« Arctic Ocean Circulation - Mixing - Effect on Ice | Main | A Love Story And A Clearance Sale »

Comments

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

Seke Rob

With the low area we've seen, it's bound for the 1 day *lowest* minimum date to occur earlier [as we discussed late July early August], but history has shown that it's no way over. Whilst this is the picture from webcam 2.. snow on frozen over melt-ponds at about 83.5N http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2012/13.jpg The center suggests it's though wettish.

[OT] Seeing spam above, not having the urge to click on the drab.[/OT]

idunno

New CT area minimum record

Area 2.64

anomaly -2.36

overnight fall 84k, but only 9k below previous record.

The CT graph is starting to see-saw up and down.

Jim Williams

The big plunge in SIA anomaly is about to start. Not sure how much actual area decrease is left, but it will take a lot of heat before it starts to really increase again.

This Winter we should be back to "normal" towards the end, but I don't think so next year (2014). I'll bet on "essentially ice free" in 2013, and "essentially no Winter Refreeze" within three years after -- by 2016. The freezer is empty folks.

Seke Rob

Like many other "charters" of the facts, me too has to rescale yet another imminently:

http://bit.ly/CTAR02

Seke Rob

Sorry, that has to be http://bit.ly/CTAR01

Dan P.

49k drop for another low record, 2.594m. Anomaly is at -2.38, so not quite equalling this year's record as we still haven't hit average minimum area. Exactly how late the freeze (and how big the anomaly gets) should provide plenty of excitement this fall.

Jim Williams

Leave enough room Seke Rob for a couple or three years from now when it doesn't freeze at all...Anomaly of about 15 million Square kilometers. Not going to be much time between no more cold in the freezer and plenty of saved up heat in the oven. Just need to run out of ice to melt. I don't think Greenland will slow things down much, though it might be there quite some time.

Artful Dodger

Hi Jim,

It likely will be some decades before there is "essentially no Winter Refreeze". Best estimates are it requires an additional 3 Watts/m^2 increase in forcings to go from seasonally ice free to perennially ice free. See Eisenman and Wettlaufer (2008)

Best guess under a BAU emissions scenario is 30 to 50 years from 1st sea ice free Summer to first ice free Winter. That is astonishingly, breathtakingly fast in the life of our planet.

Dan P.

Is the consensus that 2007's incredibly slow freeze-up was the result of the net extra solar input during that year's clear conditions? Or was there another weather anomaly into the fall?

Jim Williams

Loger, can you give me a track record on this Wettlaufer? Unless he got 2012 right I'm not interested.

Artful Dodger

Hi Jim,

Eisenman and Wettlaufer (pardon my mis-dating above, paper submitted 2008, published in 2009) - presents an energy budget model for the thickness of Arctic sea ice. The paper has been a active topic in Cryosphere research, cited in 50 articles. I follow developments closely, because I consider this the single most important unresolved issue in climate science.

The key to Eisenman and Wettlaufer (2009) is Figure 3:



Fig. 3. Bifurcation diagram for the full nonlinear model

... warming (ΔF0 = 20 Wm−2) causes the September ice cover to disappear, and the system undergoes a smooth transition to seasonally ice-free conditions. When the model is further warmed (ΔF0 = 23 Wm−2), a saddle-node bifurcation occurs, and the wintertime sea ice cover abruptly disappears in an irreversible process.

I'll have much more to say about this study, and related work, after Oct 1st.

Cheers,
Lodger

Jim Williams

I see two basic problems Lodger, 1) it assumes we are working from an equilibrium state; which is demonstrably false, and it seems to assume the Arctic Ocean is closed; also demonstrably false.

It's just as reasonable to postulate that we have already exceeded the forcing required for a perennial ice free Arctic and simply have not yet reached any sort of meta-equilibrium.

Given that he is validating against models which have demonstrably failed, it doesn't seem reasonable to trust either his proposed absolute values or timeframes, even if we grant the plausibility of his general notion. (I didn't really try to sort out his math, but only looked to see what factors he considered. I didn't see any value for a flux of sea water through the Arctic with attendant net heat transport. That is, he didn't mention the Gulf Stream or the rivers. This, despite extensive consideration of the atmosphere.)

