« PIOMAS September 2016 | Main | In memoriam: Andrew Slater »

Comments

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

wayne

The minimum according to some metrics may have been reached,
but the amount of open water within the pack on mainly the Russian side of the Pole, is not measured properly. So we are left to judge for ourselves, or accept very obsolete measurement rules.

I choose the former

And there is great effects from the Transpolar Stream Current being nothing but a river of wind driven very loose pack ice:

http://eh2r.blogspot.ca/2016/09/de-coiling-of-canadian-side-of-pole.html

Extent of sea ice may expand, but so those sea water

RIP Andrew Slater....

Martin Gisser

While the minimum isn't a new record, the annual extent average is:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/09/11/climate-deniers-embarrass-themselves-about-arctic-sea-ice/

(Wow, the sign-in process to comment here is beyond just ridicu-lousily botched. Some Typepad manager needs a kick.)

Aaron Lewis

Looks like we have indeed reached the point where latent heat in the atmosphere and ocean heat from below dominate over direct solar heating in sea ice volume/extent melt.

navegante

I have to ask over the freezing basics thread of the forum how is it possible that refreezing propagated so quickly in the two CAB areas where DMI graph was showing 3+ degC of SST anomalies. I mean, winds soak up so much energy in three days? Or is the map absurdly wrong?

Susan Anderson

This may or may not be relevant. I was looking at Nullschool for Meranti (currently 185 mph barreling towards south Taiwan, not shown below), and talked with a friend in England, where the temperatures are in the 30s (C). Here's the relevant bit, with a straight wind right across the Arctic (there appear to be other circulations that might interfere):
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/850hPa/orthographic=-87.57,85.35,422
Shetlands/Lerwick around 13C.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/observation/gfxnjyxk4

Susan Anderson

Kirkwall (Shetlands) forecasted at 16C Thursday and Sunday:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/forecast/gfmzs9uhd

Jim

There was a good xkcd cartoon today that shows how our current temperature rise is really unprecedented.

http://xkcd.com/1732/

John Christensen

Thank you for another great update Neven!

I am nearly in complete agreement with your reasoning, but it still seems like you may be underestimating just how bad the situation was back in the spring, where we saw record low area, extent and volume all at the same time that Beaufort was contracting, so that all odds were against the ice.

I mentioned on June 13th that I estimated Sept avg. extent to be in the 3,75-4,0 mill km2 range with the notion that 'someone have to stay optimistic.'

During late spring from day 120 to day 160, as melting was just getting started, 2016 dropped 1,800km3 more ice than 2007 (PIOMAS), but then dropped 1,100km3 less ice than 2007 from day 160 to 244 (latest data), even with the late August cyclones, showing that the summer of 2016 was still faring better than 2007, but had a very rough start on top of record low initial metrics.

John Christensen

navegante:

"how is it possible that refreezing propagated so quickly in the two CAB areas where DMI graph was showing 3+ degC of SST anomalies. I mean, winds soak up so much energy in three days?"

Due to the special stratification of the water layers of the Arctic Ocean, you really just have the top layer of about 50 meters that need to cool down, which is much less than in oceans elsewhere.
The vertical movement of water masses during cooling, while present, is also slower than in your typical ocean with surface temperatures of 15-20C.

Another rapid SST change could be due to sustained offshore winds in an area, which would move the uppermost water further offshore, replacing this with slightly colder upwelling water.

However, if you are referring to the two warm northernmost points of open water on each side of the former 'Wrangel Arm', I suspect the combination of winds pulling cold from Greenland combined with snow drifting onto the sea surface is ensuring quick local SST drops.

navegante

John, 2016 melting progress presented also serious challenges prior to June, despite the impressive start. By the end of May, Beaufort sea had imported a gross amount of the thickest MYI we have seen lately. Chukchi sea and ESS presented much thicker ice than average due to the import and compression and ridging against the coast. Much of the impressive low extent until then was due to the Atlantic front, that anyway has a limited possibility of advancing due to bathimetry; and to early melting of seas out of the Arctic proper. Not that easy.
Yes, stormy weather and all, and even so the Western half of the Arctic is virtually gone, the Atlantic front been melting all that was not exported out via Fram. Explain me all that. No simple answers.
The final setup of the pack is probably the worst for the following season apart from 2012, and this is no longer the 2007 remaining thick ice. Volume has declined again, and I don't want to think how the ice-age distribution will look like by now. Based on 2008 and 2013, we know that may not be decisive for 2017, but what if.

Jim Hunt

Very sad news of the death of Andrew Slater. He even took the trouble to comment on the ASIF - RIP

In other news the yacht Northabout has managed to evade both the freeze-up and some old ice in Lancaster Sound and has just completed both the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage in a single summer season:

"Northabout Heads for Home"

British led expedition, Russian skipper, Russian, Irish, American, British, Norwegian crew, Irish boat.

It is extremely worrying to see this lack of ice so starkly

wayne

"Or is the map absurdly wrong?"

Not wrong , misleading if you don't consider how they are made, it is not an indication of freezing as much as extent expanding, de- compaction and as I have shown on multiple occasions, pack ice breaking up shattering and scattering moving about. We need better charts oblivious to clouds. In the algorithms they currently use, they simply have to remove the 15% rule and display the results of ice and or no ice, then we would have a truer idea.

navegante

Wayne, I apologize, my comment was confusing. I meant if the DMI SST anomaly maps were wrong. They were showing more than three degrees C over norm (which is -2C the lowest). That is +1C or more of absolute SST, even above fresh water melting point!? So that is why I find surprising how fast the refreezing was.
It must be as well that I don't understand the dynamics, these were strong cold winds after all. Relatively dry, but maybe think blankets of snow have helped.

navegante

John, I just saw your response to me about the refreezing speed, thank you very much, it makes a lot of sense. I missed it and replied to your other comment instead.
My apologies all for the confusion.

Rob Dekker

navegante said

They were showing more than three degrees C over norm (which is -2C the lowest). That is +1C or more of absolute SST, even above fresh water melting point!? So that is why I find surprising how fast the refreezing was.

Your statement is correct.
Even when the upper mixed layer is only 20 meters, if the water is 3 C over freezing, there is 84 MJoule/km^2 to get rid of before it can freeze over. With even an over-estimated 200 W/m^2 heat loss to space, it will take 5 days for that water column to cool down to freezing.

So that water that just froze over was colder than 1 C, or it had more than 5 days to cool down.

Either way, that DMI SST map is suspect.

John Christensen

NP navegante.

However, let me note also the difference between SST anomaly and the area turning white, indicating some degree of sea ice cover.

Changes in SST is what I responded to above.

However, when the area turns white it means that the grid cell has become 'sea ice contaminated'.

