« PIOMAS June 2016 | Main | 2016 melting momentum, part 1 »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Neven

And again: Over on the Arctic Sea Ice Forum, there's still three days left to vote on the JAXA daily minimum poll for June.

Don't forget to vote!

AbbottisGone

Temperature above 80N just seems vicious.


John Christensen

A very good update end-to-end, thanks Neven!

Neven

Thanks, John!

Temperature above 80N just seems vicious.

Not so much the point it is at now, but rather the fact that it has been above average for more than 97% of the time this year.

D

-Fish-

The low pressure areas have slowed the progress of ice melt but this situation isn't close to as favorable for ice retention as 2013. There's too much heat pulled into these systems off of the continents for it to be ideal. In 2013 temperatures stayed cool.

The 850mb ECMWF temperature forecasts show the next few days will have cooler than normal temperatures in the central Arctic but northern Canada will be steaming. Over the next 10 days it looks like temperatures will average out to normal to perhaps slightly above normal over ice covered regions of the Arctic.

http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/?model=ecmwf&region=nhem&pkg=T850a&runtime=2016061112&fh=0&xpos=0&ypos=0

It's easy to ignore the rapid melting in the Labrador sea and Hudson's bay that's happening now. Those areas are warmer than normal.

Benje

Thanks for a terrific update..... as usual Neven.
Greenland has just started to heat up with 40% melting just now so it is not business more like usual all over the Arctic.

Chris Reynolds

The turn in the weather really has surprised me.

D

-Fish- The atmosphere shifted from subsidence over the Beaufort sea to subsidence over Greenland. Greenland is large and high enough to act as an atmospheric barrier. Greenland is one of the primary spots on earth for blocking high pressure areas. The air sinking over Greenland is undergoing diabatic heating and flowing off the north coast creating a blue patch of melt ponds.

The northern hemisphere has gone through a major shift in the circulation pattern with the cooling of the equatorial Pacific, the start of the Indian & south Asian monsoon and the strengthening of the Pacific high. However, despite the circulation changes northern hemisphere temperatures are still very warm, especially in the Arctic.

John Christensen

"The turn in the weather really has surprised me."


Agreed Chris; when I made the comment on June 3rd that the weather improvement could cause extent of 2012 and 2016 to equalize in two weeks, the forecast was for the AO index to turn neutral, but since early June the AO index has trended slightly more positive than the forecast, and the 7/10 day forecast has it becoming even more positive after a brief negative break.

The current low arrived from the northeastern part of Europe and moved into the Arctic Ocean, where it has solidified somewhat, as also indicated by Serreze et al. (2001):

"We show that while the summer pattern is, in part, associated with the influx of lows generated along northeastern Eurasia, where the Arctic frontal zone is especially well expressed, the broader picture involves an eastward shift in the Urals trough and migration of the 500-hPa vortex core to near the pole, associated with the influx of systems generated along a wide swath of the Eurasian continent, augmented by cyclogenesis within the Arctic Ocean itself."

The current weather seems like June/July 2013 (although winter and spring were very different), where the forecasts also did not forecast the duration or strength of the lows within the Arctic basin.

It will be interesting to follow if the current low will be able to sustain itself for some time still, or if we will see an anticyclone develop in the vicinity of the NP within the next 10-14 days, as forecast by wayne on the PIOMAS June thread.

wayne

Being late Spring not late August, these sudden changes in weather are not unknown. But current Spring variance is unlike what Sereze may be inferring for "summer" . I find that this time the Lows are coming from the Pacific as well, of which NW Pacific has warmed faster than I expected. Current anti-gyre action will end soon. But by no means gone for good. In fact I expected it, with especially the opening of CAA coast, a High should settle off Gyre centre in particular near the Pole.

wayne

https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?p=arctic&l=VIIRS_SNPP_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Aqua_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Terra_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor,Reference_Labels(hidden),Reference_Features(hidden),Coastlines&t=2016-06-12&v=-833280,-692992,48896,-234752

Look carefully for countless numerous leads, largely responsible for latest clouding over, but already clouds are vanishing fast.

