own tough measures. So, even then, the fight to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions will be difficult.

History has more often seen a short-sighted preference for the status quo prevail. The enlightened efforts to address the Ozone hole have been more an exception than the rule. 

The actors responsible for the greenhouse gas pollution, particularly the fossil fuel industry and supporting industries, won’t go quietly into the night. They will seek to extract every possible dollar of profits from every last stored hydrocarbon unless they are compelled to move aggressively to adopt fundamental change. They have deep pockets. They have a partially or wholly captive political party in the U.S. (and in some other countries). They are already pushing “greenwashing” ads that are patently misleading (many ran during the Olympic Games). 

All those factors suggest big obstacles lie in the way of breaking from the status quo. Thus, even as a much better outcome is still within reach, I expect humanity will miss that opportunity and suffer much greater warming (closer to 3C than 2C). 

Now this next one is going to be a tougher question.....aside from money, bribery, political corruption, why are so many more oil and gas contracts still being awarded, considering that the prices of renewable energy are going down and they result in higher paying higher quality jobs?  And we also have nuclear fission, which is much better than any fossil fuel, and have had it for decades, and yet we aren't going in that direction either?

 

[LibertyBell]

23 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

I did.

Tragically, I believe the base case is insufficient effort by countries to curb then eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. I think we’ll go above 2C and at least approach 3C. 

Oil & gas exploration and drilling permits continue to be awarded. That means an expanded fossil fuel footprint, not a smaller one. The time remaining for a relatively smooth transition to clean energy continues to be squandered. Down the road in the 2030s, the magnitude of change would be nothing short of highly disruptive, but I suspect policy makers would rather allow the climate to inflict disruption than their own tough measures. So, even then, the fight to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions will be difficult.

History has more often seen a short-sighted preference for the status quo prevail. The enlightened efforts to address the Ozone hole have been more an exception than the rule. 

The actors responsible for the greenhouse gas pollution, particularly the fossil fuel industry and supporting industries, won’t go quietly into the night. They will seek to extract every possible dollar of profits from every last stored hydrocarbon unless they are compelled to move aggressively to adopt fundamental change. They have deep pockets. They have a partially or wholly captive political party in the U.S. (and in some other countries). They are already pushing “greenwashing” ads that are patently misleading (many ran during the Olympic Games). 

All those factors suggest big obstacles lie in the way of breaking from the status quo. Thus, even as a much better outcome is still within reach, I expect humanity will miss that opportunity and suffer much greater warming (closer to 3C than 2C). 

Yes, I've been reading that the fossil fuel cartels are just as powerful in nations like Australia, Canada and Germany.  Why else would supposedly progressive nations like Canada and Germany be pumping dirty tar sands oil through pipelines.

 

[bdgwx]

It appears that the IPCC has adopted the phrase "practically ice-free" to mean the same thing as what we commonly use of "ice-free" to mean < 1e6 km^2 of extent.

B.2.5 Additional warming is projected to further amplify permafrost thawing, and loss of seasonal snow
cover, of land ice and of Arctic sea ice (high confidence). The Arctic is likely to be practically sea ice free in
September at least once before 2050 under the five illustrative scenarios considered in this report, with
more frequent occurrences for higher warming levels. There is low confidence in the projected decrease of
Antarctic sea ice.

AR6 WG1 SPM pg. 20.

That is the prediction...2050 with a 66% likelihood. 

[ORH_wxman]

Update for 8/10 numbers on NSIDC area:

2021 had 3.9 million sq km of sea ice area on 8/10...here's how the years since 2007 compare:

2020: -500k

2019: -480k

2018: +160k

2017: -30k

2016: -340k

2015: -210k

2014: +770k

2013: +430k

2012: -810k

2011: -340k

2010: +290k

2009: +570k

2008: +60k

2007: -250k

 

Closest matches are 2008 and 2017 in terms of value. But the ice distribution is a bit different this year. 2017 had more on the Atlantic side and 2008 had way more on that side (plus Laptev). 2021 is basically melted out in the Laptev already but it is really lagging badly in melting the Beaufort and the model guidance has the Beaufort and adjacent CAB staying quite cold and stormy through the next 10 days. The easiest ice left to melt is what is left in the Chukchi (which also had a slowish year compared to recently) and ESS.

