Arctic Sea Ice Extent, Area, and Volume

[tacoman25]

1 hour ago, qr7121 said:

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

sometimes vicki has the best and most accurate GIFs

By definition, a "denier" is one who denies something. In this context, global warming. Which I never have denied.

So, get your facts straight and don't call me a liar. That is unacceptable.

Pretty sad that if someone even points out an inconsistency or questions something on here, the witch hunt is on.

 

[ORH_wxman]

Nikolai, cut the sh** if you want your visit to last more than a few days. 

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

yea, this page could use a bit of cleaning.   sounds like a bunch of 8 year olds have invaded. 

anyway....

surprised Global Warmer has been so quiet...this is usually his time to shine. 

This pattern is rather unprecedented .  Extremely unprecedented in a sense, considering we could be seeing more of the same in the upcoming week.    As the polar vortex cold decides to harass Britain / Russia instead of staying put, like it's suppose to....all while parts of the arctic could even go above freezing  in the week ahead.  

[chubbs]

Looks like 2016 volume caught-up to 2012 by late October. Record low volume likely in Nov.

[skierinvermont]

19 hours ago, tacoman25 said:

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.

First of all, the rate is really not relevant at all. Since the decline is expected/predicted (by climate models) and observed to be fastest in summer, the rate of ice growth in fall will continue to grow.

That's why I'm sure when you've mentioned it, I and others have dismissed you.

Second, we've never had a real "high point in the fall" anytime recently. Some years have been higher than others which I suppose has some very slight immeasurable benefit in slowing the decline. But none have been 3SD above the mean, as we are currently 3+ SD below the mean. You're comparing apples to oranges. You're comparing a "high point" (which is really just a temporary return to average) to a 3+ standard deviation drop below the mean.

Plus the fact that sea ice extent is a much less comprehensive metric than volume. And we've never had a meaningful volume recovery. Extent has to be taken in the context of near perpetually decreasing volume.

I don't remember anybody saying "what happens in winter is not as important as summer." If we actually saw some serious volume growth in winter, that would be significant. We've had some recent years with better volume in winter than others. And that has been discussed extensively.

 

 

Anyways, I'm done. I don't really have an interest in debating the "significance" of individual extent days. The trend is clear.

[tacoman25]

12 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

First of all, the rate is really not relevant at all. Since the decline is expected/predicted (by climate models) and observed to be fastest in summer, the rate of ice growth in fall will continue to grow.

That's why I'm sure when you've mentioned it, I and others have dismissed you.

Second, we've never had a real "high point in the fall" anytime recently. Some years have been higher than others which I suppose has some very slight immeasurable benefit in slowing the decline. But none have been 3SD above the mean, as we are currently 3+ SD below the mean. You're comparing apples to oranges. You're comparing a "high point" (which is really just a temporary return to average) to a 3+ standard deviation drop below the mean.

Plus the fact that sea ice extent is a much less comprehensive metric than volume. And we've never had a meaningful volume recovery. Extent has to be taken in the context of near perpetually decreasing volume.

I don't remember anybody saying "what happens in winter is not as important as summer." If we actually saw some serious volume growth in winter, that would be significant. We've had some recent years with better volume in winter than others. And that has been discussed extensively.

Anyways, I'm done. I don't really have an interest in debating the "significance" of individual extent days. The trend is clear.

Whole bunch of straw men here. I never claimed the rate was signficant, or high points in the fall, or dismissed volume decline.

I simply pointed out that some people on here have claimed in the past that the summer minimum, the max amount of open water, is what matters most. Inconsistent with current claims that record low extent in early November is just as significant as a record low min.

 

[skierinvermont]

6 hours ago, tacoman25 said:

Whole bunch of straw men here. I never claimed the rate was signficant, or high points in the fall, or dismissed volume decline.

I simply pointed out that some people on here have claimed in the past that the summer minimum, the max amount of open water, is what matters most. Inconsistent with current claims that record low extent in early November is just as significant as a record low min.

 

Nobody has ever claimed that. I do remember people including myself saying that the trend in summer is more significant than the trend in winter because global warming is expected to cause greater declines in summer sea ice. But that's different.

And you did reference "record fastest refreeze" or "high point in the fall" in relation to their significance vs a record low summer min. One is irrelevant and the other is a an apples to orange comparison.

[tacoman25]

12 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

Nobody has ever claimed that. I do remember people including myself saying that the trend in summer is more significant than the trend in winter because global warming is expected to cause greater declines in summer sea ice. But that's different.