Chris Reynolds

John,

I have been thinking about Screen et al 2011 "Dramatic interannual changes of perennial Arctic sea ice linked to abnormal summer storm activity."

"...fewer cyclones over the central Arctic Ocean during the months of May, June, and July appear to favor a low sea ice area at the end of the melt season. Years with large losses of sea ice are characterized by abnormal cyclone distributions and tracks: they lack the normal maximum in cyclone activity over the central Arctic Ocean, and cyclones that track from Eurasia into the central Arctic are largely absent. Fewer storms are associated with above‐average mean sea level pressure, strengthened anticyclonic winds, an intensification of the transpolar drift stream, and reduced cloud cover, all of which favor ice melt. It is also shown that a strengthening of the central Arctic cyclone maximum helps preserve the ice cover, although the association is weaker than that between low cyclone activity and reduced sea ice. The results suggest that changes in cyclone occurrence during late spring and early summer have preconditioning effects on the sea ice cover and exert a strong influence on the amount of sea ice that survives the melt season."

As of the last available GFS forecast it does indeed look like the Greenland Ridge might be going to spread a high over the Arctic Ocean.
http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/Rhavn1801.gif
But that's so far off in terms of forecasts I'm just waiting to see.

Wayne,

I'll keep an eye on that.

Both,

The interesting question is if the (poor) weather can over-ride ice state and impede melt. However Dr Slater's persistence model seems to suggest that current concentration patterns are sufficient to keep extent low. Which would mean 2007 and 2011 being beaten - possibly.

That said his persistence prediction map suggests something I've been expecting.
http://cires1.colorado.edu/~aslater/SEAICE/prob_map_reg_2016.gif
A persistence of sporadic ice into late summer, possibly enough to keep extent up in the East Siberian Sea by September.

Ice concentration difference from 2012 is still not massively below 2012, indeed it's higher than 2012 in some regions.
http://cires1.colorado.edu/~aslater/ICEDIFF/IMG/ice_con_delt_2012.gif

On balance something between 2012 and 2007 looks reasonable this year. Below 2012 seems rather unlikely to me. To maximise impact I'd rather see clear open skies through June, as in 2012, clear open skies after that (through July) was what we had in 2015.

Ice state is worse than in 2015, but not so bad it supports below 2012 without serious help from the weather. But by the end of this month we should see compactness crash if we're going to see something really exciting. So far over much of the pack compactness is pretty much the same as the last few years.

I need a longer dataset, AMSR2 is so short as to be of limited use.

John Christensen

Just voted on the Sept extent minimum: 3.75-4.00 mKM2 - as some of us need to stay optimistic.. ;-)

From numbers on the ASIF poll thread:

mKM2 Decline (%) Decline (mKM2)

1980's Avg 7,23
1990's Avg 6,55 -9,4% -0,68
2000's Avg 5,48 -16,3% -1,07
2010's Avg 4,34 -20,8% -1,14

So very unlikely for 2016 to stay at the average 2010's level and also hard to see that the trend is not accelerating.

NeilT

"The turn in the weather really has surprised me."

I was looking for my comments on the Arctic Sea Ice forum to see when said that I did expect that.

I found it on May 5th. Page 18.

"Still, I'm waiting for it to stall...."


It just felt too much like 2006 all over again with a different ice configuration.

Of course time will tell....

Hans Gunnstaddar

JC, I bounced back and forth between the range you picked and 4-4.25, ending up picking the latter due to the recent melt slow down.

Chris Reynolds

Neil,

2006 was another El Nino year wasn't it? But not very strong I think. I still don't know whether the EN will reduce (weather) or increase (ocean heat (and weather?)) ice loss.

John/Hans,
I picked 4 and 4.25 due to the expectation of beating 2007. I'd willingly slip a box above or below right now.

Neven

I wanted to open an NSIDC September monthly average poll at the start of the month, but totally forgot about it. Of course, given the fact that there have been polls during the three previous melting seasons, it'd be cool to stay consistent and do this one again (I'm not going to do CT SIA though). Sorry for opening it so late, but better late than next month.