Jim Williams

BTW Lodger -- I don't care how many times the paper has been cited, except by people who before 2007 predicted an ice-free Summer sometime before 2020. Those who were the crack-pots before and who are no longer crack-pots you may use as references. The rest are clearly failed prophets.

crandles

CT Area 2.594492

Only one poll category left. 35.3% of voters were right - more votes than any other category.

Artful Dodger

Hi Jim,

Your argument seems to be "scientists as a group have been too conservative, so the most extreme predictions must be true". That statement seems fair/accurate, and it's a natural consequence of the 95% confidence interval required to reject a null hypothesis in any scientific study.

AFAIK there is no science supporting your position stated upthread of an ice-free Arctic ocean three years after the first sea ice free Summer.

The most aggressive prediction I'm aware of is Wieslaw Maslowski's 2016 +/- 3 yrs to < 1 M km SIA. Also AFAIK, Dr. M has made no predictions for a perennially ice free Arctic ocean.

Correct me if I've missed out on some science. Or perhaps explain your reasoning which leads you to that position.

Cheers,
Lodger

Kevin McKinney

Jim Williams, you seem to be 'reifying' this year as a criterion for, well, basically everything relating to sea ice. May I respectfully suggest that it's quite possible to have been 'wrong' about 2012, yet to know many useful things about the ice, and conversely to guess right about 2012 basically out of luck?

Einstein was wrong sometimes; Callendar was wrong sometimes; Darwin was wrong sometimes. Et cetera.

Doesn't mean that it would be smart to ignore them, or their ideas.

Jim Williams

Hi Lodger, It's a bet, a guess, but I assert that given the record of their models my guess is just as good as theirs. Modelling isn't Science, it's Alchemy hoping to become Chemistry.

I'll use their prognostications in forming my guesses -- but I won't do so by using blind trust. First question to be asked of any model is its skill, not how many times it has been cited. Which of these models has any demonstrated skill? Certainly not one which predicts an Ice Free Summer about 2100. So far there seems to be a couple of names out there -- people who spoke up early about how fast the ice could go. The rest haven't proven themselves, and ought to be examined extremely skeptically.

I wish these people weren't being called Scientists. It's a redefinition of the word Science that I think does us ill when applied to experiments which by their nature cannot be reasonably repeated.

Jim Williams

Kevin, the a priori question is who to ignore and who to pay attention to. There is limited time, and I have limited resources. I say that in this context the only thing that counts is their track record, not how esteemed they are. Who said the ice would melt soon? Who said the ice would melt in 100 years?

David Eater

"Modelling isn't science, it's alchemy."

"I wish these people weren't being called scientists."

Nothing left to say but, "Please do not feed the trolls."

Artful Dodger

Hi Jim.

You make valid points. I respect your opinions too because you've earned that respect with your contributions here. Looking forward to your future ideas.

I've seen some brief discussions here of risk management. It's seems with so much at stake, the undervalued ecological services of the nature world should be considered in the great calculus of the human economy.

I'd prefer studies that contain a 'balance of probabilities' estimate. A sort of 50/50 case of likely outcomes. Instead we ignore anything that isn't 99.99% proven.

Best example: Greenland melt. We couldn't quantify mass loss due to accelerating glacier calving, so the 2007 IPCC report sets their contribution to SLR to zero. Not a range of possibilities, with a high/low/mean. Zero. Even though we know it is happening.

So any timely action humanity makes must necessarily be an act of faith, and a choice in part based on values. So be it. We're up to the task.

Cheers,
Lodger

Wipneus

CT area (29 Aug):

2012.6466 -2.3111002 2.7270751 5.0381756
2012.6493 -2.3556986 2.6431620 4.9988608
2012.6521 -2.3801892 2.5944920 4.9746809

Wipneus

Sorry, this is Aug 29:

2012.6493 -2.3556986 2.6431620 4.9988608
2012.6521 -2.3801892 2.5944920 4.9746809
2012.6548 -2.3606837 2.5695634 4.9302468

Seke Rob

Arctic SIA now practical half a million km^2 below same date last year

http://bit.ly/CTAR01

With the 3rd eye out on the whole planet, lowest for this date.

http://bit.ly/CTGB01

(augmented with spot zoomed live-cam)

Hans Kiesewetter

Just assume the anomaly stays at -2.36 for the comming 10 days. The normal amount for 10 September is 4.72. The remaining ice will be 2.36, That is 50% of 'normal'. Is this another nice (No, not nice) milestone?