And you did reference "record fastest refreeze" or "high point in the fall" in relation to their significance vs a record low summer min. One is irrelevant and the other is a an apples to orange comparison.

Sorry man, you were just reading too much into what I said. Made a couple of false assumptions.

And you can say nobody claimed that, but I absolutely know they did. Defend yourself sure, but it's silly to say no one here said that. And I'm not a liar.

 

 

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

i'm surprised of the gains the last 4 days or so.

the current outlook should show some decent losses the next several days, no?   Dunno where the official forecasts for those are,  just looking at model temps here.  

[bluewave]

The Arctic stations data for October shows the unprecedented nature of the extreme warmth.

Chart courtesy of Richard James

http://ak-wx.blogspot.com/2016/11/arctic-warmth.html

 

 

[skierinvermont]

22 hours ago, tacoman25 said:

Sorry man, you were just reading too much into what I said. Made a couple of false assumptions.

And you can say nobody claimed that, but I absolutely know they did. Defend yourself sure, but it's silly to say no one here said that. And I'm not a liar.

 

 

OK let's try it again. What exactly are you trying to say?

So far all I've heard is talk of previous "fall peaks" (IE back to historical averages) and "record fast re-freezes" (an inherent result of the faster decline in summer) and I have no idea what they have to do with the current 3+ standard deviation record and how people dismissed this (allegedly) positive data but are hypocritically not dismissing this negative record.

And those are quotes.

[skierinvermont]

On 11/5/2016 at 5:05 PM, tacoman25 said:

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.

 

 

On 11/6/2016 at 11:52 PM, tacoman25 said:

I never claimed the rate was signficant, or high points in the fall, or dismissed volume decline.

 

It seems like you are confused about what you are trying to say. You say one thing and then 2 posts later say you didn't say it.

[tacoman25]

1 hour ago, skierinvermont said:

OK let's try it again. What exactly are you trying to say?

So far all I've heard is talk of previous "fall peaks" (IE back to historical averages) and "record fast re-freezes" (an inherent result of the faster decline in summer) and I have no idea what they have to do with the current 3+ standard deviation record and how people dismissed this (allegedly) positive data but are hypocritically not dismissing this negative record. 
And those are quotes.

I've reiterated it twice for you. Three times is not necessary.

 

1 hour ago, skierinvermont said:

 

It seems like you are confused about what you are trying to say. You say one thing and then 2 posts later say you didn't say it.

No, sorry I wasn't clear with that post. I cited "record fastest freeze", but I wasn't the one claiming it was significant. Same with high points in the fall. And I never dismissed volume decline. Make more sense now? I promise, if you and others get rid of your assumptions about me, it will make things easier to understand.

Welcome to CO, by the way! I didn't know you'd moved here.

[Mallow]

On November 8, 2016 at 9:23 PM, tacoman25 said:

I've reiterated it twice for you. Three times is not necessary.

 

No, sorry I wasn't clear with that post. I cited "record fastest freeze", but I wasn't the one claiming it was significant. Same with high points in the fall. And I never dismissed volume decline. Make more sense now? I promise, if you and others get rid of your assumptions about me, it will make things easier to understand.

Welcome to CO, by the way! I didn't know you'd moved here.

 

I don't understand the point of your original post in any context. You seem to be trying to call people out on their hypocrisy, but when people tell you they never said those things, all you say is "well I know some people said them." Okay? And some people say the Earth is flat... so... If you're going to call someone out on their hypocrisy, please be more specific about WHO said what before (a quote, preferably), and WHAT that same person is saying now that's inconsistent with their previous positions. Otherwise, you're doing the same thing you're claiming others of doing--basing your arguments on your own memories or assumptions about what other people believe.

[WinterWxLuvr]

Can anyone give me the link that will take me where this link used to take me?  It leads to Twitter now.

https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop.ver1/vishop-extent.html

[donsutherland1]

3 hours ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

Can anyone give me the link that will take me where this link used to take me?  It leads to Twitter now.

https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop.ver1/vishop-extent.html

It was working this morning. Perhaps there's a temporary issue that is sending visitors to the site's twitter stream.

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

heat pump = ON 

maybe all these coronal hole incidents are having an impact. 

[csnavywx]

Crushing it again next week with temps 10-20C above normal above across a big swath of the Arctic Ocean. Really eating into Freezing Degree Day totals and making it tough to thicken that ice up. If this keeps it up (again) we're gonna have some serious spring thickness problems when it comes time for maximum in March.