 

 

 

I don't think I'd change my forecast right now on area (3.00 million sqkm). Maybe hedge a little higher but it should be pretty close. My extent forecast looks in trouble though....extent is always trickier, but I had 4.3 million sqkm on the NSIDC daily minimum....and that looks like a tough task but it's not impossible. We need to really speed things up. Keep in mind that NSIDC is typically (but not always) about 200k higher than Jaxa these days because of Jaxa's revisions they made to their algorithm after the 2013 season. As of 8/10, the NSIDC daily extent was 6.05 million sq km and Jaxa was 5.76 million sq km.

[IUsedToHateCold]

I am a noob at this, but I have been following the sea ice extent for a couple of years now. I wonder if smoke from all the fires this year is helping to block some sunlight and are having a cooling effect, leading to less decline in sea ice extent. Not sure if there is anything scientific to that, but it would make sense?

[bluewave]

1 hour ago, IUsedToHateCold said:

I am a noob at this, but I have been following the sea ice extent for a couple of years now. I wonder if smoke from all the fires this year is helping to block some sunlight and are having a cooling effect, leading to less decline in sea ice extent. Not sure if there is anything scientific to that, but it would make sense?

There are two main differences between this summer and last for extent. May 2020 featured record preconditioning of the ice for the  second lowest extent last September. Last summer also had very strong high pressure. This June and July had the second lowest Arctic pressure on record behind 1989. While the tweet below was focused on the record lack of sunny days near Alaska, you can see how the extreme low pressure pattern kept the Arctic very cloudy. 

 

 

 

[vortmax]

On 8/9/2021 at 1:16 PM, LibertyBell said:

Now this next one is going to be a tougher question.....aside from money, bribery, political corruption, why are so many more oil and gas contracts still being awarded, considering that the prices of renewable energy are going down and they result in higher paying higher quality jobs?  And we also have nuclear fission, which is much better than any fossil fuel, and have had it for decades, and yet we aren't going in that direction either?

 

Nuclear is CLEARLY the best way to go at this point for everyone and the environment. Unbelievable we haven't moved much in that direction either.

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, vortmax said:

Nuclear is CLEARLY the best way to go at this point for everyone and the environment. Unbelievable we haven't moved much in that direction either.

Indeed, especially Thorium.  I've heard so many great things about Thorium I don't understand what the hold up is.

 

[vortmax]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

Indeed, especially Thorium.  I've heard so many great things about Thorium I don't understand what the hold up is.

 

Environmentalists, clean energy companies (it's not just the hydrocarbon ones), and the politicians that cater to them.

"Anyone seriously interested in preventing dangerous levels of global warming should be advocating nuclear power," wrote James Hansen in 2019.

[LibertyBell]

2 hours ago, vortmax said:

Environmentalists, clean energy companies (it's not just the hydrocarbon ones), and the politicians that cater to them.

"Anyone seriously interested in preventing dangerous levels of global warming should be advocating nuclear power," wrote James Hansen in 2019.

Yes, exactly!  The danger from fossil fuels is FAR greater than the danger from fission.  And something I learned a few months ago- did you know that coal actually results in more radioactive emissions into the environment than nuclear fission does?  Wow.

 

[Jonger]

12 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Yes, exactly!  The danger from fossil fuels is FAR greater than the danger from fission.  And something I learned a few months ago- did you know that coal actually results in more radioactive emissions into the environment than nuclear fission does?  Wow.

 

Pretty sure leftwingers are the main holdup behind nuclear energy. The Green Party was formed because of opposition to nuclear power 

[vortmax]

53 minutes ago, Jonger said:

Pretty sure leftwingers are the main holdup behind nuclear energy. The Green Party was formed because of opposition to nuclear power 

Pretty true, most of the people opposing nuclear and the same ones pushing big climate change legislation.