Artful Dodger

Hi Hans. 10 more reporting days for CT SIA will take us to the Sep 6 report.

Jim Williams

Hi Lodger, you say "I'd prefer studies that contain a 'balance of probabilities' estimate. A sort of 50/50 case of likely outcomes. Instead we ignore anything that isn't 99.99% proven."

Yes, I very much agree, along with some morbidity analysis. It's not so much the balance of probabilities as at least some sort of sensitivity analysis that is lacking. For over a decade now I've seen all sorts of confident projections with "error bars" and the actual data a few years later was well outside those bars. This does not lead to confidence in their numbers.

It might not seem good to say that we will have an ice free Arctic somewhere between next year and the next millennium that might be the only valid thing to say given the current state of the art.

Artful Dodger

DrTskoul wrote | August 20, 2012 at 20:58

"Can any smarty pants here calculate the icepack perimeter? I suspect that it will be one of the metrics that can correlate with the melting rate and the ice quality or (icepack area)/(icepack extent) ratio."

DrTskoul, I estimate the perimeter of the Arctic pack ice to be about 11,200 linear kilometers on Aug 28, 2012 as measured with the Google Earth path tool from an eye altitude of 4000 miles. HTH.

Hat tip to A4R for making the G/E .kmz files available.

Cheers,
Lodger

Hans Kiesewetter

Artful Dodger: 10 days not 10 September? Indeed wrong. I will have to wait a few days more. (Hoping the ice will not melt faster.) The previous record (excluding 2012) was 41% relative loss, around 23(?) August 2007. Present value is 48%.

Artful Dodger

Hans, I think you're right that it will be very close. I also notice that if 2012 SIE can get down to 3.25 M km^2, then the 2012 record will be below 2007 by the same percentage that 2007 was below the previous record holder, 2005. Whew, boogles.

Apocalypse4Real

Glad to be of assistance Lodger.

Seke Rob

Denzel Washington clambering forward on the roof of the train, trying to get to the runaway Locomotives.. update for the 28th, -47K

2012.6521 -2.3801892 2.5944920 4.9746809
2012.6548 -2.3606837 2.5695634 4.9302468
2012.6576 -2.3755136 2.5224240 4.8979373

Artful Dodger

CT SIA Aug 27-28, 2012:
2012.6548 -2.3606837 2.5695634 4.9302468
2012.6576 -2.3755136 2.5224240 4.8979373

So a -43K decrease from Aug 27 to 28, for another new record CT SIA.

That's a 2.5 M km^2 record, and only 150 K now between SIA and the Anomaly.

Artful Dodger

Seke Rob, you're correct, my mistake. The daily decrease for Aug 28 is -47 K.

Cheers,
Lodger

Seke Rob

... -0.0471394 million to be exact.

Artful Dodger

Right-o S/R, the Arctic has a major spending problem (and just 30 days to solve it).

Seke Rob

Base 1979-2008, the deviation continues at greater than 3Σ: http://bit.ly/CTAR02 and http://bit.ly/CTAR01

Seke Rob

There's not much left to melt in prior years till minimum [orange segments], but sure the projection stagnation was put off for a little. New low expectation [moi] 2.33M.

http://bit.ly/CTNHM2
http://bit.ly/CTNHMn

If disaster hits on, 0.44M extra to leave... in disbelieve. That's well outside the experts of NSIDC's worst case scenario of 0.5M, and that for their extent measure.

Artful Dodger

Hi Efredri, those were excellent comparative stats you posted over on the other thread. I wonder if you'd be so kind as to repost them here, as the official repository of all things related to the 2012 CT SIA Record?

Cheers,
Lodger

Efredri

(re-post to right thread)

CT area is now below half the minima of eight previous years, something which hadn't happened for a single year until 2012.