Here's the link, poll will be open for 1 week, so please vote, everyone! NSIDC September/average SIE is the one that is used for the SIPN Sea Ice Outlook.

John Christensen

Regarding Screen;

Yes, this is a great article, and especially the point made:

"However, the relationship does not appear to be entirely linear with a clearer association between low cyclone activity and reduced sea ice than between high cyclone activity and increased sea ice."


So the MJJ cyclones have a positive correlation with Sept ice extent, but the lack of MJJ cyclones (clear skies) have an even stronger negative correlation with Sept ice extent, as seen in 2007, 2012 - and to a lesser degree July '15.

NeilT

Chris, 06/07 was a weak Nino moving to a moderate Nina in 07/08. I checked.

For me it was more the way of the sudden opening followed by the March/April shift in weather patterns and the stubborn refusal for some areas to melt like 2012, even with the heat.

It just felt like Deja Vu, I remember watching 2006 very closely because of the sudden and unprecedented melt in 2005 (who even considers that now after 07/12 but at the time it was really a wake up call). So I remember it unfolding and the stall and the hanging around before it started to really melt again late July.

I wasn't really checking Nino or other potential causes. I was just remembering.

Of course that then led to 2007 where my expectations were low and the end result was pretty shocking for everyone.

Colorado Bob

We've all read about the "methane gun" , well read this from the Siberian Times :

Big bang formed crater causing 'glow in sky': explosion was heard 100 km away

First accounts of the gaping fissure in the earth - found by reindeer herders, who were almost swallowed up by the crater - reported that it was around 4 metres in width and 'about 100 metres' deep.

Scattered over a radius of one kilometre were lumps of displaced soil, sand and ice which had erupted from the earth.

Now we can reveal significant new details about this remote crater on the Taimyr peninsula in Krasnoyarsk region, some 440 kilometres from dozens of other newly-formed giant holes.

Link

Colorado Bob

If that's not gun barrel, when the Chinese didn't invent gun power.

wayne

Hi Chris,

Look no more, ECMWF has it projected...

John Christensen

That's not a prominent high, squeezed between the two lows, but it is there in the forecast.

Let's see, if it is allowed to develop further.

Chris Reynolds

Wayne,

It's looking possible. But the standard deviation of the ensemble seems to be large enough to imply it doesn't happen in all of the ensemble members.
http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/Reesnh2401.gif

Colorado Bob,

There was a similar unexplained explosion a few years back in the Canadian Arctic Archipelgo. Sorry I can't remember the details.

Rob Dekker

John said (regarding Screen et al) :

So the MJJ cyclones have a positive correlation with Sept ice extent, but the lack of MJJ cyclones (clear skies) have an even stronger negative correlation with Sept ice extent, as seen in 2007, 2012 - and to a lesser degree July '15.

That is interesting. It seems that that confirms the findings of climate models, which suggest that there will be more "variability" in ice extent as it reduces. Just that the lower it goes, the more sensitive it gets.

Neven

It may be nonsense what I'm about to say, but I've noticed that although cyclones are dominating, the pressure isn't particularly low and the ice pack is more visible than I had expected it to be.

Extent has stalled because of a total lack of compaction, but dispersion isn't all that good for the ice pack either, and it is gently being pushed apart, with clear skies in some regions like the Kara Sea, the CAA and even parts of the CAB.

Solar radiation obviously trumps everything at this stage of the melting season, but things aren't looking as cloudy or cold as they were in 2013 and 2014, or perhaps even last year. But I'm not sure yet how melting momentum compares to similar years.

Either way, it will still take one or two periods of weather conducive to melting for this year to approach top 3 minimum territory.

Rob Dekker

Thanks Neven,
May I note that currenty 2016 is still in the lead for ice extent and area and volume, possibly rivaled only by 2012.
Just saying.

Neven
May I note that currenty 2016 is still in the lead for ice extent and area and volume, possibly rivaled only by 2012. Just saying.

Sure, the fact that 2016 has been so low all year so far (don't forget snow cover), is what makes me think that 2016 will go low, even if less melting momentum is being built up right now.

