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

Comments

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

P-maker

Neven,

quite lyrical, but still a splendid summary of what actually happened.

Thanks!

viddaloo

Neven,

it seems you forgot to mention that 2016 JAXA sea ice extent was, you know, lowest ever. This year is a record low year for Arctic sea ice. Definitely worth mentioning in a melt season summary, no?


Big: http://i.imgur.com/tiVYCH8.png

Oh, and you seem to also have forgotten to say that 2016 JAXA extent also beat the previously longest string of consecutively lowest days, the 83 days back in 2012. This year had no less than 90 such days, so 2016 was a record low year even that way.

navegante

Superb post Neven.

Robert S

Great summary of a fascinating year. It's going to be interesting to see when the Northwest passage closes this year - temperatures are still mostly too high for meaningful freezing... and it was close to or above zero at the north pole yesterday.

Jim Hunt

Thanks for the mention Neven, and in actual fact Northabout has ultimately experienced more problems caused by cyclones than by sea ice per se. The Polar Ocean Challenge team are currently crossing the North Atlantic back to Bristol:

"Northabout Braves the North Atlantic"

14 year old Ben Edwards, who has crewed the entire Polar circumnavigation, reports:

I did my watch (eight to ten) and went straight to bed, not that that saved me. Twenty minutes later I rushed to the toilet and threw up my breakfast of porridge and tea. I then went back to bed, the swell got larger, the wind got stronger, I went back to toilet. This continued for the next ten hours. In total I threw up six times, a personal best.

Neven

I hope they make it back safe, Jim! I was happy to see them making it, especially after all the lies that had been spread wrt their expedition.

Vid, I've forgotten many more things, all of them equally (un)important. I appreciate you've taken it upon you to make people aware of the annual average graphs.

Great summary of a fascinating year. It's going to be interesting to see when the Northwest passage closes this year - temperatures are still mostly too high for meaningful freezing... and it was close to or above zero at the north pole yesterday.

Indeed, Robert. This autumn is already fascinating, what with the rapid refreeze and anomalous temps. I'm worried that Europe may experience some extreme winter weather events in months to come. Also because I still don't have proper heating in my house. ;-)

viddaloo

Lowest ever ice extent on satellite record bears mentioning. It's not about graphs per se, as there is a heated debate in the States and elsewhere about climate change, as I'm sure many people here are aware of.

wayne

Neven

"This autumn is already fascinating, what with the rapid refreeze and anomalous temps."

The two processes are incompatible, warming does not cause a rapid refreeze. "Extensive rapid dispersion" was what I observed. This is conducive for some refreezing between the pummeled vastly scattered sea ice flattening the waves.

wayne

There are as well, at least two types of new sea ice, none accrete well when temperatures are -2 C, some fresher water type was observed here in the High Arctic:

http://eh2r.blogspot.ca/2016/10/new-sea-ice-starts-from-3-important.html

Which may exist -en masse- further towards the Pole.

Hans Gunnstaddar

Thanks for the summary and this blog, Neven. Fascinating and critically important topic year round.

Andy Lee Robinson

Neven, here's another one for you - PIOMAS results just came out for September:

https://haveland.com/share/arctic-death-spiral.jpg


Tom Lyons

Hi Neven, thanks for your diligent efforts in another incredible melt season in this continuing unfolding saga of climate change emergency.

My question is to anyone here, are we possibly seeing an increase in autumn refreeze while having seemingly incompatibly high temperatures because the central Arctic Oceans surface is becoming fresher due to Greenland melt and increased permafrost melt and river outflow.. ?

Neven
Neven, here's another one for you - PIOMAS results just came out for September:

Thanks, Andy!

What a coincidence. I thought about you today, and that piano piece you wrote to accompany your Arctic death spiral video.

Andy Lee Robinson

Thanks Neven, glad you liked it.
It was just a short improvisation after spending 3 days rendering and wondering what might go with it, so I just played from my heart!

I'm currently relearning and hacking last year's multi-thousand line code to make a new ice cube video, so will have to stretch it a little more, or even redo.

Hopefully the results should be ready in a few days.

wayne

Hi Tom

"My question is to anyone here, are we possibly seeing an increase in autumn refreeze while having seemingly incompatibly high temperatures because the central Arctic Oceans surface is becoming fresher due to Greenland melt and increased permafrost melt and river outflow.. ? "

Good suggestion, the answer would be largely no, because most water from Greenland tends to flow Southwards, however, if you observe the sat photos on record with NASA EOSDIS you may find something unexpected. Look for fast ice freeze up dates from autumn onwards.

There is a DALEK ship, not seeking extermination of the human race for a change, because we might be doing it to ourselves,. No sci-fi imagination is needed -1 C reported by DALX very near the Pole today, see the map and the horror in real time:

http://eh2r.blogspot.ca/2016/10/sea-surface-temperature-18-c-is-thermal.html

The science is nice if you don't worry about the future.

Ghoti20

Wayne,
Thanks for posting the images of what is actually happening near Resolute. The only other sources of visual "ground truth" left are Barrow, AK's webcam and the Obuoy 14 camera.

Through the light fog I didn't see any ice in the water off of Barrow and Obuoy 14 just showed it was night.

I thought that after the ice formed from falling snow near Resolute the ice was set for the winter there. Your photos clearly show that it didn't last. Thanks for the photos.

wayne

Hi Ghoti20

Sometimes the snow floats long enough to help form sea ice earlier, but that requires 2 conditions, no waves and stable cold temperatures. This year the only thing stable is warmer temperatures with occasional seasonal readings.

Jim Hunt

In keeping with the "image" theme, here is Northabout in the Chukchi Sea:

Similar seas in the Beaufort broke her auto-helm, which was successfully repaired in Tuktoyaktuk. The point being that not so very long ago there was ice where now there are large waves. Here's a new paper from Jim Thomson, Peter Wadhams et al.:

"Emerging trends in the sea state of the Beaufort and Chukchi seas"

Amongst other things it concludes:

The process of wind-wave generation in partial ice cover is likely far more complex than present models suggest and is in acute need of improved understanding.

Robert S

It is a most curious combination of above average temperatures and ice formation. I would have expected at least two of the following three key factors were necessary for broad ice formation: sustained air temperatures below -10C or so, calm conditions, sea temperatures -2C or so. In the areas from the Pole to the Bering sea, none of these conditions seems to have been met for any period of time, yet we are seeing broad ice formation in the satellite imagery. Always something new to learn... but this one escapes me.

jdallen_wa

Robert S -
A lot of the current thinking on the forums is that the coverage expansion is driven in part by fresher surface water, and increased snowfall due to the large volumes of moisture being imported into the Arctic.

Snow being fresh, remains frozen in the -1.0 to -1.8 degree water. The water being somewhat fresher then forms additional ice around the slush on the surface.

