Arctic Sea Ice Extent, Area, and Volume

[ORH_wxman]

I don't think we've reached the NSIDC area min....that would be like a week earlier than the previous earliest min.

There is still plenty of low concentration ice in the Beaufort/Chukchi that should bring us down a bit further. That said, I don't expect a very big drop like 2010 had....the weather looks really cold up there on the models over the next week.

[forkyfork]

hooray, it's bad instead of terrible 

[SnoSki14]

5 hours ago, Weatherdude88 said:

NSIDC daily area minimum will most likely be 8.23.2021, with a value of 3.389173 million square kilometers.

 

The 8.25 value is 3.501343 millions of square kilometers. We are now 112,170 square kilometers above the minimum value.

 

This would be the earliest daily area minimum in the satellite record.

 

Bear witness to history.




Meanwhile, Antarctic sea ice area is approaching the all time record high.

So the ice is barely over the 2010s average and that's a win? 

We had one of the best ice retention patterns of the summer and are still near the bottom. 

Also we are continuing to lose older ice, in fact a record loss of older ice this year.

But sure things are going swell. A brief pause before the next cliff dive.

[roardog]

There’s no reason to think this is the start of any kind of long term recovery but if somehow we ever did get into a long term recovery, a gradual increase is how it would begin. You aren’t going to get back to the 1980s or even 1990s average minimum anytime soon with the loss of so much MYI. It would probably take a decade or more of consistent ice increases to build up enough MYI to get us back to those kind of minimums. I think it’s kind of interesting though if we end up higher than the 2010s average. 

[iluvsnow]

Where are we in total global sea ice? How is this in relationship to the past?

[Typhoon Tip]

The melt may extend a week this year

[taylorsweather]

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

 

You will agree of course that climate goes through cycles, with some on the order of multidecadal up through millennial timescales.  So with that said, is it any wonder that during one of these 60-70 year or greater cycles we come across an "unprecedented" situation after only 32 years of recordkeeping.  Fact is, every single record for the first couple years at that station was unprecedented.    Now if the Arctic keeps this up for another 20 years, I could become more alarmed, but until we go through a full climate cycle, color me not impressed with a 32 year snapshot of a multi-million year record.  

[taylorsweather]

18 hours ago, roardog said:

There’s no reason to think this is the start of any kind of long term recovery but if somehow we ever did get into a long term recovery, a gradual increase is how it would begin. You aren’t going to get back to the 1980s or even 1990s average minimum anytime soon with the loss of so much MYI. It would probably take a decade or more of consistent ice increases to build up enough MYI to get us back to those kind of minimums. I think it’s kind of interesting though if we end up higher than the 2010s average. 

I agree.  It would take 10-15 years for a full recovery if it occurs.  Even in the 70's, MYI never got much older than 7 years old anywhere except right along the Canadian coast.  Most of the remainder of MYI was 2-5 years old before being flushed out.  The real difference is that there was a lot more MYI over the entire basin rather than be limited to the Canadian side.  Of particular interest to me is what happens on the Siberian side of the ocean.  If sea ice can maintain itself over multi years near that coast, I think that tips us toward an ice recovery and colder weather overall for 2-3 decades afterwards.  I just don't see a mechanism for how that happens yet.  Cycles of sea ice reduction and recovery has happened in the past but we didn't have satellite data to observe it and understand it.  Not saying that you're doing this, but I don't get the hand waving on either side.  Ice has declined since my youth in the 70's but I feel it is too early to make judgements as to whether it is permanent or temporary.  Earth's counterbalance measures are extraordinary and she hasn't entered the fray yet.  It's too soon to tell either way.  Give it 20 years and we'll know by then.

[ORH_wxman]

You can't get a meaningful ice recovery on the Siberian side without being able to hold the multi-year ice in the Beaufort first. The Beaufort Gyre circulates the ice up toward the Chukchi and East Siberian Sea, but if the MYI is melting out in the Beaufort during the summer, then it makes any type of longer term recovery impossible.