But given the past 10 days and the coming week, the lead in extent and volume is going to be gone. I expect both 2011 and 2012 to be lower in PIOMAS volume at the end of this month. 2012 is already lower in sea ice area, and extent-wise I expect this year to be battling it out with 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2014 at the end of the month (see first graph in this blog post).

Rob Dekker

Thanks Neven,
I hope you are right, but I'm not so confident.
I think even an average summer season will still put 2016 close to 2012 by the start of August, as per Dr. Slater's model.
And Wipneus' latest AMSR2 assessment still put 2016 currently 135 k km^2 ahead of 2012 on area.

John Christensen

"..but things aren't looking as cloudy or cold as they were in 2013 and 2014, or perhaps even last year."

If you were an AO converted like me, then it wouldn't be nonsense:

The NH overall has taken in much more heat in April-June (On top of a warm winter), compared to recent years, due to predominantly clear skies shown by the AO index (AMJJ):

2012 -0,035 0,168 -0,672 0,168
2013 0,322 0,494 0,549 -0,011
2014 0,972 0,464 -0,507 -0,489
2015 1,216 0,763 0,427 -1,108
2016 -1,105 -0,036 - -


Of these years you see that 2013 and 2015 started very well, but that 2014 and 2015 turned to clear skies in July, while 2013 stayed neutral.

Therefore, although the centrally placed low has put a damper on things, a lot of heat has reached the ground and water already, keeping temps relatively high.

That said, from my sponsor website, this chart provides daily volume estimates, which indicate that the momentum has slowed down somewhat:

http://polarportal.dk/havisen-i-arktis/nbsp/havisens-udbredelse-og-tykkelse/

The DMI volume estimates are great as guidance to the impact of current weather, but are higher than the estimated PIOMAS volume, the latter being more accurate IMO.

John Christensen

"I expect both 2011 and 2012 to be lower in PIOMAS volume at the end of this month."


Agreed.

John Christensen

Sorry, on the DMI link you need to select the "Tykkelse og volumen" tab to get the thickness and volume charts.

Large versions of both charts can be selected at the bottom of the page.

Cato Uticensis

I have voted, and I've been optimistic (4.75-5.00). And not because I want to minimise the issue with unprecedented low extension, but just because of merely arithmetic considerations. By mid-June, statistically, only about 35% of the total extension loss has been achieved. And in spite of the just depressing performance so far in 2016, there is still a long way to go (to melt) in front of us. However changeable the forecasts might be in this period of the year, ECMWF keeps showing predominance of low-pressure conditions for the Arctic. In spite of the massive volume loss so far, there is still a significant quantity of ice left to be melt, as it is confirmed by the thickness data. In the next days temperatures should be often below zero in both the ESS and Beaufort areas(GFS / Climate-Reanalyzer). And then there is the lesson learned of year 2013, i.e. even apparently desperate situations can be recovered if the weather conditions allow for it. I fully agree with John's considerations about the AO, which just reflects the current conditions on the Arctic, and I fully take Neven's point about dispersion, which could be providing a deceptive perception of improvement while paving the way for future, massive losses...

wayne

Sea ice offers a lot of illusions, literally and optically, one of the current one is extent melt has slowed, not so at all:

Look at bottom of '2nd front' Article

http://eh2r.blogspot.ca/2016/05/2nd-remarkable-retreat-front.html

Consolidation is lost, the ice is more spread out, this causes many things to change, including DMI N80 temperature, because sea ice surface air is automatically colder than sea water surface air. Clouds have appeared more as well, along with a completely almost virtually ignored spring cloud/ice crystals/fog bromide blitz. These vast expansive low clouds favour Cyclones to linger. But bromide events dwell mainly in colder weather, therefore the recent unconsolidated nature of sea ice weather will be short lived.

John Christensen

I read your blog wayne, seems dramatic:

"Make no mistakes in judgement, this is the greatest melt in history."