It wouldn't be too hard to get 10-20CM of this, which could be piled up further, but still increase both area and extent significantly. However, it is very different from what we would see with a "hard" freeze with temperatures well below -10C.

michael sweet

Snow will not remain frozen if it falls into -1C sea water at 1.035. The melting point of the ice is determined by the equilibrium of the ice water mix, not by the purity of the water in the ice. If someone says that snow remains frozen in warmer water they need to review their basic chemistry. How do you explain salt removing the ice from roads in winter?

The surface water may be less salty, but ice cannot survive in water warmer than the equilibrium (freezing) temperature. If you claim that the water is less salty you have to explain why the surface is not mixing well this year with all the storms and waves. What is different from last year?

If the surface adds 10-20 cm of ice it is freezing. Why is that different from normal? Your argument contradicts itself. Do you have data to support your claim that the surface is much less salty than it was last year?

I make ice cream all the time by adding salt to fresh water ice at 0C. The temperature goes down as the salt dissolves until it reaches equilibrium.

viddaloo

Thanks, guys!

We now have a weekly drop of area in the CAB of 43 k km². Yesterday's drop, for scale, was 39 k km², so pretty big thing for October.

Big: http://i.imgur.com/5OMphDI.png

Any chance numbers for 2012 fall season might come online? Dunno if that's up to Wipneus or Uni Hamburg.

wayne

Michael Sweet:

"Snow will not remain frozen if it falls into -1C sea water at 1.035. "

Nature seems to contradict your statement:

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

Snow in sea water colder than 0 floats and can remain slightly submerged for days, unless it is windy or surface air exceeds +0 C temperature. I have a lot more evidence, over many days , not presented.

"f you claim that the water is less salty you have to explain why the surface is not mixing well "

That is simple, imagine open water vs pummeled broken up sea ice, open water has a lot of waves in the littlest wind, sea ice cancels the waves.

Perhaps your chemistry deeper knowledge may explain why snow remains in sea water colder than 0?

wayne

Viddaloo

I am patiently waiting for some to acknowledge that there was a great sea ice dispersion event.. Of the likes never seen before... Perhaps that is why they didn't really recognize it? It didn't compute in their mental history of Arctic sea ice melts...

If there would be a mini Arctic dipole event, much bigger sea ice extent drop would open their eyes perhaps? I wait....

Robert S

Wayne: I agree that there was a huge amount of dispersion which had a substantial effect on the extent minimum. But what I'm seeing now is new ice... or at least something ice-like... over big areas. The snow explanation may well be correct, although I am amazed that it is as persistent as it seems to be, since it would seem that meaningful consolidation under those conditions would require sea water to freeze in the interstitial spaces of the snow layer. Perhaps there is just enough snow melt and refreezing to allow the fresh water from the melt to take on that role.

wayne

Robert S

Snow in sea water is very interesting and requires a bit more attention, remember there is drifting snow as well, well cooled
and very effective in accelerating the freeze-up process, cooling top of sea water from within. I am glad you recognized the great dispersion event at minima just past, which of course makes it easier for sea ice to form, but we are witnessing something new on top of this, the extremely warm vicinity North Pole temperatures suggest it so. Something like the freeze-up is not accreting rapidly in a positive feedback partial open water fueling a persistent cyclone presence process .

Rob Dekker

Wayne said :


Michael Sweet:
"Snow will not remain frozen if it falls into -1C sea water at 1.035. "
Nature seems to contradict your statement:

Wayne, I'm not convinced at all.
Michael Sweet has a point that ice in contact with salt will melt unless the water is colder than -1.8 C.
That is basic physics.

The fact that the Arctic north of 80 C froze over rather quickly this year suggests that the water was cold (-1.8C) likely because it opened up only recently and did not have time to warm up.

Now the ice edge encounters water that has been 'open' for months, and that water is warmer than -1.8C and thus requires time before it releases its heat, and thus the rate of freezing slows down.

Nothing magical about it.

wayne

Rob,

How fascinating that I have evidence to the contrary in every details enunciated, look at the links I have presented, Remember, snow does not mix with colder water, its more like brined out sea ice melting last because its melting point point is close to 0 C. You are probably thinking that its like spreading salt on snow on a walkway, but that is not the case. There is immiscible solid and liquid actually observed many times. Basic physics prime rule is observe, then explain. I also suggest the top layer of Arctic sea water is not as salty as the Mediterranean sea.

"year suggests that the water was cold (-1.8C) likely because it opened up only recently and did not have time to warm up."

Great suggestion not supported by evidence. :

http://www.weather.gc.ca/data/analysis/351_100.gif

Look for -1 C sst.....

I appreciate your skepticism, especially offered in such a cordial and friendly way. How refreshing. This is how science prospers.

Rob Dekker

wayne said :

Remember, snow does not mix with colder water, its more like brined out sea ice melting last because its melting point point is close to 0 C.

Here is one suggestion :
Put a glass of salt water in your freezer, salty enough not to freeze, and then put some snow on top of it.
According to you it should last, but it does not. It will melt.

Great suggestion not supported by evidence. :

What are we looking at here ? And how did they obtain these numbers ? And why are there no numbers on the ice free parts of the Arctic ?

Rob Dekker

Wayne, regarding your reference, it simply STATES that the water was 1.0 C when it retained the snow that fell on it. You don't know that, and basic physics suggests that that water was -1.8 C, with no heat to spare that could melt the snow.

Of course that water was -1.8 C, since it was surrounded by ice. If it were any warmer than -1.8 C, it would have quickly melted some ice and cooled down to -1.8 C.

The point is that water surrounded by ice (as in the heavily dispersed ice pack this year) ALWAYS cools down to -1.8 C. If it were warmer, it would melt some ice and then drop to -1.8 C.

There is physically no way in which the water between the floes would be any warmer than -1.8 C given the salinity in the Arctic.

Susan Anderson

Superb indeed.

Jim Hunt, I had been worried about Northabout crossing the Atlantic. Quite a few hurricanes made their way northeast rather than making landfall. In fact, there's an extratropical right now in what I sometimes call the armpit of Alaska.

Do let us know when they make it. Doesn't seem a good time to be crossing.

Susan Anderson

Yes, I know Alaska is on the Pacific side, the storms I mentioned were unrelated. Here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F00X0SB99vY

(and I see I mislocated it too; it's in the Bering Sea.)

viddaloo

Great discussion, guys. Thank you!

Our destruction of Arctic sea ice carries on into winter:

See the full–size graph & read the whole blog post here: http://www.wunderground.com/blog/viddaloo/arctic-sea-ice-collapse-7-september7-october-annual-average-extent

John Christensen

That's a point well made Rob, you can have:

1. An open ice-free area with water temp higher than -1,8c OR
2. An area with remaining sea ice mix at -1,8C

With sea ice present the SST simply will be -1,8C, and there will be no heat left to melt snow on the water surface.

John Christensen

viddaloo,

I don't fully understand your graph above: You mention on Wunderground that the dotted line is the 'likely' future extent and the blue area is the confidence interval.

However, it seems like the dotted line is the extreme negative possibility, while the most likely development should be centered in the blue area.