Day (area) (2x area): year(s) passed (area)
232 (2.74199) (5.48398): 1980 (5.50771)
235 (2.65255) (5.30510): 1983 (5.38693), 1986 (5.38184), 1979 (5.30673)
237 (2.64316) (5.28632): 1987 (5.28899)
238 (2.59449) (5.18898): 1996 (5.23818)
239 (2.56956) (5.13912): 1988 (5.14489)
240 (2.52242) (5.04484): 1982 (5.13906)

Seke Rob

Though the resolution year on year may not be consistent, the awestriking is still in the CT/Atmos comparitive function of 2007 and 2011 with 2011:

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=08&fd=28&fy=2007&sm=08&sd=28&sy=2012

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=08&fd=28&fy=2011&sm=08&sd=28&sy=2012

Particular 2007 to 2012 is [shocking]

Wipneus

Update for Aug 31:

2012.6548 -2.3606837 2.5695634 4.9302468
2012.6576 -2.3755136 2.5224240 4.8979373
2012.6603 -2.3602598 2.5261645 4.8864241

Wipneus

Update Sept 1, new low:

2012.6548 -2.3606837 2.5695634 4.9302468
2012.6576 -2.3755136 2.5224240 4.8979373
2012.6603 -2.3602598 2.5261645 4.8864241
2012.6630 -2.3737242 2.4883084 4.8620324

Artful Dodger
"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated"
-- the Central Basin Melt season (paraphrased by Mark Twain.)

And just a snidge over 2 million sq.km now:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.jpg

AmbiValent

which means the Central Arctic Basin is at about 60% of its usual ice area.

Wipneus

Update Aug 2/3, up 22k:

2012.6603 -2.3602598 2.5261645 4.8864241
2012.6630 -2.3737242 2.4883084 4.8620324
2012.6658 -2.3299425 2.5100865 4.8400288

Efredri

Two more lines to add to my previous post of annual minima that have been more than halved:

242 (2.48831) (4.97662): 1992 (5.02678), 1985 (4.99285)
244 (2.44437) (4.88874): 1981 (4.95649), 1997 (4.89971)

Artful Dodger

Yes, it's true. Larry will now be forced to amend his bar graph to 2.4 M km^2 for CT SIA:

2012.6658 -2.3299425 2.5100865 4.8400288
2012.6685 -2.3629770 2.4443736 4.8073506

Additionally, the CT Central Basin graph sits at about 2.05 M sq. km for Sep 2nd...

Record teetering...

Seke Rob

There's truly not much left over prior years minima to go away. Where the extropolation went up a little the last few days from a 'possible' low of 2.33 to 2.44, here we are... 2.44 and still no "This is it" at them movies: http://bit.ly/CTNHM2 . New low projection 2.32

P.S. The left Y-Xis is set to base 0.00 for the FSsers who else bring the great ;P argument that we're trying to mislead them... hey, there's still 2.44 left for the optimists. Never mind that in 1979 there 5.63 million km^2 on the same day... today 43,3% of then and a whole lot "Thinner" [Stephen King]

Wipneus

Update Aug 4, new low -72k:

2012.6630 -2.3737242 2.4883084 4.8620324
2012.6658 -2.3299425 2.5100865 4.8400288
2012.6685 -2.3629770 2.4443736 4.8073506
2012.6713 -2.4166009 2.3722196 4.7888203

Werther

Oh dear,
The sector Frantsa Yosefa - Severnaya Zemlya collapsing...

Seke Rob

Time flies, Wipneus, but I'll fit them into my September data-slots ;>)

(Thanks for saving me the trip to fetch)

Jim_pettit

With CT SIA down yet another 72K km2 (as noted by Wipneus), the 2012 area record is now greater than half a million square kilometers lower than last year's record (532,520 km2, to be precise).

Another somewhat interesting first-time-ever SIA factoid: today's area (2.37 million km2) is less than half the average for this day (4.789 million km2). That's never before happened in the entire 33-year history of the satellite record.

Artful Dodger

Interesting developments in store over the coming 10 days due to a forecast low moving over the Laptev bite. Last year, MODIS sunset arrived at the N. pole on Sep 15.

http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?mosaic=Arctic.2011258.terra.367.4km.jpg

Hopefully we will still have true-colour imagery of the sea ice at the end of the melt season.