How would you define "greatest melt" in terms of quantity and time period?

wayne

John

Sea ice extent is the trickiest geophysical feature to predict, because it can be severely compacted or scattered. Volume should be easier but Piomas has a great deal of trouble with it. I made it easier for myself:

"The potential for the North Pole to be sea ice free at Minima coming mid September has never been higher. Arctic sea ice extent will be smaller than all time lowest record of 2012."

Written 2 months ago:

http://eh2r.blogspot.ca/2016/04/2016-annual-spring-projection-made-by.html

I find General Circulation Predictions a walk in the park compared to the very complex nature of not so simple sea ice.

John Christensen

Thank you for elaborating wayne!

"I find General Circulation Predictions a walk in the park compared to the very complex nature of not so simple sea ice."

- remember that Edward Lorenz, studying weather models and the circulation patterns got inspired to come up with the chaos theory.. ;-)


As mentioned further up, I do not see the conditions being in place to stay at the decline rates seen in 2012, but let's see.

wayne

Edward Lorenz butterfly is dwarfed almost infinitum by how much sea ice there is or isn't. Yes, General Circulation is never easy, this makes sea ice the ultimate challenge to understand.

AbbottisGone

Am I wrong in thinking that both John and Wayne agree that arctic sea ice is the best predictor of climate change for the insurance companies, or others with, heart-felt responsibility, even?

Tom Zupancic

Neven,

I absolutely agree, "Solar radiation obviously trumps everything at this stage of the melting season". This is now the solar irradiance maximum. Following the various satellite images, it clearly appears that the amount of solar irradiation being absorbed by the unusually extensive area of open water in the arctic has been substantial, especially in the Beaufort, but around the arctic sea region more broadly as well. Thus, I tend to question the conventional wisdom derived from 2012 as the current melt moves progresses.

Rather, given the many uncertainties involved in projecting events in such a complex system, I prefer to start with the hypothesis that what happens each year is driven by a unique combination of factors, as opposed to a short list of key, well recognized processes.

For example, in 2007, the dipole anomaly was highly significant. I seem to recall that ocean heat flowing into the Arctic Sea from the Bering Sea was also important. In contrast, 2012 had low initial sea ice volume and extraordinary June ‘conditioning’; not to mention the Great Arctic Cyclone (GAC).

In comparison, 2016 is different. The present circumstance follows an extended period of sea ice volume decline punctuated by an extra ordinarily mild freeze season resulting in reduced sea ice volume. Then there was the persistent high pressure over the Beaufort that extensively fractured the relatively thin ice pack. (Getting back to solar irradiance, this fracturing allowed for unprecedented absorption of solar energy, early on… and this process has continued).

I could go on regarding the Siberian side and the Kara Sea, or the significance of the recent widespread Arctic Sea ice dispersion, or the unusual heat currently present in the global climate system, but I will simply reiterate that it appears each year is unique, and this year is different from others in multiple ways. Ultimately, I would hypothesize that the way in which the 2016 melt progresses will be distinct. Having observed this process for some time now, my impression is that the present Arctic Sea ice is highly/unusually vulnerable and it would take ‘weather’ more impactful that the present persistence of low pressure systems to prevent a substantial melt.

Rob Dekker

Hat tip to Wipneus at the forum :
NSIDC is back in business. Yeah !!

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2016/06/satellite-data-transition-complete/

Their numbers are now calibrated to the F-18 instrument, and their sea ice index numbers are also updated.

Can somebody tell the CT guys ?

Chris Reynolds

Thanks Rob,

That's great news. :)

wayne

AbbottisGone,

" the best predictor of climate change for the insurance companies, or others with, heart-felt responsibility, even?"

It is, but unfortunately there is a lot of ignorance about the Polar regions. Essentially, all frequent participants and readers here are very well informed, Neven does exemplary journalism work . However, I doubt we can convince anybody about this critical subject until a larger common Mediterranean yatch visits the North Pole for the weekend.

Hans Gunnstaddar

If you make a stop at the Bremen, look at the Beaufort. It looks like as those big floes of ice drift out into the middle of the open area of water, they're melting. Look at the semi-clear ice squares vs. the floes not in that warmer water yet which are more opaque.