DMI is using NOAA Pathfinder data with this note on sea ice fractions:

"Variable sea_ice_fraction:

Some SST data are contaminated in part or wholly by sea ice and the L2P variable sea_ice_fraction is used to quantify the fraction of an area contaminated with sea ice. Some input SST data streams provide a flag to indicate that the SST measurement is contaminated by sea ice (e.g., AMSR-E)."

I believe when an area/cell has been flagged that DMI turns this white rather than indicate the specific sea ice fraction/sea ice concentration, and it is quite probable that DMI is using the 15% threshold although I see no mentioning of this.

In summary, I would recommend using DMI SST just for observing SST and then use extent or area models to observe sea ice development.

viddaloo

I'm glad the overall extent of 2016 is being emphasised by several people, as I increasingly find it hard to defend logically that one day or month in the autumn should speak for the entire year, when in fact the whole year is a new record low in and of itself. My personal gut feeling is that maybe too much emphasis is placed on minimums because of the perceived need to show what Hambone Littletail dubs 'clueless morons' climate change "is real". A deeper sociological analysis will IMO show that convincing said group of people matters far less than many of 'us' tend to think: Could we have saved the Biosphere from truly dangerous climate change if every last person on Earth suddenly started 'believing' climate change was real? I don't think so.

We also know that the much touted 'Blue Ocean event' — a day or more of less than a million km2 of sea ice — is connected to the same minimum, so the same logic goes for that: An early Blue Ocean event, say, in 2016 instead of 2021, likely won't save the Biosphere from dangerous climate change either.

With this pipe dream out of the way, it may be easier to see that the overall (annual average) extent, area & volume says more about a year, and consequently about the proper trends of sea ice collapse, than September weather / ice levels alone.

That doesn't mean that chasing the very minimum every year isn't exciting! It is, and I think we *should* continue to obsess about it. It's just not that important, all things taken into acount, I think.

Glenn Doty

viddaloo,

Long-time lurker here, not much technical education in the subject but a profound interest.

The importance of the "Blue Ocean event", in my mind, is the fact that the sea ice currently serves to protect the Greenland Ice Shelf.

Right now, all of the insolation hitting the arctic in the summer is channeled into the phase change of the floating sea ice. So no big deal.

But Greenland protrudes into the central arctic basin, and the ice shelf starts ~600m-~1000m deep. Once the sea ice is gone from the basin, than a tremendous amount of energy will be absorbed by the water and NOT be expended into the phase change of the sea ice... which means much of it will be able to be circulated around the base of the GIS and attack that.

In a single hour of full sun, the total energy of insolation in the CAB would be sufficient to double Greenland's current net yearly contribution to global sea level rise. So once the Blue Ocean event occurs, the rate of sea level rise will begin to accelerate rapidly.

That's why I find it nail-biting every year to watch the sea ice volume (the only important metric) gradually melt away. I see the sea ice as something of a "doomsday clock". Every minute that we have of blue ocean in the arctic represents a significant increase in the effect of climate change experienced over the rest of the world.

Glenn Doty

Meant to say "unreflected insolation". That is, of course, the most important aspect of the big mirror of the sea ice.

viddaloo

Hi, Glenn,

I very much agree with what you say here. In terms of sunlight on open water, however, I see an extremely low average annual extent (or area) as more significant than any one day of 'virtually ice–free' in September.

For a lowest ever ice–cover on average means a highest ever amount of insolation is absorbed and used for ocean heating. Then Greenland ice could melt significantly, as well as seabed permafrost, releasing the 'silent killer' methane trapped for millennia.

wayne

DMI N80 temperature model appears to give some info not so useful as the coldest air is in smack in the middle of the densest sea ice. I read elsewhere 0, -1 -2 C , all temperatures where sea ice can still melt, because of very warm sst's. A slight change in circulation, would easily change the charts look of sea ice distribution. According to ECMWF a small Cyclone will be centered near the Pole shortly, hence the icescape will change.

The 15% rule is so bad in replicating adequate cloudless charts in displaying what is going on. Fortunately a gap in clouds provide adequate proof in showing the very center of coldest air has wide open water barely showing on 15% maps. We can surely do better than setting rules on reality, and perhaps reality will reveal itself better if we try to replicate it with the highest fidelity possible. Those who like this 15% nonsense, as it is, are deluding themselves with the distortions it gives:

http://eh2r.blogspot.ca/2016/09/cloudless-window-into-fragile-state-of.html


Bill Fothergill

@ Rob "... it will take 5 days for that water column to cool down to freezing ..."

I think there's a slight mistake in your calculation, but one that only serves to strengthen your argument further. (Alternatively, I've completely misunderstood, and there's just an astonishing coincidence involving the value of 84 megaJoules.)

A column of water that presents an area of one square metre at the surface and extends downward for 20 metres will obviously occupy a volume of 20 cubic metres. This body of water will have a mass of approximately 20 tonnes, or 20,000 kg.

As the SH of water is approx 4.2 kJ/kg.K then the energy transferred in a temperature drop of a single Kelvin will be 84 megaJoules. For a 3 Kelvin change, the energy transfer is in the order of 250 megaJoules.

As you then point out, an energy bleed rate of 200 Watts/sq metre at the surface would take almost 5 days to lose 84MJ - and about 3 times as long if 250 MJ needs to be lost out of that water column. (And of course we haven't even mentioned Latent Heat yet!)

However, I freely admit to knowing bog all about what happens to the mixing/convection once a skin of frazil/nilas starts to form. Does that put a clamp on things allowing further freezing to occur with seemingly anomalous speed?

I don't know.

Ghoti20

Don't forget that once the surface water temperature is at or below the freezing point of pure water snow falling onto it won't melt. This can result in a thin layer of ice forming long before air temperatures fall below -10C.

This is likely the fastest way for the Arctic waters to "freeze over" after the end of the melting season. This is a possible mechanism for the "flash freezing" we sometimes see.

Wayne has described this before.

Neven

Wipneus is back, and so are his calculated CT SIA numbers:

The minimum was reached September 9th, at 2.421 million km2, well below the previous nr 2 (2011: 2.905 million km2). It's the only time in the past decade that JAXA SIE reached its minimum earlier than CT SIA (just one day), which tells us something about dispersal.

Wade Smith

Winter is coming!

viddaloo
Winter is coming!

Well, I, for one, am not ready to call the Arctic Sea Ice melt season minimum quite yet, after only a couple of days since the previous low point. If I may remind you, it takes 22 days to be sure of the annual maximum after a decent candidate high point.

I'm thinking it should apply to minimums as well.