Please explain.

viddaloo

John,

I don't think I mention on Wunderground that the dotted line is the 'likely' future extent, so then that's settled. I assume you must have read my post the wrong way, and as explained further towards the end of the page–long blog post, this happens about once every month. Meaning you're not alone! :)

navegante

The sides of Wrangel arm were very broken ice edge by storm, with open water reaching near 85N compacted by mega dipole, with no time of insolation whatsoever, in a region of the Arctic with bathimetry that suggests heat carried by currents more difficult.
Temperature close to -1.8 C, period. Weather changed, rapid refreeze due to cold winds blowing from the ice extracting the little heat needed to reach refreezing at tremendous pace. The ice pack-water interface was long, basic propagation law explains how swift it was, and as I said then, only initially.
DMI SST maps showed blobs of +3C SST anomalies north of 80N that were arctifacts or just inaccurate. Fooled some of us.

Jim Hunt

Susan - There was a somewhat anxious wait yesterday when Northabout stopped reporting her position for a while:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/09/northabout-braves-the-north-atlantic/#Oct-08

However regular reports have resumed, and confirm that the crew are now past the halfway point on their quest to locate a hostelry that will serve them some Guinness:

I don't think there is an ideal time to cross the North Atlantic in Autumn, but conditions have now eased somewhat. The next anticipated problem is headwinds due to the approach of another low pressure system next week.

John Christensen

viddaloo,

Correct; I really do not understand the relationship between the confidence interval and the dotted-line, but that's probably fine.

viddaloo
I really do not understand the relationship between the confidence interval and the dotted-line, but that's probably fine.

Yeah, it's not the end of the world. I mean, I sleep very well at night knowing there's people out there who do not understand the relationship between the confidence interval and the dotted-line.

wayne

Hi Rob,

"Here is one suggestion :
Put a glass of salt water in your freezer, salty enough not to freeze, and then put some snow on top of it.
According to you it should last, but it does not. It will melt."

No thanks! got the real thing to look at, please try it , but a glass of water is not a mixed layer of layered various saline concentrations caused by time an also mixed surface sea ice objects, mixing not mixing. I believe there is only a University scaled down real model , with water ice and salt, which can replicate this. University of Leicester or Exeter UK (if memory serves partially) ??

" the top sea ice is smooth the bottom ravaged by -1 C water"
as per my reference, -1 not +1 C. Measured by very accurate thermometer

"The point is that water surrounded by ice (as in the heavily dispersed ice pack this year) ALWAYS cools down to -1.8 C. If it were warmer, it would melt some ice and then drop to -1.8 C.

There is physically no way in which the water between the floes would be any warmer than -1.8 C given the salinity in the Arctic."

Dispersion degrees matter, close close pack 2 meter gaps) does cool sea water, further dispersed much less, but keep in mind the water flows around ice pans if there is some Tide or otherwise current.

By the way I still have submerged snow here to look and study directly. It is like Slush you can buy at the Quicky mart or 7/11. But has a crystalline matrix structure failing instantly once moved out, seems there is ice surrounding the snow in small clumps.

When there is a lot of snow showers we can obverse it as far as the horizon permits. Refraction wise, it gives a similar but not quite same thermal structure as sea ice. I am studying this when possible and its very difficult subject given that sea surface is not homogenous most times.

.

wayne

Navegante

"DMI SST maps showed blobs of +3C SST anomalies north of 80N that were arctifacts or just inaccurate. Fooled some of us."

It was possible, keep in mind the tide current etc. Another point is that open water went further than 85 N in a sector , which means a lot more warming than otherwise with ice cover. Is not a simple subject, better observe and try to explain, than to simply outright reject.

Ghoti20

I think it is important to realize that Wayne lives in the high arctic. While most of us view and discuss modeled results of remote sensors (mostly satellite based) and try to relate it to our knowledge of physics and chemistry Wayne is standing outside with an expensive thermometer and a camera.

There is a difference between theory and models which mostly assume equilibrium conditions and actual conditions.

When Wayne reports that large snowfalls in the fall can result in floating snow it is because he is standing there and is seeing it live. It really doesn't matter if it is not "theoretically" possible - he is there observing it.

He also reports how dynamic the conditions are and how sometimes the eventual result is solid ice and sometimes open water reforms. All assumptions of mixing and equilibrium are likely not completely correct. Reality tends to be must less tidy than models

wayne

thanks Ghoti20

Could not have said it better myself, I believe also that the very latent but imposing talent here needs live data. On many occasions we argue theory without observations.

Once well informed, and also up to date with the latest sea ice news on this website, participants and especially the unknown, highly connected or not lurkers, form an impressive gathering of knowledge ready to help spread out what is happening at key information hubs. Otherwise sea ice is largely a void in the minds of many.

viddaloo

Something very much out of the ordinary is happening to the Arctic right now, this season:


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

This plot compares the current plunge to the two most extreme such plunges over the past decade. Delta symbols indicate the point of the same angle or daily delta in Annual Average Extent, so that we can see whereabout on the Cliff we are right now. If this cliff continues, it could take us down maybe 1/4 to 1/2 million km2 in annual averages. What would be super astonishing is that something like this is possible even during freeze–up. Not sure that it is, but all the heat stored in the system might trigger a similar cliff.

PS: John, on a related note, the worsened situation today shows the dotted line posted yesterday was *not* the 'extreme negative possibility', as today's outlook is even more bleak. But my app needed one more day of data to paint such a bleak picture.

viddaloo

Lots of people saying there was no JAXA data today. Try this link instead? Works every day: http://glohug.no/ice/jaxa.php

Jim Hunt

Even if the JAXA extent graph isn't updating you can usually get the underlying data from:

https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop.ver1/data/graph/plot_extent_n_v2.csv

Whilst the refreeze has slowed almost to a standstill according to standard JAXA extent, Wipneus' high res AMSR2 area and extent have both been reducing recently:

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

wayne

Jim and Viddaloo

Nothing surprising given mini dipole with very dispersed sea ice interspersed with widely scattered broken Multiyear with thinnest first year amongst floating snow and open water combined with feedback driven record warmest temperatures .

AnotherJourneybyTrain

Great picture of the multi-year sea ice age over at NSIDC.

There was a bar graph with green lines comparing this years minima figures to the highest minima figures in the sattelite record: is it possible to be misled by this? If not, things don't look good imho, ..but perhaps there is an archived series of this bar graph over the years for a more thorough and correct assesment?!!!?

John Christensen

On the 'Plunge-O-Rama',

viddaloo, your metric is annual averages, so you need to treat it like an annual metric and not a point in time metric.

A 'plunge' in point in time data indicates a drop in that data point compared to the prior measuring point, e.g. daily, weekly, monthly drop.

However, a 'plunge' in an annual average means a relative drop in the most current data point compared to the data point leaving the annual average.
The plunges in 2007 and 2012 during summer therefore indicates that SIE in the summer of 2007 and 2012 dropped more than was the case in 2006 and 2011 respectively.