 

As for the ice retention patterns......2013 was probably the best ice retention pattern we've seen in the past decade. If you subtract 2013 pressure anomalies from 2021 for the crucial pre-conditioning months of May/June, you can see how 2021 had higher pressures over the CAB (esp the PAC/Beaufort side) while having lower pressures over the Kara....a worse pattern than 2013.

 

 

[LibertyBell]

3 hours ago, Taylorsweather said:

You will agree of course that climate goes through cycles, with some on the order of multidecadal up through millennial timescales.  So with that said, is it any wonder that during one of these 60-70 year or greater cycles we come across an "unprecedented" situation after only 32 years of recordkeeping.  Fact is, every single record for the first couple years at that station was unprecedented.    Now if the Arctic keeps this up for another 20 years, I could become more alarmed, but until we go through a full climate cycle, color me not impressed with a 32 year snapshot of a multi-million year record.  

Yeah but this doesn't mean we shouldn't get off of fossil fuels.  There are MANY reasons to get off of them (especially for health and pollution reasons) and I would go further and hold the people in charge of these companies in a Nuremberg style International Court for crimes against humanity for what they've been doing for decades.  An example must be made out of them to make sure no one ever tries this ever again.  Make them suffer.

[LibertyBell]

On 8/26/2021 at 2:49 PM, forkyfork said:

hooray, it's bad instead of terrible 

they're missing the forest for the trees lmao

 

[LibertyBell]

3 hours ago, Taylorsweather said:

You will agree of course that climate goes through cycles, with some on the order of multidecadal up through millennial timescales.  So with that said, is it any wonder that during one of these 60-70 year or greater cycles we come across an "unprecedented" situation after only 32 years of recordkeeping.  Fact is, every single record for the first couple years at that station was unprecedented.    Now if the Arctic keeps this up for another 20 years, I could become more alarmed, but until we go through a full climate cycle, color me not impressed with a 32 year snapshot of a multi-million year record.  

No time for 20 years dude, we should've started back in the 80s when I and many others already knew what was going on but thanks to coverups by large corporations who deserve to lose ALL their money regular people had no clue.  But we need to deal with them with a vengeance and make the French Revolution look like a picnic.

 

[madwx]

On 8/26/2021 at 9:59 AM, Weatherdude88 said:

NSIDC daily area minimum will most likely be 8.23.2021, with a value of 3.389173 million square kilometers.

 

Any update on this?   Would be curious to see what the daily area values have done the past couple days

[bluewave]

5th consecutive year with pronounced mid to late August extent loss slowdown before picking up the pace ahead of the September minimum.

[taylorsweather]

20 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Yeah but this doesn't mean we shouldn't get off of fossil fuels.  There are MANY reasons to get off of them (especially for health and pollution reasons) and I would go further and hold the people in charge of these companies in a Nuremberg style International Court for crimes against humanity for what they've been doing for decades.  An example must be made out of them to make sure no one ever tries this ever again.  Make them suffer.

I didn't know you could live off the grid and still be connected to the internet. Not only because being connected uses carbon but someone off the grid is spending most of their time foraging for food.  A few people do it of course but not many do or can.  For the other 99.9999% of the population, it is difficult to blame the manufacturers of carbon for supplying something that we demand to use.  So before one can blame the suppliers, we should be sure to shut off our use of such products, which is essentially EVERY product.  Only then can we rail against carbon use.

 

Personally I am all for nuclear energy.  It is clean and efficient.

[LibertyBell]

10 minutes ago, Taylorsweather said:

I didn't know you could live off the grid and still be connected to the internet. Not only because being connected uses carbon but someone off the grid is spending most of their time foraging for food.  A few people do it of course but not many do or can.  For the other 99.9999% of the population, it is difficult to blame the manufacturers of carbon for supplying something that we demand to use.  So before one can blame the suppliers, we should be sure to shut off our use of such products, which is essentially EVERY product.  Only then can we rail against carbon use.