Rob Dekker

Bill said :

an energy bleed rate of 200 Watts/sq metre at the surface would take almost 5 days to lose 84MJ - and about 3 times as long if 250 MJ needs to be lost out of that water column.

Thanks for correcting my calculation, Bill ! Much appreciated.

As for ice forming over a warm mixed layer, basic physics would say that is not possible. After all, convection would set in if surface water is colder than mixed layer water. So we would expect that 20 meter water column too loose all its heat before freezing can set in (even freezing by snow falling on the water).

Heat can definitively be trapped below the halocline (at some 20-50 m below the surface) and that heat can come out during a storm, but in the mixed layer salinity levels are not different enough to 'trap' any heat AFAIK.

Rob Dekker

Interesting side note : during melting, heat CAN be trapped below the ice. If waters are very still, then a thin layer of cold fresh melt water can form right below the ice, which can block the heat from warmer salty water below from reaching the ice/water boundary.

This is why an ice cube in salt water will actually melt slower than an ice cube in fresh water (where convection will move the water around).
You can try that experiment at home.
The insulation-effect is destroyed if you stir the water.

This is another reason why in stormy weather ice melts faster.

Artful Dodger

viddaloo wrote | September 15, 2016 at 00:39

Well, I, for one, am not ready to call the Arctic Sea Ice melt season minimum quite yet

Hi v, (hi folks)

Certainly the Arctic cyclone of 2016 hasn't spun down yet. It's still maintaining a temperature inversion between the 500 hPa and 300 hPa levels over the CAA. (these 2 charts show that it's about the same temperature at 5.500m and at 10.000m, or between about 18,000ft and 30,000 ft)

Met 101 tells us when a cooler low layer is overridden by a warmer upper layer, net upward radiation of heat approaches zero. As a consequence, little heat is lost to space while under this inversion, and the surface is thus insulated.

BTW, this has been been the state throughout GAC2016. Without a rapid freeze-up, the oldest MY sea ice in the Arctic remains in peril via advection from the CAB thru the CAA and thus South to oblivion.

Indeed, the early freeze-up of seasonal sea ice on the European side means nothing. FYI all melts out again the following Summer (earlier and earlier it seems).

The [b]WHOLE GAME[/b] is the [b]MYI[/b]. When it's gone, it's a new climate regime in the Arctic: Seasonal sea ice followed by increasing lenghts of ice-free (read stormy) conditions.

So enjoy the Fall, and keep watching the MYI export. Personally, I hang on each word written by Werther, with his amazing CAD ice-tracking efforts.

The ability to track individual ice flows vectors from passive microwave sources is IMHO invaluable. Thanks for all your contributions, Werther!

My guess? I est we lose > 400K km^2 of MYI thru advection before the next melt season begins. We shall see, it will be a interesting Fall/Winter indeed.

Cheers, Mate!
Lodger

NeilT

In an environment where fresh water melt had just finished, but the fresh water had not yet mixed, I assume it would be possible for that fresh water to freeze before the salt water around it??

Also, as I understood it, if the heat transfer at the surface of the water was to be extreme (very cold conditions or extreme wind chill), then surely the surface could start to melt if the cooling exceeded the heat transfer potential of the water.

For instance if I subject the surface of water to -100c it's going to freeze before the heat from the water column, 20m below, can transfer through to the freezing point?

Correct? Yes, if you subject water to -0.5c conditions then it will suck the entire heat out of the column before it freezes because the heat transfer capability of the water column is greater than the 0.5c temperature to freeze the surface water.

As I understood it this is not the same for much lower temperatures. Otherwise a static pond would only freeze totally, not on the top....

NeilT

On the melt thing I expect the heat to keep bouncing the figures around till the end of next week, or the end of the month, maximum. Then the momentum of the cooling should take over and it's all over for this year.

But we've seen the worst of it. That is clear by the way the storm cleared areas started to re-freeze so quickly.

Jim Hunt

Julienne Stroeve, David Hempleman-Adams, Benji Edwards and Northabout can be viewed on ITV.com until 23:00 UTC tonight:

http://www.itv.com/hub/itv-news-at-ten/2a4409a0183

The Arctic bit starts at ~26 minutes. A packet of virtual peanuts to the first person to spot what the journos got wrong.

wayne

Not bad Artful:

"My guess? I est we lose > 400K km^2 of MYI thru advection before the next melt season begins. We shall see, it will be a interesting Fall/Winter indeed."

First of all we do not measure sea ice well but have a good idea about what is going on, if we really have less sea ice, winter will start later, the jet stream will give a strangest winter as well, with days of wild temperature variations, of which the jet stream may spin off warmer cyclones Northwards.

But we really have to have a better idea of what kind of sea ice we have at present. The suggestion that this year's melt was spared by cooler weather and less worse than 2012 is at stake.
Here is more proof that we have less sea ice especially near the Pole, especially where the densest sea ice should be:

http://eh2r.blogspot.ca/2016/09/worse-sea-ice-in-history-next-to-north.html

Dispersion of loose sea ice shattering over wide areas can't be measured by the 15% rule.


John Christensen

wayne, honestly your continued suggestions such as "15% peripheral method of measuring sea ice extent or area" IMO amounts to deliberately spreading misinformation.

I think you know better.

wayne

John

I'd have a better debate talking to a flat tire...

I'd suggest not to go on with your contrarian ways and see how far it makes you good in predictions. The facts speak for themselves, 15% had its days when Arctic sea ice was a huge pack area loosing some ice at its periphery. You know that very well. But this said at least I can fix a flat tire.

John Christensen

Just pointing out that the '15% method' allowing about 85% to be counted as ice does not apply to the sea ice area calculation, which Neven also has clarified to you.

However, I do think you know, which makes it puzzling why you keep misstating it.

wayne

Sorry, I didn't read Neven's reply, nor did I insinuate that he was wrong. The 15% rule is past its time, we must go to the highest resolution possible readings, count sea ice or water per acceptable area (as small as resolution allows). Is that clear? Do I need to repeat myself 100 more times? Or is that misinformation?
The current official images I have presented not enough for proof?

Of the charts presented on Arctic Sea ice Graphs site, only NSIDC shades of blue looks good (not to forget US Navy), or may give an idea of the seriousness of the current state of sea ice. The others, give a misinterpretation of reality, although they do not do it on purpose, they are just following archaic rules. 15% withdrawn and we will be better off, you may keep the 15% as you seem to like it. But reality doesn't care if one misreads it or not. We can be better and it is a question of time before we become much improved.

Rob Dekker

NeilT said

For instance if I subject the surface of water to -100c it's going to freeze before the heat from the water column, 20m below, can transfer through to the freezing point?