Seke Rob

Over 1 million [-1.05Mkm^2] less than the 2009 minimum [was that not the second year of most pronounced recovery in some *expert* quarters ;?

http://bit.ly/CTNHMn
http://bit.ly/CTAR01

Think we're going to watch a Disney/Pixar film tonight for some divertimente ... Ice-age part 3, Dawn of the Dinosaurs, redux

Account Deleted

One "good" thing about such a low CT SIA is now that the record hasn't just been broken, but absolutely smashed - people might start taking CC seriously (I know this is wishful thinking)

Seke Rob

You get ignored and be told that CO2 is good for plants and anyway is only a fraction of what annually gets released into the atmosphere [Yes, got that old shoe tossed for the umpteened time 2 days ago]. It's all normal, no matter what... And else, it's just a Democrat Libertarian Commu FreeMason conspiracy to raise taxes (Though how Democrats conspire with Commu's or latter with FreeMasons I've not figured out yet]... hey but Paul Ryan runs the marathon in 2:50, no sweat... nothing but the truth the the whole truth, the whole truth to help me wallet :P

Jim_pettit
Colin Maycock: One "good" thing about such a low CT SIA is now that the record hasn't just been broken, but absolutely smashed - people might start taking CC seriously (I know this is wishful thinking)

Maybe. One would hope, anyway. But I imagine we'll hear Watts and/or Goddard say something like, "The 2007 area record was more than a million square kilometers lower than the previous record, while the 2012 record is only half a million lower. Looks like the ice is in recovery!"

Kris

Jim_petit stated:

Looks like the ice is in recovery!

Are you looking at your own private Arctic perhaps?

As IARC-JAXA 4th September image is showing quite the contrary ...

Seke Rob

Kris, Jim Pettit is, to me, pushing his tongue into cheek so hard, he risks rupture. He's playing out the SG/Toninô role.

Wipneus

Update Sep 5, small uptick (4k):

2012.6630 -2.3737242 2.4883084 4.8620324
2012.6658 -2.3299425 2.5100865 4.8400288
2012.6685 -2.3629770 2.4443736 4.8073506
2012.6713 -2.4166009 2.3722196 4.7888203
2012.6740 -2.3895028 2.3765626 4.7660656

Seke Rob

Like JAXA [and the rest], the YTD averages just keep plummeting. Day 34 of sequential > -2 million km^2 anomaly [running average -2.279M]. This started on August 1 or leap year record 2012.5836 if you will.

Seke Rob

As for the globe, that's doing mighty fine... the anomaly has fallen to under -2M, it's though still a record holder for the day the year: http://bit.ly/CTGB01. Whilst the anomaly is still bigger than the Area... more than 50% deviation http://bit.ly/CTAR01, and well outside the 3 sigma [or thickma as spelled/pronounced on some days ;>] http://bit.ly/CTAR02

Artful Dodger

CT climate norms show 6 more days of melt with additional sea ice area loss of -46 K km^2.

This would put the minimum at about 2.33 M km^2, a stunning knock-out blow to the sea ice.

But, with the approaching cyclone, will 2012 outperform climate data?

Wipneus

Update Sep 6, new low (-13k):

2012.6685 -2.3629770 2.4443736 4.8073506
2012.6713 -2.4166009 2.3722196 4.7888203
2012.6740 -2.3895028 2.3765626 4.7660656
2012.6768 -2.3920436 2.3635330 4.7555766

Artful Dodger

Let's compare how this September is doing in CT SIA vs the Climate expected values.

For the first 4 days of Sep, 2012 CT sea ice area has decreased -147 K km^2.

CT Climate average (the last column in Wipneus' comment above) decreases by -84 K km^2.

So, 2012 is at -174% of expected loss, per climate history. I'll update this summary stat after the minimum CT SIA is called.

Cheers,
Lodger

Jim_pettit

Time for another short rundown of CT SIA stats and factoids:

--The latest CT data show that only 17.24% of the ice area that existed back at the end of March is still with us; 11,344,977 km2 (the area of 4,386 Luxembourgs; 283 Switzerlands; or Canada, Mexico, and Poland combined), or 82.76%, has disappeared so far this year. That's 647k km2 more than has ever gone away before. (http://iwantsomeproof.com/extimg/sia_9.png)

--For the third consecutive day, and only the third time ever in the record, current CT SIA is less than half of the average for the day.

--The SIA anomaly has now been greater than -2 million km2 for the past 35 consecutive days. That ties the previous longest unbroken stretch of such anomalies set in fall of 2007. Nearly 41% of all days in the record with an anomaly at or below -2 million km2 have occurred in the past two months. (The largest negative anomaly this year--2.4166009 km2--was the 14th largest in the record; all 13 of the larger anomalies were seen during that 2007 stretch.)