This year the most significant drop happened April to July, because the SIE in this period dropped more than was the case in April to July 2015.

Therefore you also have half the answer to what will happen to the '2016' annual average in the coming months, because we already know how the SIE fluctuated in 2015.

That we currently happen to experience the same degree of drop in the relative change of 2016/2015 compared to 2007/2006 and 2012/2011 means absolutely nothing and to try a extract a pattern or other repeated behavior is nonsense.

A tennis player who made it to the semi-finals in a tournament, but losing points in their ranking, because he/she won the tournament the prior year will probably agree to that.

viddaloo

John,

tennis is a good analogy for why what you're doing is simply wrong.

Rather than running for the ball and returning it, you're screaming 'OUT' every time a ball comes over the net. A certain namesake of yours from the Wimbledon finals comes to mind.

Your gut feeling tells you every time that the other player has made a mistake, and, this is my point, even when he hasn't. This is why your replies get boring as time progresses (and you do not).

If you look at the 'Plunge–o–Rama' plot again, you will see like the rest of us that both the 2007 and 2012 record plunges end in November/December. What this means is that "SIE in the summer of 2007 and 2012 dropped more than was the case in 2006 and 2011 respectively" isn't entirely correct, as both of them also started to go up during September.

So just like 2016's plunge in AAE, even the 2007 plunge and the 2012 plunge shown in the plot consist of refreezing slower than the year prior, thus giving drops in AAE.

Therefore you also have half the answer to what will happen to the '2016' annual average in the coming months, because we already know how the SIE fluctuated in 2015.

Here's where you do particularly bad work. The most extreme plunges shown in the Plunge–o–Rama plot come not 'half' because of the prior year, but because of significant relative drops in the very year graphed. These are extreme events, and we can all learn from them and set out to try and understand why they happen.

Instead of just yelling 'OUT!' no matter what sort of ball comes at us — which is bad tennis and also makes for bad TV — we can in other words look for similarities in the prior decade and attempt to learn from them.

At the moment I'm looking at Arctic Ocean heat budgets as explanations for this repeated behaviour. I'm also looking at the resultant extreme gain in the first year following 2007 and 2012 in terms of the heat budget being spent, or vented to space.

That is an interesting discussion. Waiting for 'John McEnroe' to scream OUT! isn't.

John Christensen

viddaloo,

Please, there is no need to get agitated.

Here is where it seems like you are misinterpreting the calculation:

"even the 2007 plunge and the 2012 plunge shown in the plot consist of refreezing slower than the year prior, thus giving drops in AAE."

No: Autumn of 2007 or 2012 did not refreeze slower than 2006 or 2011; in fact they refroze faster, as you see here:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

What the AAE for each day will do is this: If SIE of 2006 is higher than for 2007 for any given day, then AAE will drop.
The rate of daily increase in 2006 vs. 2007 only determines the slope of the drop.

Eventually the 2007 SIE caught up with 2006 SIE around Nov. 12-14., after which the AAE starting rising.

When comparing SIE of Sept. 15 and Oct. 8, you have these differences (NSIDC Charctic):

2007 vs. 2006: 1,630K km2 and 1,527K km2
2012 vs. 2011: 1,042K km2 and 1,002K km2
2016 vs. 2015: 143K km2 and 334K km2

As you see the slope of the drop decreased between Sept. 15 and Oct. 8 for 2007/06 and 2012/11, but increased for 2016/15.

However, in the next six weeks by virtue of the decrease in sun radiation, the difference between extreme low SIE years and other years will decrease, as a thin layer of new ice will spread.

Therefore:

- A steep drop in AAE is more easily attained in Aug/Sept, where the remaining ice is very vulnerable to wind action
- The steep drop for 2007 AAE continuing in October only happened due to high SIE increase in Oct. 2006
- Since SIE currently is higher than 2007, and 2015 SIE did not catch up with 2006 SIE before Nov., there is virtually zero possibility for the 2016 AAE drop to mirror that seen in 2007.

John Christensen

Regarding the heat budget, I agree it would be interesting to know more, as the accumulated heat must be accounted for somewhere.

Therefore, I was as surprised as everyone else, how the record melt of summer 2012 could turn into the very decent winter season of 2012/13, which to me seemed to be the result of benevolent weather/clear skies starting October 2012 and lasting all winter.

viddaloo
Please, there is no need to get agitated.
John, at no point did I say I was 'agitated'. Here's what I said:
Your gut feeling tells you every time that the other player has made a mistake, and, this is my point, even when he hasn't. This is why your replies get boring as time progresses (and you do not).
This means I am bored, not agitated. For the reasons well stated.
Since SIE currently is higher than 2007, and 2015 SIE did not catch up with 2006 SIE before Nov., there is virtually zero possibility for the 2016 AAE drop to mirror that seen in 2007.
Your premise makes no sense whatsoever, but I can read from your conclusion that you believe
there is virtually zero possibility for the 2016 AAE drop to mirror that seen in 2007
Now, I didn't say it would "mirror that seen in 2007", however I did say:
If this cliff continues, it could take us down maybe 1/4 to 1/2 million km2 in annual averages. What would be super astonishing is that something like this is possible even during freeze–up. Not sure that it is, but all the heat stored in the system might trigger a similar cliff.

But now that you've shown such eager interest in the near future of the JAXA — not NSIDC — Annual Average Extent for 2016, maybe I could urge you to make an estimate that is slightly more specific than just "zero possibility for the 2016 AAE drop to mirror that seen in 2007"?

Where do you see AAE going on Nov 1, Dec 1 & Jan 1?

John Christensen

viddaloo,

I accept the challenge, thanks, and will bring estimates later this week.

wayne

2012 had a core of relatively unaffected sea ice which fostered a winter zone at its centre after the minima. 2013 revealed and introduced the new Arctic Ocean melt circulation to come with steady cyclonic presence, which appear to have slowed down summer melting, But that wasn’t really so,
the failure of the popular measurement metrics largely help overlooked that 2013 had significant
areas of badly broken up sea ice. 2013 autumn started cooler because of the scattering but again with a significant similar to 2012 dense pack good to start winter earlier zone. 2013-14 and 2014-15 seasons continued the decline with again the persistence of cyclones, Winter 2015-16 sea ice was so thinned reducing the building of winter, allowing encroachment of South in origin cyclones to warm the Arctic Ocean in at least 5 different warm waves events especially on steroids from El-Nino. Summer 2016 melt continued again with summer cyclonic incursions briefly cut off during spring by a big Blue event which was a mega dipole driven by no Arctic clouds enhanced by La-Nina trending rapidly. But again the cyclones affected summer circulation and this is the continuing trend to come, End of melt 2016 had a very surprising mega dispersion event which in retrospect was the result of the liquefaction of the Transpolar Stream , which was a first in history. This de-coiling of densest pack ice and persistent cyclones hanging between open sea water and ice have muddled the view of how serious 2016 melt was because we largely look at sea ice extent numbers while some commenters confuse freezing without considering dispersion.