[tacoman25]

On 11/11/2016 at 9:30 AM, Mallow said:

 

I don't understand the point of your original post in any context. You seem to be trying to call people out on their hypocrisy, but when people tell you they never said those things, all you say is "well I know some people said them." Okay? And some people say the Earth is flat... so... If you're going to call someone out on their hypocrisy, please be more specific about WHO said what before (a quote, preferably), and WHAT that same person is saying now that's inconsistent with their previous positions. Otherwise, you're doing the same thing you're claiming others of doing--basing your arguments on your own memories or assumptions about what other people believe.

I didn't call anyone out specifically. That wasn't the intent. Just the inconsistence in the general message. It was not based on an assumption, but very clear memories of people claiming the summer min is by far the most important thing to track. 

 

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

4 hours ago, csnavywx said:

Crushing it again next week with temps 10-20C above normal above across a big swath of the Arctic Ocean. Really eating into Freezing Degree Day totals and making it tough to thicken that ice up. If this keeps it up (again) we're gonna have some serious spring thickness problems when it comes time for maximum in March.

Strange, benign weather pattern for most of the northern hemisphere..

Most of the biggest storms right now are in the southern hemisphere, near Antarctica . 

[Amped]

Holy sheeet

[Mallow]

Could this be the first time on record that the global SIA peak happened in June rather than Oct/Nov?

[nflwxman]

30 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Yet another record Arctic temperature spike and freeze-up slowdown

 

 

 

 

I believe this is the highest anomaly recorded in the 80N spatial area, FWIW.

[csnavywx]

Sea ice volume now tanking into record low territory (as of the end of Oct) on PIOMAS. I would suspect that the lack of FDD is continuing to eat away at SIV gains.

Gotta wonder if there's a bit of "climate flickering" going on here. I thought the ridiculous +SAT anomalies would have started to back off by now.

[tacoman25]

3 hours ago, csnavywx said:

Sea ice volume now tanking into record low territory (as of the end of Oct) on PIOMAS. I would suspect that the lack of FDD is continuing to eat away at SIV gains.

Gotta wonder if there's a bit of "climate flickering" going on here. I thought the ridiculous +SAT anomalies would have started to back off by now.

"Climate flickering"...like the climate is about to shut off?

Worth pointing out, this ridiculous warmth in the Arctic is also resulting in one of the coldest falls on record for much of Eurasia. Temps in parts of Russia are expected to 40-50 degrees below normal this week, with another record-breaking cold wave on the way for Asia next week.

 

[skierinvermont]

It's also worth mentioning that square depictions of the earth from the north pole (sorry don't know the cartography term) greatly exaggerate the size of arctic ocean relative to the lower latitudes. Those negative anomalies over Asia encompass an area several times the arctic ocean.

[Msalgado]

The phrase you're looking for is map projection.

[Mallow]

14 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

It's also worth mentioning that square depictions of the earth from the north pole (sorry don't know the cartography term) greatly exaggerate the size of arctic ocean relative to the lower latitudes. Those negative anomalies over Asia encompass an area several times the arctic ocean.

That's not entirely true. The projection shown in that temperature plot looks like a polar stereographic projection, which is much better than, say, a mercator or equirectangular projection when looking at the accuracy of polar regions.

[skierinvermont]

42 minutes ago, Mallow said:

That's not entirely true. The projection shown in that temperature plot looks like a polar stereographic projection, which is much better than, say, a mercator or equirectangular projection when looking at the accuracy of polar regions.

You're right it doesn't exaggerate it as much as I thought. But I think it does still exaggerate it somewhat. The area of Russia is 6.6 million square miles. The area of the arctic ocean including the Kara, Barents, Hudson and the seas on either side of Greenland is 5.4 million. Probably around 4 million if looking just at the high arctic ocean.

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

article from 16 years ago.  

and as common knowledge, anomalies from the sun effect the Poles the most. 

We've had several , unusually large coronal hole incidents this year alone.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000315080417.htm

Holes In Sun's Corona Linked To Atmospheric Temperature Changes On Earth

An unusual interdisciplinary study by astronomers and climatologists has found a striking correlation between holes in the outermost layer of the sun--or the corona--and the globally averaged temperature of the Earth, suggesting that the Earth's atmospheric temperature may be strongly linked to solar magnetism changes over months or years.