--2012 SIA has now been in first place for the past 68 consecutive days, and 84 of the last 89.

--The 2012 SIA record is now 541,207 km2 below the previous (2011) record.

Wipneus

Update Sep 7, new low (-13.5k):

2012.6713 -2.4166009 2.3722196 4.7888203
2012.6740 -2.3895028 2.3765626 4.7660656
2012.6768 -2.3920436 2.3635330 4.7555766
2012.6794 -2.3956523 2.3500910 4.7457433

Artful Dodger

Thanks Wipneus.

The Sep 5, 2012 sea ice area (2012.6794 above) is also a new record low for daily SIA as a percentage of climate average SIA for the day:

  49.52%

And it's also the 4th day in a row where sea ice area is less than 50% of climate average. 4 more days to go until the day of normal Annual Minimum sea ice area.

Artful Dodger

CT SIA is out for Sep 6, 2012: 2.298 M km^2

2012.6794 -2.3956523 2.3500910 4.7457433
2012.6823 -2.4353788 2.2982104 4.7335892

Yes, that right. Down -52 K km^2 over the previous day.

Sea ice area to Climate normal area is now down to another record low 48.55%

And just for fun, CAP2E is still 63.22%. We are still in 'bottom melt' season. Compaction has not yet begun.

Oh, and according to 2005 Sea ice predictions, we've entered the 2070's. Groovy, girl!

Cheers,
Lodger

Wipneus

Update Sep 10, up (+47k):

2012.6794 -2.3956523 2.3500910 4.7457433
2012.6823 -2.4353788 2.2982104 4.7335892
2012.6849 -2.4319782 2.2937613 4.7257395
2012.6876 -2.3793373 2.3411705 4.7205076

Apocalypse4Real

Lodger,

Thanks for a humorous reminder of how much what we are seeing is different than what we forecasted.

Wipneus, thanks for the numbers, it will be interesting to see what kinds of shifts we get in the next two weeks.

Wipneus

Update Sep 11, up (+27k) :

2012.6794 -2.3956523 2.3500910 4.7457433
2012.6823 -2.4353788 2.2982104 4.7335892
2012.6849 -2.4319782 2.2937613 4.7257395
2012.6876 -2.3793373 2.3411705 4.7205076
2012.6904 -2.3519816 2.3682005 4.7201824

Artful Dodger

de nada, AR4

The 2006 sea ice prediction appears in this journal article:

Singarayer et.al (2006) “Twenty-First-Century Climate Impacts from a Declining Arctic Sea Ice Cover” (pdf or html)

FIG. 2. Time series of Arctic sea ice areas, 1980-2100. Observed data are used from 1980 to 2000, and observed linear trends are extrapolated to give predicted ice areas up to 2100.

According to this 2006 prediction, Arctic sea ice area should not decline to 2.3 M km² until 2070. We have reached that level 5x faster than the linear prediction. Policy has not kept pace with events.

Cheers,
Lodger

Seke Rob

The paper is dated April 1, 2006, by coincidence.

Artful Dodger

Look further at the Fig. 4 to Singarayer et.al (2006).

The sea ice concentration map in the bottom-right is the 2099 projection under their high-emissions scenario.

Clearly, 2012 has already passed this level of sea ice retreat, both for sea ice extent (SIE) and concentration (SIC).

Meanwhile, our leaders have agreed not to agree on an agreement before 2015, and not to act before 2020.

Bloody savages.

Jim Williams

As far as I know, the only "respectable" predictions from then that have been basically right are the ones predicting how much carbon we'd be adding to the atmosphere.

I still say that what we are seeing now is due to the Industrial Revolution in the 1800s, and all the predictive models aren't really worth the paper they're written on.

The modelling of what is currently happening is getting better, but we are still lacking in raw data.

Artful Dodger

Pardon, my 14:59 above should be properly labeled Fig 3. The link is correct, however ;^)

Fig. 3. Spatial maps of sea ice for the two datasets ICE1 and ICE2 for years 2000, 2025, 2050, 2075, and 2099 in (a) March and (b) September.

Cheers,
Lodger

Artful Dodger

Hi Seke Rob,

I'm afraid the sea ice train went runaway long before Denzil's little movie, and is just as unstoppable.