That is possible, but remember that the heat transfer from the warm (mixed layer) water below will be mostly done by convection.
Equilibrium is reached once the ice will bottom-melt as fast as the super-cold atmosphere can transfer heat through the (thin) ice layer.
Until of course the heat of the mixed layer runs out, because that is when convection stops.
Did you do the experiment (with ice cubes in salt/fresh water) ?

Rob Dekker

Wayne and John, you guys are seriously confusing the thread here.
John said :

Just pointing out that the '15% method' allowing about 85% to be counted as ice does not apply to the sea ice area calculation, which Neven also has clarified to you.

That is incorrect. Neven explicitly stated that the 15% cut-off also applies for 'area' calculations :
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2016/06/2016-melting-momentum-part-2.html?cid=6a0133f03a1e37970b01b8d1fe538d970c#comment-6a0133f03a1e37970b01b8d1fe538d970c

I believe he is correct for NSIDC's "area" calculation, but for CT area I'm not so sure.

Wayne said a lot of things about the 15% cut-off rule, but may be best summarized with this quote :

The 15% rule is past its time, we must go to the highest resolution possible readings, count sea ice or water per acceptable area (as small as resolution allows).

First of all, the 15% rule is independent of the resolution that satellites measure ice concentration. Good old SSMIS NSIDC may run at 25 km^2 resolution, and modern AMSR2 at 3 km^2 resolution, but the 15% rule applies to both. That is because the 15% rule is there because to uncertainty in microwave measurements by the satellite. If we would lower that threshold, then "false-ice" starts to pop up in various unexpected places.

Even with the 15% rule, you can still see "false ice" pop up every now and then (on the Bremen AMSR2 images for example) and that is why extent/area providers have to use masks to avoid that such "false-ice" detections affect the resulting extent and area numbers too much.

Either way, wayne, it is REALLY not clear what exactly your problem is with the 15% rule.

viddaloo

While largely agreeing with Wayne here, in the longer term I'm thinking any errant ways of measuring area, extent and volume will result mostly in a delayed realisation of extreme lows: A heavily dispersed ice field will be prone to melt out later in season, and a "not quite lowest minimum" year according to current calculation will cause increased damage to the ice the following winter or the next year.

If we keep our eye on the collapsing sea ice, it logically can only be a matter of time before calculation and models — even for volume — show record lows.

Anyhow, going to Bristol for a radio interview on the 2016 record low year for sea ice extent later tonight. Wish me luck! :)

John Christensen

Hi wayne, Rob, and viddaloo,

I am referring to statements like these on this blog:

On August 28, wayne said:

“Thanks Jim, area has the same pitfalls as extent with the 15% per grid. Did you ever wonder why? How about compensating by using 1 km grids or up to capacity of the equipment?”

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2016/08/asi-2016-update-6-hell-and-high-pressure.html

And on September 1st:

“Do most sea ice prediction models depend on PIOMAS volume? If so does PIOMAS regard 15% threshold for sea ice extent or area as acceptable for 100% sea ice coverage?”

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2016/08/2016-mega-dipole.html

And on September 3rd:

“I don't know if PIOMAS model uses the 15% inane rule as for extent or area. Imagine if it does, say one grid has 16% sea ice considered as 100%, how much of a miscalculation of volume is that?”

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2016/08/2016-mega-dipole.html

The misstatement is that e.g. 16% of sea ice would be considered as 100% in the SIA calculations.

As we all know (You too wayne?) two grids with sea ice concentration of 10% and 16% respectively in a 4x4km grid would give this difference in calculations:

SIE: (4 x 4 x 0.00) + (4 x 4 x 1,00) = 16km2

SIA: (4 x 4 x 0.00) + (4 x 4 x 0.16) = 2.56km2

The repeated reference of the 15% rule providing highly questionable numbers for both for SIE and SIA models is not correct.

John Christensen

Good luck with the interview viddaloo!

John Christensen

Ah yes, I missed this comment by wayne on Sep. 10th, clearly attempting to ridicule a remark on sea ice area by repeating the misstatement about sea ice area calculation:

"Science? Let us see

If you ignore that out of 1 million km2 of 100% sea ice allegedly measured by 15% extent or area rule, can have up to 850,000 km2 of open water, if you ignore your own eyes and mind about what dispersed sea ice would look like if it was all compacted like during a compacted year, anything can be led to speculation, sure sounds like precluded science with emotions overtaking facts."

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2016/09/piomas-september-2016.html

Unless made out of pure ignorance, these repeated erroneous remarks appear to serve to obstruct a constructive discussion based on available sea ice area, extent, and volume metrics, which is a shame and unnecessary.

Jim Hunt

Good luck Vid!

Where are going in Bristol? I ask in part because Bristol (UK!) is a mere hour or so from here on the train.

viddaloo

Bristol Community Radio, I'll pass the audio link later.

Jim Hunt

The current Arctic cyclone is down to 975 hPa:

It looks as though Barrow is in for another battering, and what's more Tropical Storm Ian is heading for the Arctic Circle even as we speak:

"September Arctic Cyclone Alert!"

John Christensen

Amazing that we have another cyclone in the CAB..

Witold

Delurking at the yearly minimum again ;-).

The discussion between Wayne and the rest starts to be unnecessarily nasty. I guess that Wayne is frustrated with using extent for comparisons of the state of ice, simple because the ice chcnged so much, that results from 20 years ago are not truly comparable to the current ones. 20 years ago we have had solid core, say 5 mln sq km of ice and then around that core say 3 mln square km of dispersed ice with concentration varying between 100 and 15 percent. Now we have, say 1 mln sq km of solid ice and 3 mln sq km of dispersed ice. The comparison of the extents shows 2-fold reduction, whereas comparison of solid ice shows 5-fold reduction.
Again assuming that the average concentration of the dispersed ice is 50 percent then the total area in the current year is 2.5 mln sq km and it used to be 6.5 mln sq km 20 years ago. The reduction of total area is only 2.5-fold.
For the same numbers the compactness of the ice changed from the
13/16 to 10/16 again anything from dramatic on the first sight.
Neither of these parameters (area, extent, compactness) shows directly how dramatic the change of the state of ice really can be behind the numbers.
Unfortunately with single cutoff used to define the state of ice it is difficult to derive good measure. We would have to take strong assumptions on the density distribution of the ice, that would be wrong most of the time due to the high variance due to weather conditions, day of the year etc.
Probably we should have another cutoff, say at 85 percent concentration, that would measure nearly solid ice.
Obviously, all my numbers are just examples, that only somewhat resemble true values, I gave them to illustrate the point.

My two cents.

Jim Hunt

Vid is now live at: http://bcfmradio.com/

jdallen_wa

Witold, you make some interesting points and highlight some of the problems we face trying to articulate how the Arctic is changing.