John Christensen

Later being now:

These would be my estimates based on current JAXA SIE, conditions and forecast:

- 2016 SIE to catch up with 2015 SIE by Nov. 1-20.
- Nov. 1 JAXA SIE: 8.5 +/- 0.3
- Dec. 1 JAXA SIE: 10.8 +/- 0.2
- Jan. 1 JAXA SIE: 12.7 +/- 0.3

In other words, I expect the AAE to continue dropping in the next 3-5 weeks, since this is how long it will likely take for this year to catch up with 2015 again (2015 and 2016 having equal SIE the last days of September).

Once 2016 has caught up with 2015, I expect the 2016 AAE to be nearly flat or slightly upward sloping, as the warm winter of 2015/16 started impacting sea ice extent and volume.

The positive AO of summer 2016 and very recent negative AO should both work in the opposite direction of the very warm and cloudy winter of 2015/15 and very sunny start of the 2016 spring.

John Christensen

In return, please share the JAXA SIE numbers you expect for this to happen and by when:

"it could take us down maybe 1/4 to 1/2 million km2 in annual averages."

viddaloo

John,

please observe that you promised:

I accept the challenge, thanks, and will bring estimates later this week.

when I urged you to:

make an estimate that is slightly more specific than just "zero possibility for the 2016 AAE drop to mirror that seen in 2007"?

Where do you see AAE going on Nov 1, Dec 1 & Jan 1?

Saying daily sea ice extent from JAXA will be like

- Nov. 1 JAXA SIE: 8.5 +/- 0.3 - Dec. 1 JAXA SIE: 10.8 +/- 0.2 - Jan. 1 JAXA SIE: 12.7 +/- 0.3

amounts to failure to respond to my challenge. But that's OK.

As for your claim that

Autumn of 2007 or 2012 did not refreeze slower than 2006 or 2011; in fact they refroze faster

this is just plain wrong. My claim that "even the 2007 plunge and the 2012 plunge shown in the plot consist of refreezing slower than the year prior" thus stands.

In the following list, an asterisk (*) indicates that the year in question (2007/12) had a drop instead of an increase on that day:

2007 S15 refroze slower* than 2006
2007 S16 refroze slower than 2006
2007 S17 refroze slower* than 2006
2007 S18 refroze slower than 2006
2007 S19 refroze faster than 2006
2007 S20 refroze faster than 2006
2007 S21 refroze slower* than 2006
2007 S22 refroze slower* than 2006
2007 S23 refroze slower* than 2006
2007 S24 refroze slower* than 2006
2007 S25 refroze slower than 2006
2007 S26 refroze faster than 2006
2007 S27 refroze faster than 2006
2007 S28 refroze faster than 2006
2007 S29 refroze faster than 2006
2007 S30 refroze faster than 2006
2007 O1 refroze faster than 2006
2007 O2 refroze slower than 2006
2007 O3 refroze slower than 2006
2007 O4 refroze slower than 2006
2007 O5 refroze faster than 2006
2007 O6 refroze faster than 2006
2007 O7 refroze faster than 2006
2007 O8 refroze faster than 2006
2007 O9 refroze faster than 2006
2007 O10 refroze slower than 2006
2007 O11 refroze slower than 2006
2007 O12 refroze slower* than 2006
2007 O13 refroze slower than 2006
2007 O14 refroze slower than 2006
2007 O15 refroze slower than 2006
2007 O16 refroze slower than 2006
2007 O17 refroze slower than 2006
2007 O18 refroze faster than 2006
2007 O19 refroze faster than 2006
2007 O20 refroze faster than 2006
2007 O21 refroze faster than 2006
2007 O22 refroze faster than 2006
2007 O23 refroze faster than 2006
2007 O24 refroze slower than 2006
2007 O25 refroze faster than 2006
2007 O26 refroze faster than 2006
2007 O27 refroze faster than 2006
2007 O28 refroze faster than 2006
2007 O29 refroze faster than 2006
2007 O30 refroze faster than 2006
2007 O31 refroze slower than 2006

2012 S11 refroze slower* than 2011
2012 S12 refroze slower* than 2011
2012 S13 refroze slower* than 2011
2012 S14 refroze slower* than 2011
2012 S15 refroze slower* than 2011
2012 S16 refroze faster* than 2011
2012 S17 refroze faster than 2011
2012 S18 refroze faster than 2011
2012 S19 refroze faster than 2011
2012 S20 refroze faster than 2011
2012 S21 refroze slower than 2011
2012 S22 refroze slower* than 2011
2012 S23 refroze faster than 2011
2012 S24 refroze faster than 2011
2012 S25 refroze slower than 2011
2012 S26 refroze slower than 2011
2012 S27 refroze faster than 2011
2012 S28 refroze faster than 2011
2012 S29 refroze faster than 2011
2012 S30 refroze faster than 2011
2012 O1 refroze slower than 2011
2012 O2 refroze slower than 2011
2012 O3 refroze slower than 2011
2012 O4 refroze faster than 2011
2012 O5 refroze faster than 2011
2012 O6 refroze faster than 2011
2012 O7 refroze slower than 2011
2012 O8 refroze faster than 2011
2012 O9 refroze faster than 2011
2012 O10 refroze faster than 2011
2012 O11 refroze faster than 2011
2012 O12 refroze faster than 2011
2012 O13 refroze slower than 2011
2012 O14 refroze faster than 2011
2012 O15 refroze faster than 2011
2012 O16 refroze faster than 2011
2012 O17 refroze faster than 2011
2012 O18 refroze faster than 2011
2012 O19 refroze faster than 2011
2012 O20 refroze faster than 2011
2012 O21 refroze faster than 2011
2012 O22 refroze faster than 2011
2012 O23 refroze slower than 2011
2012 O24 refroze slower than 2011
2012 O25 refroze slower than 2011
2012 O26 refroze slower than 2011
2012 O27 refroze slower than 2011
2012 O28 refroze slower than 2011
2012 O29 refroze slower than 2011
2012 O30 refroze faster than 2011
2012 O31 refroze faster than 2011

John Christensen

"Autumn of 2007 or 2012 did not refreeze slower than 2006 or 2011; in fact they refroze faster"

"this is just plain wrong."

viddaloo,

I am not sure what you are doing with the 'faster/slower' logic above, but here are the refreeze numbers for the four years in question (JAXA SIE for approx. Sept. 1 to Nov. 1):

2006: 5.83 to 8.91 = 3.08M km2
2007: 4.41 to 8.12 = 3.71M km2

So the SIE increase of Sept/Oct 2007 was higher than for Sept/Oct 2006.

