« 2016 Arctic cyclone, update 2 | Main | 2016 Arctic cyclone, update 3 »

Comments

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

David Appell

"...The ocean contains a lot more energy than 1 W/m2"

A W/m2 is a unit of energy exchange, not energy itself.

Rob Dekker

Thanks Neven, for this summary.

I find it amazing that (on Aug 21) it is still not obvious where 2016 will end up in the ranking (2nd or 3rd).

Rob Dekker
The surplus heat needed to explain the loss of Arctic sea ice during the past few decades is on the order of 1 W/m2.
This finding by Kwok and Untersteiner suggests that the Arctic is more sensitive to weather pertubations than we would normally assume. It also suggests that (all things included) Arctic sea ice is a very good measure of global climate forcing.
viddaloo

I'm stunned that NASA still believes in their 5.2 BS estimate, 'given that the current extent as of 16 August is 5.3 million km2'. Did these guys really send men to the Moon?

Greg Wellman

I assume the deadline for submission was a few weeks back, but yeah, anyone whose estimate was over 5 is out of the running. 4.3 seems pretty likely.

NickWhalenMP

Wondering about the status of how the minimum will be determined this year without the replacement cyrosphere data. The uni-Bremen maps seem to have large errors outside the arctic

www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/Arctic_AMSR2_nic.png

But I can assure you that if there was ice off the coast of Newfoundland in concentrations over 15% that it would be major news. So there are low latitude errors here.

What will you be reporting for the minimum, Neven?

Rob Dekker

Nick, the final number for the minimum extent (daily and average for the month) is typically reported by NSIDC.

Regarding false ice off the coast of Newfoundland, that is typically ruled out by what is called a "mask". Masks get updated every month to prevent false ice observations from affecting the final numbers, and any (uni-bremen AMSR2 or NSIDC SSMIS) observations are using masks adjusted for such "false ice" detections.

CT area does NOT use any mask, and thus CT area needs to be taken with a grain of salt (as Wipneus has explained many times on the formum.

As for Neven's report for the minimum, I assume he will follow NSIDC and ADS/JAXA.

AbbottisGone

Cheers, for the explanation Rob!

NickWhalenMP

Yes, thanks Rob!

Bill Fothergill

Rob,

Your opening comment on this thread stated that...
"I find it amazing that (on Aug 21) it is still not obvious where 2016 will end up in the ranking (2nd or 3rd)"

Well, here we are 11 days later and it's...
"plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose"

Rob Dekker

Bill, since 2016 is now 9 days ahead of 2007 on ADS/JAXA, and still going down briskly, I put my bets on 2nd place.

Bill Fothergill

Rob,

My comment was slightly tongue in cheek. For example, the Nansen Centre in Bergen already has 2016 slightly lower than 2007 in terms of extent, and much lower in terms of area. However, JAXA still shows 2016 with just over 100k sq kms still needed to overtake (undertake?) 2007.

I know your model has placed 2nd lowest as the most likely for some time. Until the last week, I was still half expecting a stall in this year's loss rate, and thought 2016 would end up third.

Boy, was I wrong.

Bill Fothergill

Oops,
Partial retraction coming up. Somehow I had failed to notice that ROOS has dropped 2007 & 2008 from their display.

It was 2011 & 2015 that has already been overtaken (undertaken?) by 2016.

NOTE TO SELF: Must learn to read

Samanth59647500

I wonder still about the status of how the minimum will be determined this year. Wanted to tweet this but then saw the later posts. Just found this on my way to Sea Ice Outlook.
Cheers,
Samantha
last registered at http://essayforcollege.org/ - writers console

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.)