As Extent has been so critical a metric for so long in understanding the Arctic, changing how we use it presents a challenge, both cognitively and scientifically.

That said, working up a study over time of say, 90%+ extent ice might prove very illuminating and might highlight just how the ice being measured by the metric has changed. (...starts contemplating data sets to download...)

viddaloo

Jim: http://www.radio4all.net/files/tony@cultureshop.org.uk/2149-1-20160916180002.mp3

William Crump

viddalo:

Where is the big melt out in the Central Arctic Basin?


2014, 2015, and 2016 are all 200,000 km2 above 2012 and 2013.

If you do a trend analysis based on all available years of MASIE data for the Central Arctic Basin, when would the data indicate that the CAB will be ice free in September?

ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r11_Central_Arctic_ts_4km.png

Rob Dekker

viddalo,
Listened to that Bristol radio episode.
For starters, just to be sure, are you the Norwegian guy speaking ?

Rob Dekker

Congratulations to Northabout in completing passing the NE passage AND the NW passage in a single season. The first British vessel to do so.
http://polarocean.co.uk/its-over-were-in-upernavik
Great accomplishment, and an indication of the state of Arctic sea ice this melting season.

Jim Hunt

William - Take a look at CAB area instead of extent:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/09/september-arctic-cyclone-alert/#Sep-17

Do you notice any difference?

Rob - Yes.

John Christensen

Agreed Jim; this is a stellar example of the sea ice area declining, probably both due to concentration going down due to the storm, as well as perhaps some melt ponds being created between Svalbard and the Pole.

The SIE calculation will not capture this development, causing SIE to go up, while SIA is going down.

Jim Hunt

Rob - Northabout left Upernavik yesterday, planning on heading to Nuuk via Ilulissat:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/09/northabout-heads-for-home/#Sep-16

When they feel able to head across the North Atlantic to Bristol remains to be seen.

It is certainly not beyond the bounds of possibility that there will be winds of 30 knots and more to contend with on that final leg of the Polar Ocean Challenge!

Bill H

Neven, Unfortunately, your link to Wipneus'data on Sea Ice Extent is broken.

Jim Hunt

Try this Bill:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/arctic-sea-ice-graphs/#UH-AMSR2

Jim Hunt

The Barrow "surfcam" seems to be offline at the moment. Nonetheless, here is the surf forecast:

...HIGH SURF ADVISORY REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 6 AM AKDT MONDAY...

* WAVES AND SURF...WAVES TO 10 FEET BREAKING JUST OFFSHORE COMBINED WITH TIDES UP TO 1 FOOT ABOVE NORMAL WILL CAUSE HIGH SURF CONDITIONS.

* ICE...WITH ICE JUST OFF SHORE FROM BARROW...IT IS POSSIBLE THAT CHUNKS OF SEA ICE WILL WASH UP ON SHORE EVEN WITH WINDS PREDICTED TO BE AT NEARLY PARALLEL TO THE SHORE.

* WINDS...WEST 20 TO 30 MPH FROM THIS AFTERNOON THROUGH EARLY MONDAY MORNING.

* TIMING...HIGH SURF IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN LATE THIS AFTERNOON AND CONTINUE THROUGH EARLY MONDAY.

* IMPACTS...HIGH SURF WILL WASH TO THE TOP OF THE BEACH AND CAUSE BEACH EROSION. MINOR FLOODING OF LOW LYING AREAS IS POSSIBLE AND SURF COULD WASH ONTO LOW LYING ROADS NEAR THE BEACH.

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

A HIGH SURF ADVISORY MEANS THAT LOCALIZED BEACH EROSION IS EXPECTED. SURF COULD WASH ONTO LOW LYING ROADS NEAR THE BEACH LIMITING TRAVEL NEAR THE BEACH. PEOPLE SHOULD MOVE BOATS AND PERSONAL PROPERTY INLAND FROM THE BEACH.

wayne

John

You repeat the same mistakes again and again. It is not interesting and boring. Try to quote correctly instead of insinuations, it would be interesting if you can. Demonstrate that sea ice charts using the same rules replicate faithfully reality instead of making quixotic allegations.

The larger view of maps with the most accurate representation of sea ice are essential for a better cognitive understanding of actual circumstances. If a map, as I have shown many times, depicts a misrepresentation of reality, it is time for better maps. If the same miscalculations are integrated in larger models, then it is time to be more ultra precise. No definition of area or extent, just a percentage of sea ice vs sea water. No special definitions nor algorithmic rules. The essential understanding of what is going on, depends on ultra precise replications, no nuances, no if loops. Just the facts,

wayne

I find NSIDC sea ice concentration map not so bad with current situation, JAXA misses a whole lot of loose sea ice, NSIDC doesn't but does not depict or replicate the loose packs visually. There is room for better depictions, I would settle for no clouds, but this doesn't happen, especially now a days, we are left to explain something with one thousand words, most people don't have the time to read a thousand words, therefore the best depiction of reality possible does an invaluable service. After all, even some of the most avid followers of sea ice get it wrong, especially if they accept images needing a whole lot of translation.

wayne

Hi Rob


" That is because the 15% rule is there because to uncertainty in microwave measurements by the satellite. If we would lower that threshold, then "false-ice" starts to pop up in various unexpected places.
Even with the 15% rule, you can still see "false ice" pop up every now and then (on the Bremen AMSR2 images for example) and that is why extent/area providers have to use masks to avoid that such "false-ice" detections affect the resulting extent and area numbers too much.

Either way, wayne, it is REALLY not clear what exactly your problem is with the 15% rule."

Well, I don't like it, I think that it is primitive. And I don't think it necessary. Just look at the few scant satellite images of vast broken sea ice and compare to the depictions highly likely following these rules.

This brings up the larger question, and this is very interesting :

Does the computer see what we can? Is that what the computer recognizes? Then there is a problem.

Rob Dekker

Jim said :

When they feel able to head across the North Atlantic to Bristol remains to be seen.

After all they went through, I'm sure they can pull off the last leg of their circumpolar journey. Congrats for these lads !

Rob Dekker

wayne said :

Does the computer see what we can? Is that what the computer recognizes? Then there is a problem.

Sorry, wayne. You lost me.

viddaloo

Rob: Yup, Norwegian and finally back in Norway from my island holiday!

It's good to see Wipneus back as well, and here's my latest graph based on his processing of the data.


Big: http://i.imgur.com/2ppPfqs.png

wayne

Rob

Are the charts using 15% rule, the images they create, such as JAXA and CT, have their data integrated into running models?

Compared to satellite pictures they are rather cartoonish...