2011: 4.54 to 8.14 = 3.60M km2
2012: 3.45 to 7.96 = 4.51M km2

Again, SIE of 2012 increasing more than 2011.

wayne

Today's brief Infrared North Pole glimpse courtesy of NOAA satellite:

http://eh2r.blogspot.ca/2016/10/north-pole-current-sea-ice-as-terrible.html

Does show a sad state of sea ice nowhere near its former not very long ago glory. The image conveys chaos before hellish icescape freezes over.

viddaloo

Wayne,

I'm still rather stunned by your 2012–16 summary posted a couple hours ago, in particular the part applying to September 2016:

End of melt 2016 had a very surprising mega dispersion event which in retrospect was the result of the liquefaction of the Transpolar Stream, which was a first in history. This de-coiling of densest pack ice and persistent cyclones hanging between open sea water and ice have muddled the view of how serious 2016 melt was because we largely look at sea ice extent numbers

Reading up on the Transpolar Stream now, but please share a little more about how this historic liquefaction took place. Thank you for your ever challenging and interesting perspective on current events!

John Christensen

wayne,

I noticed your comment as well:

"the liquefaction of the Transpolar Stream"

Great seeing an AO related comment from you - finally! ;-)

The wind driven Transpolar Drift sends freshwater from Siberian rivers towards the Fram Strait.
The direction of the Transpolar Drift is linked to the AO: Positive AO causing counter-clockwise direction and negative AO causing a clock-wise and more direct transport of freshwater from the Siberian coastline towards Fram.

What changed about this ocean drift this year that has not happened before?

Kevin O'Neill

Wayne's website is listed in the side blogroll: Wayne Davidson's EH2R.

The first post I remember him writing on this year's Tanspolar Stream 'liquefaction' was Transpolar Stream Current is now a free flowing sea river with broken sea ice all the way to the North Atlantic back on Sept 4th.

wayne

Thanks Kevin and Viddaloo for your contributions as well,

Ha the AO, yes the famous designed temperature indicator for the good folks further South. Now we have the AO- where is the High?
What does it do? Answer a break with ice extent expansion, but wait, isn't it suppose to be more sea ice? ..... There is more, when its AO+ , if by chance there is a Low over the Arctic Ocean, where it is matters, if its North of Beaufort, as we have had for weeks, this causes more extent by dispersion gains, if it is North of central Russia it causes less expansion (during same time period). Is a wonder that anyone can use this for sea ice.

AnotherJourneybyTrain

May I say: not having completely checked Waynes apparently new blog post yet- that the Beaufort is naturally a clockwise Gyre... it must be this (a strong Beaufort Gyre) in combination with the positive AO that liquefied the Transpolar Drift!!???

(Mustn't it!?)

John Christensen

"Ha the AO, yes the famous designed temperature indicator for the good folks further South."
"Is a wonder that anyone can use this for sea ice."

wayne,

You may not have noticed, but the thing that got in the way of your predicted 'greatest melt in history' this year was the AO+ conditions and the associated cyclonic weather pattern.

Or are you suggesting that the AO+ conditions had no relation with the cyclones observed throughout summer and that Mark Serreze and others are simply wrong when connecting AO+ with cyclones and impact on September SIE?

John Christensen

Wikipedia/basic science ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpolar_Drift_Stream ):

"On decadal and longer timescales, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and the Arctic Oscillation (AO) indices affect the flow pattern of the transpolar drift stream. During times of positive NAO (NAO+) and positive AO (AO+), there is a weak Arctic high and the associated surface winds produce a cyclonic (anti-clockwise) ice drift motion in eastern Arctic Ocean. In this case, the drift flows from the Laptev Sea towards the Beaufort Sea before exiting the Arctic Ocean through the Fram Strait. Conversely, during periods of NAO- and AO-, there is a strong Arctic high and ice motion flows in an anticyclonic (clockwise) motion in the Eurasian Basin. In this phase, the drift flows directly from the Laptev Sea through the Fram Strait."

John Christensen

And a bit more on Arctic sea ice loss through Fram caused by atmospheric circulation ( http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/5/1311/2011/tcd-5-1311-2011-print.pdf ):

"High correlations between the ice drift and geostrophic winds from atmospheric reanalysis data allowed for calculations of the sea ice area export back to the 1950’s.
Our long term mean value (1957–2010) is 0.771 mill km2, 10 % higher than the earlier estimate (Kwok, 2009). We found a robust trend for 1957–2010 with a magnitude of 5 % per decade, and similar trends onwards from 1970, 1980 and 1990. This indicates a gradually increasing ice export over the last 50 years, and is a direct change in boundary conditions to the Arctic sea ice. The positive trend is produced by a trend in the local pressure gradient, related to intensification of cyclones over the Nordic Seas."

wayne

"You may not have noticed, but the thing that got in the way of your predicted 'greatest melt in history' this year was the AO+ conditions and the associated cyclonic weather pattern."

Really? The AO+ achieved 2nd place with your largely conservative extent metrics. lol , trying to deny my prediction doesn't change that the AO is bunk null and dumb for Arctic sea ice. Secondly not recognizing there was a great if not the greatest dispersion event in Arctic sea ice history makes for a poor diagnosis, therefore incapacity to judge reality. Some day, a better metric will prove me right.

John Christensen

"with your largely conservative extent metrics"

wayne,

I really did not create or promote the extent metric - or ask you to make a prediction in terms of sea ice extent.

I much prefer looking at ice volume, like Prof. Maslowski.

wayne

"I much prefer looking at ice volume, like Prof. Maslowski."

Yes I noticed, whichever gives the most sea ice....

John Christensen

Of cause that is why Prof. Maslowski and I prefer ice volume! ;-)

John Christensen

Let me just qualify that: For the different metrics - area, extent, and volume, I prefer the volume assessment as the best indicator of the overall state of the Arctic sea ice.
Area and extent metrics also provide useful information, but given the melt pond bias for area metric during summer and the impact on concentration for the extent metric overall, the volume is a more consistent, reliable metric to follow.

That said, what a bad performance by the DMI volume model, showing about a 40% increase in volume since minimum five weeks ago - completely useless! It would have been great with a volume model with daily updates, but it seems we need to stick with PIOMAS, which seems to be quite consistent considering all the limitations of such a model.

Jim Hunt

John - I agree with you concerning DMI volume, but sticking with the limitations of PIOMAS for now, are you aware of this recent paper from Kwok, Zhang et al?

"Comparison of Arctic Sea Ice Thickness from Satellites, Aircraft, and PIOMAS Data

Some quick quotes from the paper:

In comparisons of APP-x, CryoSat-2, and PIOMAS with IceBridge, the biases are generally positive. Negative biases are seen in April, but there are significantly fewer pixels (292) than in March (4819). The biases for APP-x, PIOMAS, and CryoSat-2 relative to IceBridge thicknesses are 0.18 m (7%), 0.18 m (7%), and 0.29 m (12%), respectively, for March–April over 2011–2013.

APP-x, CryoSat-2, and PIOMAS tend to overestimate thicknesses for the thin ice area around the Beaufort Sea, and underestimate the thick ice area around northern Greenland and the Canadian Archipelago.