Cato Uticensis

ECMWF and GFS confirm persistence of low pressure conditions on the Arctic for the next 7-10 days, with associated clouds, precipitations (essentially snow) and even temperatures below average: on Saturday, for example, more than 50% of the Arctic will see temperatures below 0 degrees. And the end of June is approaching...

Neven

We must be looking at different forecasts, unless you want to put in some links. This GFS forecast for Saturday, for instance, doesn't look like 'more than 50% of the Arctic' is going to go below freezing temps.

As for the ECMWF, like I said, pressure isn't going to go particularly low, and when it does go lower, it's accompanied by high pressure over the American side, which means more winds due to an increased pressure gradient. A dipole, in fact, but with the low over the Central Arctic and not on the Siberian side.

Either way, we've reached that stage where forecasts oscillate wildly after 4 days out. But what we can say for sure, is that this isn't like 2013 at all, the best year for ice retention in the last decade. It's no 2012 either, the worst year for ice retention.

It's something in between, with the exception that a lot has happened already. The situation in the Beaufort Sea - important for the ice long-term - looks particularly worrying, IMO.

John Christensen

Yes, given this forecast I expect extent to get close to 2014 by the end of June, with 2013 and 2015 being the recent years with higher extent.

John Christensen

I was also reviewing extent loss since max extent, where 2016 lands with an average level of extent loss.

This shows the amazing impact of weather in these critical high-summer weeks, as this melting season was preconditioned for immense losses - the greatest melt in history..

John Christensen

Your note was entered in-between Neven, otherwise I would have added that the main forecast I was looking at was for the AO and secondly that a low will remain over the central Arctic Ocean, which I think will be beneficial to the ice come mid-late August:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao_index_ensm.shtml

However, this is clearly not ideal weather, as it has been in the past week, but that can be said for most of the recent years - except for 2013, that is.

Cato Uticensis

Yes Neven, we are looking at different forecasts, as I make reference to 15 hours later than yours :) http://pamola.um.maine.edu/fcst_frames/GFS-025deg/ARC-LEA/T2/21.png Jokes apart (considerations about % of arctic below zero for a few hours are not so essential, I reckon...) of course I cannot make any sensible comment about the effect of such weather conditions in terms of ice melting, and I just rely on the judgment of expert and professional people like you. I have an understanding of meteorology, though. And it is clear that a change of synoptic circulation has happened in the Arctic, and whatever the exact position of lows in the next few days (which I fully agree with you are quite changeable, as it is normal for mid to long-range forecasts), it is highly probable that low-pressure conditions will be prevailing, with associated clouds and precipitations. The latest runs show rather low pressures on the Arctic, down to less than 985 hPa, persisting for several days. And interesting values for the geopotential height as well: about 5100 m. No idea of the effect in terms of ice extension and melting, though. I will just follow your precious updates to make up my mind about what is cooking in the pot...

Neven
Yes Neven, we are looking at different forecasts, as I make reference to 15 hours later than yours :)

Ah, okay. Time is relative, after all. :-)

I'll have a post on melting momentum later today which I'm sure you'll like.

Cato Uticensis

Thanks Neven ;)

John Christensen

Hi Cato,

"considerations about % of arctic below zero for a few hours are not so essential, I reckon..."

What you are seeing is night time temps in that area; even with sun around the clock you will see around 78-83 degrees N that temperatures during main night hours can dip below freezing, which helps lower temps in melt ponds.
In the far north (85-90N), sun radiation seems to be strong enough to keep temps above freezing around the clock.

Cato Uticensis

Good point John, fully agree.

wayne

Buoy 2015f, the one and only one operational, average ice core temperature is -2.4 C, not including crazy top thermistor readings, a gain of .4 C in one week. In 10 days a great chunk of bottom ice, already rotten, will melt. This compares same date and time to 2012G equally at 82 N in 2013, -2.8 C. 2013 season is a text book year of ice melting in place with very little compaction.