Also I would be astonished if 3 X 3 km resolution grids have the same 15 % uncertainty correction/compensation than a 16 X 16 km or larger grids. There is such a thing as Eisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

I would also suggest that some false blips are snow from intense snow showers.

viddaloo

2012 is now 4th lowest for Arctic sea ice extent. My guess is it will end up 2nd by Dec 31.

Everything looks as if 2016 will be the first year with year–to–date average below 10 million km2.


Big: http://i.imgur.com/NYjRz4b.png

wayne

Witold

" simple because the ice chcnged so much, that results from 20 years ago are not truly comparable to the current ones. 20 years ago we have had solid core, say 5 mln sq km of ice and then around that core say 3 mln square km of dispersed ice with concentration varying between 100 and 15 percent."

Feel free to lurk more often,

"Unfortunately with single cutoff used to define the state of ice it is difficult to derive good measure. We would have to take strong assumptions on the density distribution of the ice, that would be wrong most of the time due to the high variance due to weather conditions, day of the year etc. "

Can't put it better myself.

There are various compensation rules as well, 50%, 30% and 15%
are those that I know of so far. None offer a better or enhanced simplification of what complex configurations sea ice offers. This may seem unimportant, but if these simplifications are integrated into
a modeled image of sea ice, this would explain some errors anywhere from wether forecasting to sea ice projections. The basic rule would be to keep it simple , not make it look simple, but be as precise as resolution allows.

Sam

Wayne,

This is why I warned about assumptions, metrics and uncertainty.

A variety of assumptions are used in developing metrics (lost work days as a surrogate for safety, ice edges ...). It is extremely common for those assumptions to then be forgotten or ignored over time and for the metric to be taken as gospel. They aren't gospel. They are subject to all sorts of errors based on the assumptions and presumptions that went into their development.

Equally often, the assumptions and presumptions aren't even recognized or noted. These are hidden assumptions which are almost never challenged.

As conditions change, the assumptions can become huge problems as the bases for using those assumptions become invalid. Ice cover is one such case as you have correctly noted.

While there may be physical limitations of the tools (e.g. Microwave). That does not then mean that the information is necessarily meaningful for assessing the ice. As the ice conditions change, a formerly wonderful tool, may simply no longer be adequate to the needs. That the only tool we have becomes incapable of providing the information we need, does not then mean that it is useless. But neither does it mean that we should blindly accept the result as meaningful when it clearly isn't.

However, all that being true, another way to view this is as measures of true uncertainty (not calculational sensitivity, or model sensitivity). The true uncertainty in the measure makes the utility of the tool less as the ice conditions change. We can visually see this to be true. The tool cannot.

And this in turn has impacts on the various products, particularly ice volume. The outputs of those models has a huge uncertainty that is not readily apparent.

That limitations of the tools are masking the actual conditions and causing the products and metrics to provide a falsely high value for extent and volume, and probably for area (though to a lesser extent) is important for us to recognize.

If we fail to recognize this and fail to correct it, this will likely lead us to make poor decisions that fail to warn us of impending events.

In the end however, it won't matter at all. It is all happening too fast. Where it does matter is in the discussion, rhetoric, and politics and hence in actions. But, the transition is happening so very quickly in geologic time that it is far outpacing any meaningful human response no matter whether we get the metrics right or not.

The ice will fail, the Arctic will go ice free, the atmospheric circulation will dramatically change (it has already begun) and the world will not be as we have known it again. Things may return to what we've known in a million years or so. But in the long history of earth, the quasi stable regime we have lived in and that we developed civilization and agriculture in is but a brief blip in time with conditions that are rare in earth's history. It seems unlikely that the earth will ever return here again. Instead, we will now go through a horrible transition to some other stable or quasi stable state.

We have overbuilt our societies on a fiction of stability. We have pushed everything to the very limit. Collapse is now inevitable. But knowing better what is coming, we might be able to better handle the transition to salvage something.

Instead, we seem hell bent on pushing the accelerator to the floor and ploughing into the wall at the highest speed possible.

Kevin O'Neill

Witold writes: "Unfortunately with single cutoff used to define the state of ice it is difficult to derive good measure. We would have to take strong assumptions on the density distribution of the ice, that would be wrong most of the time due to the high variance due to weather conditions, day of the year etc."

I understood this as Wayne's point all along. In fact, I've used the same argument at Tamino's. At Tamino's I added in the fact that the 'pole hole' is assumed to be 100% ice covered. This may have been true in 1979; it's not true today. The distributions may bias measurements high today vs yesteryear, the 'pole hole' assumption obviously biases measurements high. Tamino - much as I usually respect him - assumed I was a denier and basically called me an idiot. Of course he did not rebut either argument -- because you can't :) The most one can say is that the area of the pole hole is relatively small - but it *still* biases measurements high today vs yesteryear.

I do not blame scientists - I blame people who fixate on extent. A holistic view of the ice - e.g., taking into account area, extent, volume, and compaction - is going to lead to a better perspective. The main purpose behind still using extent is to provide an historical context, but if that context is misleading, then of what use is it?

Well, it gives us something to talk/argue about.

wayne

Hi Kevin

"The most one can say is that the area of the pole hole is relatively small - but it *still* biases measurements high today vs yesteryear."

It looks more dramatic if you have a cloudless window and zoom in 20 or 10 Kilometer resolution. The replication images presented often shows a smudge sometimes more, in and out hole appearing disappearing The puzzling aspect of the bias is the expansion or dispersion of late would or should eventually be enough to bring out numeric decreases in extent. I have an example in waiting,

viddaloo

«In the end however, it won't matter at all. It is all happening too fast. Where it does matter is in the discussion, rhetoric, and politics and hence in actions. But, the transition is happening so very quickly in geologic time that it is far outpacing any meaningful human response no matter whether we get the metrics right or not.»

Exactly. It only matters for scientific activism, which the IPCC was expressly set up to prevent. Maybe a more challenging and fun exercise than guessing the annual minimum for the various imperfect metrics could be to estimate the number of years the metrics alone add for the ice? Example: If JAXA says 2 million km2 but extent is actually virtually ice–free, then next year JAXA says virtually ice–free, that's 1 year added due to the imperfection of the metric. Same for CT area (if it comes online again) and PIOMAS volume.

JimSpriggs_

Kevin O'Neill says:

Tamino - much as I usually respect him - assumed I was a denier and basically called me an idiot.

Yes, he was unnecessarily harsh especially since it was obvious to everyone there Kevin wasn't a science denier, and Tamino never explained his objection(s) even when prodded. I don't get it.

(I'll go back to my lurkage)

wayne

A denier would love calling more sea ice when there is in fact less.
Unusual mistake for Tamino.