 

Personally I am all for nuclear energy.  It is clean and efficient.

I love Nuclear Thorium power, its the cleanest and most efficient.

The specific things I do blame the fossil fuel cartels on is 1) covering up research from the 70s (same things you can blame big tobacco and the sugar industry on, they're all guilty of covering up research) and 2) dumping pollutants mostly into underprivileged communities and third world countries and 3) paying off judges to get the results they want when people, states, nations sue them and of course 4) bribing politicians.  But in that last case they are just gaming a political system that's already pretty dirty and full of dark money.  The US isn't the only one this happens in either, it also happens in China and India and many European countries and even Canada with their dirty tar sand pipelines being sent through Native American communities.  Some of these countries are actually going back to coal, which dumps far more radioactivity into the environment than Nuclear does!

[taylorsweather]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

I love Nuclear Thorium power, its the cleanest and most efficient.

The specific things I do blame the fossil fuel cartels on is 1) covering up research from the 70s (same things you can blame big tobacco and the sugar industry on, they're all guilty of covering up research) and 2) dumping pollutants mostly into underprivileged communities and third world countries and 3) paying off judges to get the results they want when people, states, nations sue them and of course 4) bribing politicians.  But in that last case they are just gaming a political system that's already pretty dirty and full of dark money.  The US isn't the only one this happens in either, it also happens in China and India and many European countries and even Canada with their dirty tar sand pipelines being sent through Native American communities.  Some of these countries are actually going back to coal, which dumps far more radioactivity into the environment than Nuclear does!

I don't disagree with anything you wrote in this post.  Everyone is to blame here and not just a few.  The vitriol serves no purpose other than dilute energy and thought toward a better tomorrow.  When you look to the past that means your back is to the future.

[LibertyBell]

4 hours ago, Taylorsweather said:

I don't disagree with anything you wrote in this post.  Everyone is to blame here and not just a few.  The vitriol serves no purpose other than dilute energy and thought toward a better tomorrow.  When you look to the past that means your back is to the future.

That makes me think of the Back to the Future movie franchise in a whole different light......

[so_whats_happening]

Again with the chatter please take it to the other threads and leave this for ice. Looks like the early prediction was a false hope as we are at 3.34 mil sq km. Probably have another 2 weeks or so before we see the minimum running close. NSIDC probably just above 5 mil by the end of it all for extent.

The Beaufort area has really taken a hit this month so far.

[ORH_wxman]

On 8/28/2021 at 8:38 AM, madwx said:

Any update on this?   Would be curious to see what the daily area values have done the past couple days

We've fallen below the 8/23 value on NSIDC area. The 8/23 value was 3.38 million sq km and today we are at 3.26 million sq km.

8/23 wasn't a very realistic minimum date.

 

[madwx]

14 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

We've fallen below the 8/23 value on NSIDC area. The 8/23 value was 3.38 million sq km and today we are at 3.26 million sq km.

8/23 wasn't a very realistic minimum date.

 

Yeah, I'm aware.  Was really just trying to get the OP to admit that he was wrong

[so_whats_happening]

They will be back once we have another small uptick, im watching history unfold here.

[donsutherland1]

On 7/30/2021 at 8:49 PM, Weatherdude88 said:

Slater Probabilistic Sea Ice extent showing 5.15 million square kilometers on September 18th. It's very possible NSIDC sea ice extent minimum will be greater than 5 million square kilometers, given current NSIDC area and compaction at high latitudes. Remember, we are ahead of 2013 in area for the date. 2013 had a minimum of 5.10 million square kilometers of extent.

Arctic sea ice extent dropped below 5 million square kilometers on JAXA to 4.988 million square kilometers on 8/30. Melt season will likely continue for another 1-3 weeks.