[Jonger]

31 minutes ago, vortmax said:

Pretty true, most of the people opposing nuclear and the same ones pushing big climate change legislation.

yes sir. Some people think we're going to convince 7B humans to power their live's with magic.

[LibertyBell]

7 hours ago, Jonger said:

yes sir. Some people think we're going to convince 7B humans to power their live's with magic.

or how The Matrix was powered.....

 

[so_whats_happening]

Can we keep this for ice discussion, glad there is chatter about this stuff but thats why there are like 3 other threads for that.

 

I had originally thought 4.5mil was the upper bound for this season but with the rather abrupt slowdown it looks as though there is still potential to get close but looking like we fall within the range of 4.7-5mil at season minimum for extent NSIDC may actually stay above 5 mil which would be impressive. The ice while remaining above the new norm and decent retention this season still warrants concern for years to come. It took an almost near perfect pattern for us to keep the situation from going wild up there. With this year looking more and more like a second year la nina we start to question when exactly we may push the next bin and see drop offs again. The looming potential of a decent el nino within the next year or two has me worried a bit. 

While a rapid freeze seems to be the new norm leading into fall I hope we can actually remove some energy from the system before we start to freeze up. 

For now though AO pattern seems to be the key factor leading into summer melt seasons lets hope we may see some good thickening of sea ice this winter across the arctic.

[ORH_wxman]

Average extent loss on NSIDC over the past 10 years from this point forward is 936k....but it has been as low as 550k and as high as 1.2 million.....so that places the minimum between 4.45 million and 5.1 million sq km if we hold inside those bounds.

[bluewave]

The near record low multiyear ice is one of the reasons that a favorable summer for sea ice retention can’t come close to pre-2007 levels.

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Multiyear ice near record low

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2021/08/Figure4a-week31-350x254.jpg

Figure 4a. This graph shows the near record-low amount of multiyear ice in the Arctic as of week 31 (July 30 to August 5) of the 2021 melt season, comparing this year to the same week in previous years of the satellite record that began in 1979. Historical data through 2020 are provided by Tschudi et al., 2019a and quicklook data for 2021 by Tschudi et al., 2019b 

Credit: Robbie Mallett 
High-resolution image

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2021/08/Figure-4b-MYI-350x265.jpg

Figure 4b. This graph compares the area of multiyear ice in the Arctic between 2021, 2020, and the average from 2008 to 2019 as it melts out throughout the spring and summer. The grey lines depict previous years for general comparison. The area is calculated by adding all pixels in the Arctic that are older than one year based on the NSIDC ice age data product, and multiplying by the area per pixel of each grid cell. Historical data through 2020 are provided by Tschudi et al., 2019a and quicklook data for 2021 by Tschudi et al., 2019b 

Credit: Robbie Mallett
High-resolution image

While the multiyear ice that advected into the Beaufort Sea has helped to stabilize ice loss in that region, multiyear ice for 2021 in the Arctic as a whole is at a record low. Based on ice age classification, the proportion of multiyear ice in the Arctic during the first week of August is at 1.6 million square kilometers (618,000 million square miles). The loss of the multiyear ice since the early 1980s started in earnest after the 2007 record low minimum sea ice cover that summer, and while there have been slight recoveries since then, it has not recovered to values seen in the 1980s, 1990s, or early 2000s. This loss of the oldest and thickest ice in the Arctic Ocean is one of the reasons why the summer sea ice extent has not recovered, even when weather conditions are favorable for ice retention.

[Typhoon Tip]

Meanwhile ....

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/19/weather/greenland-summit-rain-climate-change/index.html

 

[rclab]

22 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Meanwhile ....

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/19/weather/greenland-summit-rain-climate-change/index.html

 

Good evening Tip. The only optimistic line in the entire article was the last one, stated by Ms Mercer. Sundays rainfall event “will be visible in ice core records in the future”. As always ……

[raindancewx]

The Summer AMO / Atlantic warmth is pretty well correlated with sea ice extent this time of year. It's been running colder than it has in quite a while.