See also this thread on the Arctic Sea Ice Forum:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,119.msg91578.html#msg91578

To my eyes at least, the PIOMAS model seems to have been coming up with some strange results north of Greenland & the CAA in September 2016. Is the "thickest ice in the Arctic" really < 1.5 meters thick?

John Christensen

Jim,

I wasn't - thank you very much for sharing. I will certainly have a look and also the thread on the Forum.

Rob Dekker

It just does not want to freeze that much in the far North, does it ?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2016.png

AnotherJourneybyTrain

Dear Rob,

Looking at the dmi chart you give as a link I can't help but ask: "How far out of wack is this world looking about now?"

(Comment, perhaps?!!?)

[cheers in advance.... ~:^|-----< ]

[[ ..that's supposed to be a Rodinesque-"thoughtful" emoticon btw]]

wayne

Another and Rob.

There is a link between everything you can imagine, less sea ice encourages longer lasting cyclones, the clouds from them slows the freezing of more sea ice, warmer Arctic Ocean reduces the extent of winter , subsequently changes the jet stream, curvier planetary waves Northwards feed more cyclones almost directly Northwards or some very warm air advection. And on and on until Arctic Ocean winter really starts.

http://eh2r.blogspot.ca/2016/10/world-wide-effects-of-less-sea-ice.html

John Christensen

"the AO is bunk null and dumb for Arctic sea ice."

on Oct. 11, but then on Oct. 14:

"warmer Arctic Ocean reduces the extent of winter ,subsequently changes the jet stream, curvier planetary waves Northwards feed more cyclones almost directly Northwards or some very warm air advection."

AO is still dumb for Arctic sea ice??

Since it is suggested that a warmer Arctic Ocean changes the jet stream, rather than reviewing AO data for just one week for one year and deducting a more general significance of this, we can sort the AO for October for all years (negative AO values indicating meandering AO and positive AO indicating a stronger and more direct jet stream):

Year Oct AO Index
2009 -1,54
2012 -1,514
2002 -1,489
1979 -1,243
1960 -1,187
1981 -1,167
2014 -1,134
1966 -1,077
2006 -1,029
1974 -1,024
1968 -1,013
1976 -0,804
1997 -0,7
2003 -0,67
1993 -0,565
1980 -0,521
2004 -0,515
2010 -0,467
1952 -0,437
1950 -0,379
1992 -0,366
1984 -0,27
1991 -0,252
2015 -0,25
1959 -0,249
1951 -0,213
1982 -0,211
1953 -0,194
1987 -0,08
1962 -0,016
1977 -0,009
1999 -0,006
2005 0,03
1988 0,032
1995 0,075
1969 0,098
1970 0,098
1955 0,099
1975 0,138
1994 0,174
1996 0,183
1961 0,203
2013 0,263
1998 0,294
2000 0,317
1973 0,337
1964 0,342
2007 0,383
1972 0,392
1965 0,394
1954 0,513
1990 0,66
2001 0,707
1958 0,77
2011 0,8
1978 0,895
1957 0,903
1989 0,991
1985 1,035
1963 1,069
1956 1,139
1971 1,185
1967 1,299
1983 1,369
1986 1,425
2008 1,676

While some years are conspicuous, e.g. 2012, there is also a good mix, with 2011 and 2008 near the opposite end.

It will be interesting to follow if the 2016/17 freeze will follow the 2012/13 season, where the wavy jet stream conditions (Negative AO index) continued until end-March 2013 uninterrupted from October 2012.

John Christensen

And yes; we saw a sharp shift in weather, as the AO turned from a mainly positive phase since early June to a very negative phase in the first days of October this year:

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

And remember that the AO index measures Northern Hemisphere air pressure.

Therefore, the general air pressure has increased, bringing overall more clear skies to the NH.

A meandering jet stream is just one of the consequences of high overall air pressure in the NH.

So the question(s) would be:
1. Does a warm Arctic in summer turn the weather even more cloudy than in the past, bringing even more cyclones than in the past?
2. Does the same warm Arctic in fall/winter with heat and humidity escaping open water areas turn the Northern Hemisphere less cloudy (Negative AO) than in the past and therefore causing a more wavy jet stream?

To me, it seems contradictory that a warmer Arctic with more open water in the high north would cause overall air pressure to increase in the NH, but maybe this is actually happening, as this is what we are currently observing.



John Christensen

Agreed Rob;

Cold air is flowing north across Laptev, but it goes into cooling down the water with little new ice being generated.

How I miss CT with the regional charts..

wayne

"Therefore, the general air pressure has increased, bringing overall more clear skies to the NH."

hence this is why 2016 has slower ice accretion, oops! How silly!

John Christensen

"hence this is why 2016 has slower ice accretion"

Yes, it would indeed be silly if anyone had claimed that AO- should cause immediate sea ice accretion..

wayne

Let us analyze this, so AO + slows down ice accretion: - Wrong , as we have seen recently it can go both ways, massive extent increase and slow down, to stall. AO- increases accretion - Wrong it can go both ways as well. The outlier years as pointed out don't seem to make a cognitive difference to John. The AO sea ice theory is a lazy excuse to justify anything without explaining or observing anything, it may coincide with its said theory, but often fails to do so. It is better to analyze with the comprehensive holistic overview, than being bland and generalize meaningless platitudes meant to confuse rather than explain reality.

John Christensen

Hi Neven,

At the top of the post you have monthly 925hPa air temperatures for 65-90N: I assume this data is from Andrew Slater/NSIDC, as he had maintained some great lists of monthly temps, among many other things.

However, as it would be great to have the actual monthly temperatures for analysis purposes, did you find a place where these can be retrieved?

Neven

John, the data I used for those graphs can be found here.

John Christensen

Thank you very much Neven!

Looking at the time series going back to 1948, the extremely high Arctic temps of Jan-Feb 2016 really stand out..

viddaloo
That we currently happen to experience the same degree of drop in the relative change of 2016/2015 compared to 2007/2006 and 2012/2011 means absolutely nothing and to try a extract a pattern or other repeated behavior is nonsense.

Not so much. If you look closer at the data, 2007 & 2012 AAE plunges are all you can compare this amazing October Plunge to. Currently, monthly plunge compares to that of October 23rd 2012, but that's merely because our October Plunge hasn't yet lasted a month. For daily and weekly plunge figures, they mostly compare only to 2007, as 2012 didn't quite go there.

there is virtually zero possibility for the 2016 AAE drop to mirror that seen in 2007

Clearly won't be a mirror image of 2007, but comparing our October Plunge to the closest event from the past doesn't hurt.

PS: I'm seing 2016 lowest ever for the date in all Volume–Area–Extent at Wipneus these days.... Can anyone confirm/discuss? Of course, there is no press reporting of this fact.