Speaking of sea ice calculations, it seemed very strange to have more extent expansion without a prolonged break resulting from over expansiveness (which brings out open water numbers). Until someone mentioned snow, and voila it snowed here and likely everywhere in the Arctic, after all there are at least 3 cyclones with lots of clouds:

http://eh2r.blogspot.ca/2016/09/vast-expansion-of-scattered-sea-ice.html


Rob Dekker

Kevin said :

Tamino - much as I usually respect him - assumed I was a denier and basically called me an idiot.

Do you have a link to that ?

Regarding the "Pole Hole", NSIDC' pole hole has reduced to 29 k km^2 since 2008. What's the big deal ?

John Christensen

wayne,

I am happy we agree that SIA is calculated based on ice concentration for grids of at least 15% ice concentration.

Then I clearly misunderstood your comment from Sept. 10th where you said "measured by 15% extent or area rule, can have up to 850,000 km2 of open water" to mean that you had a concern about sea ice area numbers being inflated by this rule.

It was probably the 'area rule' that sent me in the wrong direction..

Bill Fothergill

@ Rob "... Do you have a link to that ? ..."

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/09/11/climate-deniers-embarrass-themselves-about-arctic-sea-ice/

Like many others, I also thought the response was a tad over the top.

@ Wayne. As you can see from the above link, the views expressed by Tamino are very much at odds with your own perspective. I don't know if you think it might be productive to drop in a comment or two over there?

RE: The size of the "Pole Hole"...
This was recently discussed on the "Home Brew AMSR2" thread on the forum. Wipneus (who else?) provided a value for the "average" size of the AMSR2 hole as being approximately 175 kms in diameter. (Comment #2757)

A-Team followed this up a few comments later by providing track paths for a variety of satellite sweeps.

In a nutshell, the approx area of the AMSR2 Pole Hole is in the order of 24 thousand sq kms.

Bill Fothergill

Quality Control Failure (again)

The "chatter" about the size of the Pole Hole on the Home Brew AMSR2 thread runs from about Comment #2755 to #2775. I meant to include that info in my above post.

Artful Dodger

Hi folks,

Yes indeed, nihilism is the flip side of denial and should be one of the 5 stages of grief.

But even if you know you're going to hit the wall, it's important to hit the brakes. I think we'll be lucky if we even manage to take our collective foot off the gas before the sea ice is gone.

But action remains important.

Four years ago, a friend argued that it was already too late for mitigation, and we should spend our money on adaptation.

I think his house flooded 3 months later. Some thngs are beyond our ability to adapt. Like when a 7 year old shakes the candy machine, which then falls, crushing him. Whoops, shudda wudda cudda.

It's prescience like that expressed most succinctly by that prophet of pugalism Mike Tyson: "everyone has a plan until they get hit in the mouth".

To close, I'd remind folks (or inform new comers) that we first discussed the 'North Hole' issue way back during the 2010 melt season. IJIS (the joint U Alaska/JAXA group) made the following comment:

Please note that this area is also counted as sea-ice cover in our estimation of sea-ice extent. We may change the policy (i.e., filling the gap with full coverage of sea ice) in the near future due to the recent drastic reduction of Arctic sea ice. We will announce this if it is implemented.

Neven has a tag for blog posts on this issue, North Hole.

Cheers,
Lodger

Jim Hunt

Bill/Rob - "Tamino" didn't call me names, but he didn't answer the questions I posed (in graphic detail!) either.

Perhaps he is allergic to "cryo-alarmists" as well as "cryo-denialists"? Even so it still strikes me as rather strange behaviour on his part.

wayne

Jim

Yes that is true, but I rather think Kevin's remark was "cryo-correctis", besides I am rather intrigued by what I see on JAXA, white solid pack one day, expanded nearly correct interpretation the other, then back to denser white pack the next day. Love the JAXA work (despite limitations) for many reasons but this is also strange behavior

wayne

http://eh2r.blogspot.ca/2016/09/jaxa-density-jumps.html

JAXA density daily jumps are very interesting, could it be from snowfall?:

http://eh2r.blogspot.ca/2016/09/vast-expansion-of-scattered-sea-ice.html

Or something yet to be discovered.

Ghoti20

Wayne,

So if the winds stay calm and the temperature drops then the expanses of submerged snow become thin first year ice. Is this right?

That thin first year ice immediately becomes a somewhat insulating layer very early in the freezing season slowing the heat lose and potentially reducing the first year ice thickness for the winter.

wayne

Ghoti20

Winds are cancelled between broken pack ice, yes, heat is no longer released but also heat is kept under. If this happens on a larger scale, there should be cooling, similar to effects of new sea ice, at the moment sea water is too warm to form sea ice. The snow layer on top of new ice is what matters for reducing sea ice build up. Moisture becomes important for that reason, at present over all Arctic atmosphere is very moist now. Will show the link for that later.

D

Multiple points:

1. to Neven: Upticks in the September DMI 80N temperature curve may be caused by weather, not heat released as ice forms. There was a blast of warm air off of Eurasia that may have caused the recent temperature uptick.

2. to Wayne: You have a valid point that the 15% metric isn't the same as it used to be when the central pack was solid, but changing yardsticks won't get rid of the problem. What we are really lacking today is buoys that measure ice and water column properties through the year. The reduction in funding for buoys is a very serious problem. Warmer, saltier water below and accelerated flow of water into and out of the Arctic ocean as low pressure deepens on the Atlantic side of the Arctic is a huge problem. Our problems with the 15% extent limit are small potatoes.

3: Snow that falls on sea water will take up seawater in its pores. If that sea water is salty, the salt will affect the melting point of the new snow. It the water was already about to freeze the snow may be the tipping point that causes a rapid freeze over. That may be what recently happened.

-Fish

wayne

very much in agreement D

I am keeping an eye on the evolution of our local submerged snow. if sst's are too warm (-1) snow doesn't melt, ice doesn't form. Any change in air temperature up or down may increase sea water extent or start a freeze-up, right now clouds keep the snow steady floating just under a small layer of water. Note to JAXA people, a way to differentiate submerged snow from sea ice is to use temperature signature profiles, submerged snow may give a temperature signature same or close to open water, unlike new ice taking the temperature closer to surface air.

Gerald Spezio

Neven, I am shocked by your naive hope-ism;

"Whatever it is we're doing to stop this from getting worse in decades to come, we need to do it faster."

Every day we are making it worse.

"There is no way to turn this ship around."

John Christensen

Gerald,

Not that it would be necessary to defend Neven, but consider that you yourself decided to acquire the technological device enabling you to contribute on this blog.

The fact that we all can and do contribute to these blogs with devices manufactured from metals, compounds and materials mined and fabricated across the planet, together with the myriad of similar decisions made by billions of people every day is exactly what brought us to this day.