[SnoSki14]

11 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

We've fallen below the 8/23 value on NSIDC area. The 8/23 value was 3.38 million sq km and today we are at 3.26 million sq km.

8/23 wasn't a very realistic minimum date.

 

Yeah that date was a joke. In the end we'll still end up near the bottom.

[LibertyBell]

5 hours ago, so_whats_happening said:

They will be back once we have another small uptick, im watching history unfold here.

when was the last time we had a minimum before September?

[so_whats_happening]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

when was the last time we had a minimum before September?

Im pretty sure you already know the answer.

For some reason when I google it says 1980 but looking at the NSIDC graphs thats clearly not the case as it gets to min around the 6th area. Think the earliest is september 5th in 1987 so in satellite era I dont believe an august has happened. Most fall around the 10th-14th and then well we have pushed that with warmer waters to almost 18th now in 2000 on era some years still managed to go in that range but more than 50% were later than the 14th. While from 1980-2000 more than 50% fell in that range of time some later and some earlier. So we seem to be adding 1-2 day extensions to the end of season every decade of course that is back of the envelope look at the situation because not every year ends up that way. Im sure on the other side of this we could probably see the melting season starting earlier than before, maybe even a similar rate?

[bluewave]

While these August extent loss slowdowns have become common in recent years, the declines have picked up again into the September minimum. 

 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abc047

Abstract

One of the clearest indicators of human-caused climate change is the rapid decline in Arctic sea ice. The summer minimum coverage is now approximately half of its extent only 40 yr ago. Four records in the minimum extent were broken since 2000, the most recent occurring in September 2012. No new records have been set since then, however, owing to an abrupt atmospheric shift during each August/early-September that brought low sea-level pressure, cloudiness, and unfavorable wind conditions for ice reduction. While random variability could be the cause, we identify a recently increased prevalence of a characteristic large-scale atmospheric pattern over the northern hemisphere. This pattern is associated not only with anomalously low pressure over the Arctic during summer, but also with frequent heatwaves over East Asia, Scandinavia, and northern North America, as well as the tendency for a split jet stream over the continents. This jet-stream configuration has been identified as favoring extreme summer weather events in northern mid-latitudes. We propose a mechanism linking these features with diminishing spring snow cover on northern-hemisphere continents that acts as a negative feedback on the loss of Arctic sea ice during summer.

Climate model did a great job with the record heat over the continents in recent summers with the very low pressures at times in the Arctic.

 

 

 

[ORH_wxman]

6 hours ago, so_whats_happening said:

Im pretty sure you already know the answer.

For some reason when I google it says 1980 but looking at the NSIDC graphs thats clearly not the case as it gets to min around the 6th area. Think the earliest is september 5th in 1987 so in satellite era I dont believe an august has happened. Most fall around the 10th-14th and then well we have pushed that with warmer waters to almost 18th now in 2000 on era some years still managed to go in that range but more than 50% were later than the 14th. While from 1980-2000 more than 50% fell in that range of time some later and some earlier. So we seem to be adding 1-2 day extensions to the end of season every decade of course that is back of the envelope look at the situation because not every year ends up that way. Im sure on the other side of this we could probably see the melting season starting earlier than before, maybe even a similar rate?

That's for extent, but for area, we've seen August minimums. I believe 1992 was 8/31 and 2005 used to have an 8/30 min but recent revisions to the NSIDC database now has 9/3 as barely edging out 8/30 for the min.

But 8/23 is ridiculous for a min....if an August minimum on area would occur, it would be around the last day or two of the month.

[ORH_wxman]

9 hours ago, SnoSki14 said:

Yeah that date was a joke. In the end we'll still end up near the bottom.

My guess is we finish around 10th or 11th lowest on extent, but there is an outside chance we finish 13th with only 2009 and 2013 being above 2021 since the 2007 event if the weather cooperates enough and more of Beaufort ice hangs on.

[donsutherland1]

10 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

when was the last time we had a minimum before September?

1895.