Susan Anderson

I'm observing the "October plunge" with interest as it turns towards a more "normal" trajectory (lower extent and higher Arctic tempts than 2012 is not "normal", hence scare quotes) and see that today we have another increase in temperature today. I've been wondering if earth's action/reaction would erase these extremes. Nobody can tell though most here are better at cause and effect than I am; no doubt we'll see.
--
But the real reason I came here was to go a mite off topic about the death of Gordon Hamilton while checking cracks in Antarctica. This should probably go on some forum, but I wanted to give it a note here for those who might like to know. It underlines the risky business of direct observation. The NYT does allow a limited number of free articles: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/25/science/gordon-hamilton-climate-scientist-dies-accident-antarctica.html

Justin Gillis writes cogently about ice science http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/25/science/gordon-hamilton.html

Why take these risks?

You might imagine that a certain kind of personality would be drawn to this work, a swashbuckling Indiana Jones type for whom science is an excuse to go off and have grand adventures.

The reality, though, is that most field scientists are rational people, not thrill-seekers. Even out on the ice, they spend a lot of their time thinking in equations. They tend to be safety minded and careful, following rules as best they can.

The real thrill for them is figuring out something hard — becoming the first human being to understand why that particular glacier has sped up so much, or what role the warming ocean might be playing in destabilizing the world’s ice sheets.

viddaloo

October Plunge — daily & weekly delta comparison.


Click thumbs for full graphs.

AnotherJourneybyTrain

Hands up who doesn't think we're headed for another one of the lowest maximums on record! (The NSIDC data doesn't look good about now...)

John Christensen

Hi viddaloo,

On the current plunge you said: "Not so much. If you look closer at the data, 2007 & 2012 AAE plunges are all you can compare this amazing October Plunge to."

My point is that a 'summer-time plunge' does not compare to a 'fall-plunge': The extent of the Arctic sea ice is much more volatile in summer months, and you therefore see much larger anomalies in summer compared to an average year extent, which is exactly what caused the plunges in 2007 and 2012.

The 2012 summer SIE negative anomaly was more than 2M km2 for a period (JAXA, compared to 2000's average), while the current 2016 SIE has a 1.8M km2 negative anomaly.

I am not trying to diminish the assessment of the current state though, which is very bad, as the 2016 SIE again is charting into new lows not seen before together with the SIA numbers.
Especially the heat in Kara and Chuckchi makes further ice advancement and volume growth very slow, and I expect the next PIOMAS update to confirm the slow growth, with 2016 volume getting near or at record low volume.

John Christensen

wayne said:

"It is better to analyze with the comprehensive holistic overview, than being bland and generalize meaningless platitudes meant to confuse rather than explain reality."

Yes, indeed, which is why the AO should be part of your comprehensive holistic overview.

Based on the elements included in your analysis, you expected back in June that a high would develop and move near the Pole.

But the high did not develop and the cyclones churned above the sea ice, not the open water.
Including the AO in your analysis of the summer-time sea ice development, would appear to have improved your holistic analysis.

The AO is one factor among many; timing and distribution of snow cover, movement of highs and lows, changes in current, etc. all play their part, which is why no-one is able to predict weather or sea ice conditions much beyond the next few weeks, and with the current temperature, extent, concentration, volume stats providing the best basis for predicting what the situation will be like a couple of months from now.

Currently, the AO- with increased dominance of clear skies, appear to have caused much of the land areas north of the jet stream to have surface temperatures below normal:

http://cci-reanalyzer.org/DailySummary/#T2_anom

Whether these below normal temperatures will translate into increased sea ice development will depend on more local weather conditions, but the probability should have increased - although it also seems that under very negative AO, the Arctic temperatures and sea ice development becomes more volatile, probably as a consequence of the more wobbly jet stream associated with blocking highs, which will cause any local weather condition to have a more extreme impact.
Looking at past seasons seem to indicated such an increased probability, but evidently many more factors need to be involved to fully explain the sea ice development of each season.

John Christensen

Another comment on current NH temps ( http://cci-reanalyzer.org/DailySummary/#T2_anom ):

I do not recall having seen a situation quite as extreme as this year with very warm Arctic waters and cold surrounding continents, especially on the Eurasian side, where it is quite cold.

It will be very interesting to see, how this could impact the CAB and other central seas: Continued cyclonic pattern due to high temporal difference, keeping the water relatively warm, or sudden quick freeze up, as we to some degree has seen in Laptev?

viddaloo

Only 2007 at this point can match the October Plunge, John. The 2012 plunge was never that severe.

It'll be exciting / scary to see how far down we can go this time around, already in the record low since last Wednesday. Do you want to make another guess at the bottom out AAE level?

wayne

John,

The AO explains nothing with respect to sea ice, AO- gave less sea ice accretion rate than 2012. It is and was extremely cloudy with very much Cyclones dominating the Arctic Ocean. With encroaching from the continents High pressures at times. If AO theory coincides with sea ice extent variation, it is at random and more often than not does not work. The holistic method already describes and encompasses the circulation overview and adding AO confuses the matter especially when it contradicts. The AO explains nothing but I am glad it does in your mind.

wayne

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/rnl/sfctmpmer_07a.rnl.html

"Currently, the AO- with increased dominance of clear skies, appear to have caused much of the land areas north of the jet stream to have surface temperatures below normal:"

Terrible description of reality, The correct interpretation:
Extreme Northern continental cooling encroached Northwards finally consolidating very badly fragmented sea ice and has started beginning of winter over the Arctic ocean, causing its surface air to clear a little. But it is still remarkably warmer. The icescape seen through the few clearing areas has never looked so bad for this time of the year.

No need for AO at all

Bill Fothergill

As this thread is on the topic of images of the Arctic (employing a bit of poetic licence) there are a couple of TV slots coming up which may be of interest to those able to access the relevant channels.

Leonardo di Capri has been heavily involved in a climate change documentary called "Before the Flood". Whilst the title might sound a trifle antediluvian, this could still be very riveting material. The programme is scheduled to run on National Geographic sometime during November.
http://deadline.com/2016/09/before-the-flood-trailer-climate-change-leonardo-dicaprio-fisher-stevens-1201827102/

The BBC has also commissioned a 3 episode mini-series called "Arctic Live". This is scheduled to run on BBC2 on the first three evenings in November.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2016/arctic-live-presenters

wayne

Using AO for sea ice prognosis, such as what John likes to do, is so flawed, here is the recent example:

"Currently, the AO- with increased dominance of clear skies,"

because the AO chart now raging AO- , my goodness there must be a huge anticyclonic influence over the North Pole. Alas there was never really had a High over the Arctic Ocean, until a day or so, look at the 2nd chart from NOAA:

of last 7 days:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/rnl/slp_07a.rnl.html

Tisk tisk John, make an extra effort, look at the charts before you brag, perhaps there will be a match one day, when the AO will coincide with your theory, but it isn't now.

The holistic method requires one looking at everything useful. However observing at everything weather wise brings out discoveries, such as the continuing impact of a once hurricane affecting the Jet Stream all the way to the North Pole:

http://eh2r.blogspot.ca/2016/10/remnants-of-hurricane-nicole.html

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.)