John Christensen

wayne,

Since the composition of melt ponds, cracks and drainage of sodium chloride can impact the temperature of the ice column, I would not extrapolate the data from one buoy to the entire Arctic ice pack, but rather put faith in the remote sensoring tools, even knowing the limitations of these.

Sarat

Sharp drops in extent in the past few days, wonder if the trend will continue with that storm forecast for the arctic next week:

http://pamola.um.maine.edu//DailySummary/frames/GFS-025deg/ARC-LEA/PMSL/48.png

John Christensen

Hi Sarat,

"Sharp drops in extent in the past few days"


Where did you see those?

Sarat

http://web.nersc.no/WebData/arctic-roos.org/observation/ssmi_ice_ext.png

Sarat

Granted NSIDC slope did not change nearly as much.

Robert S

I think that broad arctic temperature and extent data is probably not the most important indicator right now. For instance, higher extent or lower temperatures in areas that we know are going to melt out, while they will have some impact on other areas, are probably not that significant. On the other hand, signs of increased temperature, fracturing, melt ponds, etc., in area which are usually strongholds of ice retention are likely more significant. For instance, I see above freezing temperatures forecast for the next five days north of Ellesmere. If momentum starts getting going in that area, things could get interesting...

John Christensen

Thanks Sarat, yes; you have day-to-day fluctuations up or down on these.

DMI seems to be one day ahead of the other charts (or maybe they just use a different time stamp), and the latest change brings the drop back to somewhat average:

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

Sarat

Right John, seems I have cherry-picked the steepest slope, apologies.

Around this time for previous years is when declines start to get steeper if 2016 follows it will be close on par with 2012, I was wondering if that's what we are seeing.

Also, would be interested to know how strong is this storm forecast to be? I remember back in one of a years a strong cyclone caused a lot of damage to the ice.

John Christensen

Hi Sarat,

You should read this on cyclones:

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/06/on-persistent-cyclones.html

The consequence in June from what it would be in August - GAC-2012..

John Christensen

Sorry, bad edit:

The consequences of a cyclone in June are different from what they would be in August.

Neven
The situation in the Beaufort Sea - important for the ice long-term - looks particularly worrying, IMO.

I may be wrong to be worried (too much), as this comment on the ASIF by A-Team shows that ice may be more dispersed now than it has ever been on record, but there is clearly much less preconditioning going on than there was in previous years.

John Christensen

Agreed Neven, and with the AO turning quite positive again in the next couple of days, the general cloud cover will increase.

That said, the AO clearly is not the full story, as June overall should turn out with just slightly positive AO, but with clouds overall well-positioned to dampen preconditioning - weather rules still.

John Christensen

Are bets open for end-July volume match with 2015 yet? ;-)

iamli3

global climate engineering has been happening for decades and making this run away greenhouse problem we're in the middle of worse over all not better , and no discussions about the climate are valid unless they first and foremost acknowledge the effects of deliberate human engineering of it.....

get informed and spread the word

[Sorry, can't let that link stand, too much nonsense; N.]

AbbottisGone

iamli, have you got any graphology on global renewable energy?

I think you will find the panic has started!!

Chris Reynolds

iamli3,

That's rather a solid page of whackadoodle nonsense you linked to there. You might find a more gullible audience that's more to your liking is available of at WUWT.

John Christensen

When comparing ice concentration of 2016 against 2015, it appears that the central Arctic Ocean and Chuckchi has a higher concentration this year, while peripheral seas have low concentrations: southern Kara, Barents, Greenland Sea, Baffin, and somewhat lesser degree in Hudson Bay:

http://cires1.colorado.edu/~aslater/ICEDIFF/

As I mentioned earlier, since the Sept min ice extent will mainly cover central parts of the CAB, it seems the extent should not drop too far, also given current weather conditions and medium term forecast.

I will therefore upgrade my min sea ice extent prediction from 3.75-4.00 to 4.25-4.50 in the next poll.

D_C_S

For June 28, arctic sea ice extent in 2010 is less than arctic sea ice in 2016 according to NSIDC, at 9.596 Mm^2 and 9.625 Mm^2, respectively.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)