So here it is: Are you willing to switch off, not just tonight, but for the rest of your life? Get yourself to a natural state of consumptive equilibrium with your natural environment?

If you are not, then your only hope is the gradual adjustment that I think deep down most of us are hoping for, as naïve as it may seem.

Neven

Gerald, it's not really hope. There are just some things we can't foresee, and so I'm open to the possibility that some things can be salvaged.

Not the ice, I don't think it can be saved. But maybe we can bring it back. That's why it's important that we're watching and learning about it.

Francesco Meneguzzo

Ref. "hope": I think that - assuming we're more or less in nobody's land with arctic sea ice, with regards to the impacts of its relentless decline/disappearance on the NH and global climate - it's quite a bitter irony that its fate represents one of the last chances to bring back the attention of the more and more insouciant global community and boost the only real "hope". I.e., using the residual resources (money, but really energy and mineral resources) - currently being wasted at accelerated pace in search for an unlikely economic growth - to shift the energy paradigm towards renewable sources (associated with storage and electrification of energy end-uses). Otherwise, business as usual and pray for the gradual adjustment suggested by John Christensen.

viddaloo
Not the ice, I don't think it can be saved. But maybe we can bring it back. That's why it's important that we're watching and learning about it.

Neven, I'm not sure I grasp the difference between save and bring back. If u can bring back sea ice, surely that amounts to saving it?

Rob Dekker

Bill said

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/09/11/climate-deniers-embarrass-themselves-about-arctic-sea-ice/

Like many others, I also thought the response was a tad over the top.


I read the post by Kevin and Tamino's response.
I don't see anything "over the top" there.
I think that Tamino did not understand the point that Kevin was making about the 15% cut-off.
And frankly speaking, neither do I.

Regarding the "pole-hole" argument, this 24k (AMSR2) or 29k (NSIDC) difference is a very small speck on the radar.
Jim Hunt has shown that there was a lot of low concentration ice at the NP this year, but it would be hard to argue that this was less than 15% concentration. So this pole hole would NOT have influenced ice "extent" at all, and would have influenced ice "area" only by something less than 24-29 k km^2. Something that would get lost in the noise. So again : What's the big deal ?

Neven
Neven, I'm not sure I grasp the difference between save and bring back. If u can bring back sea ice, surely that amounts to saving it?

I guess that technically speaking 'bring back from the dead' and 'save' are the same thing. But there's a difference between 'bring back from the dead' and 'prevent from dying'.

AnotherJourneybyTrain

To 'bring back from the dead' implies a lot of stagnation. This is what Dr David Mills was getting at when he said several years ago that it is now impossible to not break the 440ppm barrier yet we're still not sure if it's possible to go over it and then come back under it.

Stagnation seems to be the plan. Not just that- everyone knows about it, too!

My concerns are that of panic: I would be getting very concerned if the sea ice went under the 2 million mark in the near future for this reason alone.

AnotherJourneybyTrain

http://phys.org/news/2016-09-unprecedented-atmospheric-behavior-disrupts-earth.html

This link tells of a change in the Quasi Biennial Oscillation.

Western Australia was very cold this Autumn and Winter: could this be a reason why?

Could it also effect the Arctic sea ice making it worse as it already predicts that the Arctic sea is causing it in the first place??

Bill Fothergill

@ Rob "... I read the post by Kevin and Tamino's response. I don't see anything "over the top" there. ..."

Here are three of the responses given to Kevin by Tamino ...

[Response: I suspect you don’t really understand the meaning or consequences of uncertainty in concentration measurements.]

[Response: Bold assertions by someone who “learned just enough to get the statistics I needed” are not often appreciated.]

[Response: No, my statement was based on your other rambling.]

Those are not little snippets taken out of context from more fulsome responses - they are the responses in their entirety. I strongly suspect that most people would find the above statements to be dismissive, contemptuous and belittling if directed at them. One of the contributors to the Open Mind blog also thought this way and wrote...

"Tamino, you’re being rather rude. He doesn’t appear to be a denier (correct me if I’m wrong)—even if he was you should still stay (relatively) polite—and is not saying that sea ice isn’t declining, so your responses have not been appropriate. ..."

...

Moving on to the pole hole, as you correctly state, this represents an area (depending upon the actual satellite swath path and analysis algorithm) of approximately 25 thousand sq kms. As such, this is small change in the overall picture. Things may have changed in the interim, but I seem to recall that the NSIDC have (had?) an uncertainty range of +/- 50k sq kms on their daily values.

If the entire pole hole was covered by one sodding great polyna, it still wouldn't have much impact on the numbers. As I explicitly stated in Comment #2758 on the Home Brew AMSR2 thread...

"... I don't think it represents any significant level of "over reporting" ..."

I have absolutely no idea how you have come to the conclusion that I think otherwise, and would really appreciate it if you can point me to the relevant comment or, heaven forfend, comments.

If it transpires that I have either mis-typed, or phrased something in an ambiguous fashion, I will be delighted to be given the opportunity to supply a correction/clarification.

wayne

Unless the remote sensing people compensate for floating/submerged snow by SST temperature compensation, there should be wild variations in extent/area. I with Polar bears :( ! noted that thick layer floating snow melts rapidly with surface air temperatures just above 0 C. By extrapolation, sea ice extent numbers may vary a great deal with extensive snow showers covering wide areas and subsequently either greater winds or just above 0 C weather.

Bill, the larger question is Who is Tamino? He can't be a french near genius mathematician not having his morning croissant at times?
We will never know, but he is still greatly appreciated. Like we love beautiful Paris, but can't never know how it was made with some of its rude Parisians :)

wayne

http://eh2r.blogspot.ca/2016/09/05-c-cloudy-weather-melts-submerged.html

Yes floating/submerged snow saga continues.

NeilT

I think there has to be an element of pragmatism here.

A few years back there was a lot of talk about how AGW had somehow "stopped" because of the lack of solid temperature rise. Even though there was a lot of 98 cherry picking going on, the rise was not quite so precipitous.

A lot of studying later, the answer comes up. 90% of the heat which is held in the planet, each year, is locked in the deep ocean and takes about 30 years to make it into the general environment.

So 90% of the 2015 heat will, if the theory is correct, emerge in 2045. When the CO2ppm value will be, at a minimum, 60ppm higher than today and at a worst case 90ppm higher than today.

There is no cause for optimism or even hope of a recovery in our lifetimes. All we can do is provide a solid historical record so that whatever is left of our society, 100 years from now, will be able to pass on how not to manage the planet to their descendants. If, as is unlikely, that message survives intact for the next 10,000 years.

Of will it just morph into a "Great Flood" story to be carried along by every religion on the planet?

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.)