Cheers,
Lodger

Wipneus

Update Sep 12, new low (-53k) :

2012.6849 -2.4319782 2.2937613 4.7257395
2012.6876 -2.3793373 2.3411705 4.7205076
2012.6904 -2.3519816 2.3682005 4.7201824
2012.6931 -2.4117363 2.3153491 4.7270856

Wipneus

Not a new low of course, that is still 2.293 Mm2 on Sep 9.

Chris Biscan

We will likely get a new record this week with the pattern coming.

FrankD

re Singarayer et al,

Permit me a little snurkle that projections made here using 30+ years of data to cast forward <10 years are derided in some quarters, while a 100 year projection using 20 years of data finds a home in a perfectly respectable journal...

"The techniques used here to estimate future sea ice and the assumption of linear trends may be simplistic. However, the sea ice datasets that have been constructed allow the simulation results to bracket a range of possible estimates of Arctic sea ice decline to the end of this century that can test the sensitivity of climate-to-sea ice reductions."
To which the answer is "more than we ever imagined."

Artful Dodger

Yeh FrankD,

2012 means 2302 arrives by 2070, using the 2006 methodology.

And somebody reading this right now will be alive to see it.

We need to get ahead of the curve.

Cheers,
Lodger

Peter Ellis

FrankD: To be fair, the reason for that is that exponentials in particular blow up and are generally not useful for forecasting. Nothing in reality follows an exponential for anything other than a very brief span. Double exponentials, sigmoids etc - very common. Single exponentials? Doesn't happen.

Artful Dodger

FrankD: To be fair, I'll grant that you intended the 2nd meaning of 'snurkle' ;^)

Cheers,
Lodger

Wipneus

Update Sep 13, new low (-53k):

2012.6876 -2.3793373 2.3411705 4.7205076
2012.6904 -2.3519816 2.3682005 4.7201824
2012.6931 -2.4117363 2.3153491 4.7270856
2012.6959 -2.4779313 2.2620590 4.7399902

Seke Rob

Considering that the CT CAB Area is around 4 million and there overall now 2 and a quarter million left, how much MYI can there still be in there, as a 65000 dollar question.

The anomaly is approaching the 2007 record, albeit a good while earlier in the year at -2.47 for Sept.11,2012. That -2.47 first occurred on Oct.13, 2007, 2 months later, but that was with 3.965 million in Area. It smells like the October anomaly column be well surpassing the -3.0 million km square. Lots of snow producing aquatic territory.

FrankD

{8^0

Goodness, yes, Lodger! Meaning #2!

Another snurkle (meaning 2) ensued when I followed your link. I'm frightened to look up "Blumpkin..."

...

Peter, no. To be fair, the derision I referred to did not touch on the validity of exponentials, but simply equated the exercise to Twain's tongue-in-cheekery.

Otto Lehikoinen

Meanwhile the Antarctic ice area has hit the highest amount since 2007.

Seke Rob

For the day I suppose and from CT-SIA, Otto? The fundamental difference with the Arctic is that it's pure weather directed, the winter SIE expansion. Come SH summer low point, all FYI is gone again, leaving but for the permanent land fast ice amounting to that ~2 million square. Here's a few chart's I do on the Antarctic Sea Ice: https://sites.google.com/site/allthingsclimatechange/sh-sea-ice---area then compare to the Arctic and Global to get indication of the relative insignificance.

Seke Rob

To add, just updated the Antarctic CT-SIA Jan.1-Sep.12 anomaly chart. Yes 2012 looks shockingly offsetting the Arctic demise, not.

http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q210/Sekerob/Climate/CTSIAJan-Jul%201979-2011%20AA.png

crandles

Actually, (OK being pedantic):
2010.6219 1.5905589 16.0503387

So 2010 looks higher than latest value and is second highest year.