The raw "untrended" AMO figure was 22.869C for the Atlantic in July. That's the coldest since 2018 in July, and it is relatively comparable to the warmest years in prior warm AMO cycles like 1960 (22.738C), especially if you assume there has been more than 0.15C warming since 1960 in SSTs. The 'recovery' year of 2013 was partly driven by a large drop in AMO/Atlantic warmth too. July 2012 was 22.986C, and then July 2013 was only 22.804C.

[LibertyBell]

On 8/19/2021 at 6:39 PM, Typhoon Tip said:

Meanwhile ....

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/19/weather/greenland-summit-rain-climate-change/index.html

 

even the polar bears know it's changing thats why they are there now

 

[taylorsweather]

Jaxa extent has slowed down quite a bit recently, and with yesterday 13,000km2 loss, extent now stands at 5.234M km2.  My guess is that we end near 4.9M km2 as we only have about two weeks more of the potential for significant ice loss melting days before the melt season ends.  

[Typhoon Tip]

Just imagine before the end of this century .... winters will mirror this discussion, in the sense that as the winter's age onward the discussion will be - proportionally - how much ice formed before the perennial total ice out.

[Bhs1975]

Just imagine before the end of this century .... winters will mirror this discussion, in the sense that as the winter's age onward the discussion will be - proportionally - how much ice formed before the perennial total ice out.

Last time there was over 400ppm CO2 there was no summer ice and no Greenland ice sheet.

[Jonger]

4 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Just imagine before the end of this century .... winters will mirror this discussion, in the sense that as the winter's age onward the discussion will be - proportionally - how much ice formed before the perennial total ice out.

If things are that bad, don't you think a implementation of co2 capture and sequestration would be almost unavoidable? And if we could reduce co2 levels to 280 ppm, how soon would global temperatures start decreasing?

[Typhoon Tip]

3 hours ago, Bhs1975 said:

Last time there was over 400ppm CO2 there was no summer ice and no Greenland ice sheet.

Wonder what the ocean depth was 

[bluewave]

On 8/19/2021 at 4:31 PM, bluewave said:

While the multiyear ice that advected into the Beaufort Sea has helped to stabilize ice loss in that region, multiyear ice for 2021 in the Arctic as a whole is at a record low. Based on ice age classification, the proportion of multiyear ice in the Arctic during the first week of August is at 1.6 million square kilometers (618,000 million square miles). The loss of the multiyear ice since the early 1980s started in earnest after the 2007 record low minimum sea ice cover that summer, and while there have been slight recoveries since then, it has not recovered to values seen in the 1980s, 1990s, or early 2000s. This loss of the oldest and thickest ice in the Arctic Ocean is one of the reasons why the summer sea ice extent has not recovered, even when weather conditions are favorable for ice retention.

Really large divergence between the area and extent in the Beaufort and Chuckchi.

 

 

 

[Typhoon Tip]

16 hours ago, Bhs1975 said:

Last time there was over 400ppm CO2 there was no summer ice and no Greenland ice sheet.

Yeah and it has to do with 'systemic momentum' too.

For example, orbital eccentricities ... volcanism,  even position moving through the galactic plain, even bio feed-backs and ocean aridity factor, all of these may have inherited the past era its momentum from a previous state of the climate.  - I am not personally up to speed on those idiosyncrasies. 

Ppm in the discussion/green-house gasses are certainly huge, but these other factors could have made the D(ppm) on the way up or down, and/or become overwhelming, subsuming or enhancing the 400.  Simply put, green-house gas is not the only factor.

It's not so much 'the last time there was - '  that should be of import in the discussion; it's really about what was happening in the delta(geo) preceding and during 800,000 years ago.

Having said all that... it's proooobably not a good thing that we have comparable CO2 levels, while our current delta(geo) is losing ice inside of Human life span observation periods.   That's not a good portend.  These kind of broadly canvased observable environmental changes means the planetary systems are being sent into a modality - whole planet!   In fact personally?  I suspect/hypothesize that anthropogenic environmental alteration have and continue to infused changes that have actually outpaced the rate in which these planetary system's of physics can respond. 

In other words, we may have to wait some untold number years to decades for the present atmospheric human-forced chemistry to realize it's greatest impact.