2007.7206 1.1396104 16.2323818 15.0927715
2007.7233 1.1240095 16.2156487 15.0916395
2007.7261 1.087709 16.1711521 15.0834436
2007.7288 1.0812596 16.1504288 15.069169
2007.7316 1.0583657 16.1177235 15.0593576
2007.7178 1.0069733 16.0848694 15.0778961
2007.7343 1.0042577 16.0605392 15.0562811
2010.6219 1.5905589 16.0503387 14.4597797
2000.6931 0.9813095 16.0354385 15.0541286
2007.7014 0.9493254 16.0280628 15.0787373
2007.7452 1.0124446 16.0231705 15.010726
2010.6191 1.5767844 16.0212231 14.4444389
2010.6246 1.5043585 16.0086727 14.5043144
2007.7369 0.9455808 15.9988432 15.0532627
2007.7424 0.9380197 15.963625 15.0256052
2007.7479 0.9544145 15.9563799 15.0019655
1994.6658 1.0575868 15.9530783 14.8954916
2010.6165 1.5467712 15.9521799 14.4054089
2007.7397 0.9074671 15.9464951 15.0390282
2000.6904 0.8984648 15.94559 15.0471249
2000.6959 0.8761408 15.9452591 15.0691185
2006.6794 0.9787778 15.9438972 14.9651194
2007.7041 0.8585656 15.9403944 15.0818291
2006.6768 0.9990791 15.9393654 14.9402866
2005.7397 0.8981888 15.9372168 15.0390282
2007.7151 0.8920976 15.9367733 15.0446758
2012.6931 0.8800408 15.927166 15.0471249

So 27th highest day.

Highest Years are
2007
2010
2000
1994
2006
2005
2012

7th highest year at present, but the highest years do seem to be dominated by recent years.

Espen Olsen

AREA: 2.240 anomaly -2.501 new low

Werther

Minus 22300 km2 SIA again. The Frantsa Yosefa-Severnaya Zemlya sector looks awfull on MODIS now and the fracturing is getting closer and closer to the Pole.
I don’t want to see this…. Glad that Ra is putting the lights out.
BTW on entries about the formation of leads north of the Lincoln Sea (Ellesmere-N.Greenland):
could it really be that the strong tropospheric flow direction Barentsz Sea – Beaufort Sea is getting the whole remaining CAB sheet on the move?
Why would all those leads get torn otherwise?
It shows over all remaining 1 Mkm2 ‘mesh pattern’ sheet ( which is on the brink of losing that pattern).

Jim Williams

I don't remember exactly what day is the mean date for bottom, and I'm sure the statisticians can let us know, but I think it is just about now.

Otto Lehikoinen

you're right. checking the antarctic data manually makes for this error that might have spread all over the netizens on various blogs. thank for the correction.

Espen Olsen

Werther,

The whole pack is on the move to the Fram drain?

Otto Lehikoinen

that was to crandles. thanks,

Apocalypse4Real

Werther,

We have quite strong winds being generated over the Arctic by the high over the Laptev and East Siberian Seas (1033-1024 mb) and the very strong lows over Norwegian Coast/Sea of 973 mb (a Categry 2 Hurricane pressure), and a strong low pressure over Greenland (981 mb or a Category 1 hurricane pressure). Some parts of the high Arctic are experiencing winds as high as 50 knots, including just north of Greenland and Ellesmere Is. See:

http://polarmet.osu.edu/nwp/animation.php?model=arctic_wrf&run=00&var=plot001

for the 1200 UTC 14 September run.

I am seeing the ice movement on the sea ice concentration maps from the NCOF (fracturing and drift.)

See: https://sites.google.com/site/apocalypse4realseaice2012/home/sea-ice-concentration-and-thickness-comparison

The effect is that the ice flow is reversed for most of the Arctic - toward the pole and then movement toward Alaska.

See: http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticicespddrf/nowcast/icespddrf2012091318_2012091500_035_arcticicespddrf.001.gif

The whole Hycom/CICE and the Polarmet runs seem to depict ice in rapid motion - plus wave action that may slow the refreeze and create further dispersion of the ice.

Jim_pettit

The long-term mean average day for CT SIA minimum is 256 (XXXX.6959), with a median of 254. We're obviously beyond both of those, so any day now should be it.

I'll do complete stats on SIA once melt season is definitely over, but for now I wanted to note a few things:

---Area is currently 665k km2 below last year's record;

--2012 has been in first place for least area for 76 consecutive days, and 92 of the past 97;

--The current CT SIA anomaly of -2.5008738 million km2 is the largest so far this year, and the 11th largest ever (the 10 largest occurred in October 2007);

--Prior to 2012, SIA had never been at or below half of the long-term average; it's now been there 10 of the past 11 days.

The comments to this entry are closed.