Edit July 27th: Yesterday I accidentally deleted this blog post. I managed to retrieve it using Google cache (here). I will try and see if I can retrieve the comments. Apologies for the inconvenience.
Edit2: I have copied the comments and pasted them at the end of the blog post.
---
Another month has passed and so here is the updated Arctic sea ice volume graph as calculated by the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) at the Polar Science Center:
Despite weather conditions that were conducive to melting in the past couple of weeks, the 2014 sea ice volume trend line is now clearly above those of all the other post-2010 years, including 2013. The change is as remarkable as it is unexpected (by me), and the obvious reason must be lack of warmth and thus melt ponds over the Central Arctic Basin. Volume at the end of June is more than 2000 km3 behind 2012, and well over 1500 km2 behind 2011.
As soon as Wipneus has updated his PIOMAS graph, I will post it below.
Edit: here is the graph, showing more detail:
Despite the radical slowdown in volume loss, the anomaly trend line has continued dropping. The question now is if it can/will go much lower. There's a very small uptick towards the end of the trend line, and in the past couple of years this announced the end of precipitous drops:
The last week of June is when PICT average thickness would start to drop in recent years, but not this year. PICT is the crude ice thickness measure I derive by dividing PIOMAS (PI) volume numbers with Cryosphere Today (CT) sea ice area numbers. Although IJIS extent has been dropping fast enough to stick to the top melting years (see last week's ASI update), CT area has been and remains relatively high, a sign that there aren't many melt ponds in the heart of the ice pack, and thus little melt.
Here's average thickness for June 30th in metres, with change from last month between brackets:
- 2005: 2.47 (+0.14)
- 2006: 2.44 (+0.13)
- 2007: 2.19 (+0.03)
- 2008: 2.36 (+0.07)
- 2009: 2.10 (-0.04)
- 2010: 1.99 (-0.05)
- 2011: 1.84 (-0.10)
- 2012: 1.86 (-0.11)
- 2013: 1.85 (-0.07)
- 2014: 1.98 (+0.00)
If you want to have a look at the data yourself, you can download the spreadsheet I use and update from GoogleDrive.
The Polar Science Center thickness graph more or less shows the same, but with 2010 below 2014 and 2009 close to it:
I think this is definitive evidence that 2014 will not threaten the 2012 records, and it very much remains to be seen if it can even get close to 2007/2011. Recent weather has probably delivered a huge blow to all that multi-year ice that was pushed into the Beaufort Sea during winter, and there's a very large hole developing in the Laptev Sea, but if the core of the ice pack remains cold and untouchable, there will be at least a plateau in the MYI numbers, and perhaps even a further replenishment of MYI.
Even though I don't think extent and even area numbers will be close to 2013 at the minimum (depending on the weather of course), volume could very well be. But it's too early to tell. We'll know in a couple of monthly updates.
---
Thanks for the rapid report, Neven.
It's got me flat out amazed. Have to sleep on this one. G'night!
Posted by: Werther | July 07, 2014 at 22:52
The reversal from cyclonic to anticyclonic conditions in June resulted in very little net transport of ice out of the central Arctic for the month. Moreover, average temperatures were on the cool side. The PIOMAS data clearly reflect the effects of the weather in June.
Posted by: D | July 08, 2014 at 01:48
Thanks for the great update Neven!
For PIOMAS development in June, let me repeat what I wrote on ASI update 4 on June 30th:
"This year seems to be a mixed bag of lows and highs, but with little transport. NAO is nearly neutral, evidently reducing northbound heat transfer, which to me seems to be the factor, which so far makes 2014 fare a bit better than anticipated (i.e. keeping temps down and limiting melt ponds).
With the strengthened central pack in the CAB compared to a year ago, and with peripheral seas nearly wiped out by now, I would not be surprised if PIOMAS numbers would show June 2014 volume loss to be less than for June 2013, but let's see.."
It would appear that we are seeing a combination of:
- Positive NAO is good for ice preservation, as northbound heat transport is reduced - and even slightly negative NAO does not change this much
- Arctic highs could be reasonable for ice preservation, if they are not particularly strong (some cloud cover left), since they provide calm weather and therefore reduced ice/water mixing and reduced ice transport
- The central pack is stronger than 12 months ago
Posted by: John Christensen | July 08, 2014 at 04:48
I posted a bit in the last biweekly update, but I'll post the same thought again here for volume:
The colder June temperatures are the main culprit in the slow volume drop. It's good to compare the arctic SLP patterns to 2007-2012, but you should also compare the temperatures. 2014 was colder and it wasn't close either. It was even a bit colder than June 2013.
http://s13.postimg.org/fykeh0ozb/g_LGjf9_VOFK.png
Records look very unlikely, but July should still be quite interesting. Hang onto your knickers.
Posted by: Henry1 | July 08, 2014 at 05:39
"It was even a bit colder than June 2013"...
I presume you base that on DMI +80dN mean temps, Henry.
It wasn't based on NCEP/NCAR over the whole Arctic Ocean.
Nevertheless,for the 4,3 km2 CAB your statement is correct. What's amazing, to me at least, is volume was almost on par with the lowest years by April. Did that reflect the low Bering Sea volume?
The CAB must contain a lot of thick ice then; 4,3 x 2,5 m = 10750 km3, the rest for the periphery? It just won't fit with what's in my mind on my 'mesh-pack' idea.
Maybe my idea is just dead-wrong...
Werther is suffering....
Posted by: Werther | July 08, 2014 at 07:36
There are two reasons why the current PIOMAS data will do little to reduce the likelihood of an extent record this year.
First is the fact that the April data showed about 600km^3 more ice that was less than 1.2 m thick according to the PIOMAS estimate in 2012 than in 2014. This ice has now melted out.
The second is that the April data showed a lot more ice above the 3m range which is much more likely to retain thickness as thinner ice melts out. This ice was never going to contribute to extent loss. In between is the ice that will melt out and there is so much of that that started under 2m thickness that a record seems highly probable.
Posted by: DavidR | July 08, 2014 at 08:29
If hurricane Arthur delivers a massive amount of heat into the Arctic region would it increase the amount of melt.
Posted by: Bob Bingham | July 08, 2014 at 11:33
I've re-asserted my assumptions on mean temperatures. The content plus two illustrations are on the 'melt season' thread (Forum).
I see no more reason to doubt PIOMAS. I'm glad I didn't change my polls on SIA/SIE. This season is progged to be more like '08 or '09 based on the spring mean temps.
Posted by: Werther | July 08, 2014 at 11:55
Though I really understand the excitement of seeing a high melt year that rocks the charts and also the dread of a low melt year that might spur the denialists -- I can't help but breathe a sigh of relief. I will take all the time I can get.
Posted by: ljgeoff | July 08, 2014 at 14:30
I am with you ljgeoff!
Werther,
If you compare to 2012 and 2013, you will note that in 2012, a higher proportion of the ice developed in marginal seas and also in 2013 (to a lesser degree than in 2012) a lot of ice developed in marginal seas, which melt out late April to early July.
For 2014 vs. 2013, it would therefore seem reasonable that 2013 had a more equal layer of ice between the CAB and more marginal areas, whereas in 2014, we have had thicker ice in the CAB and thinner/less ice in marginal seas.
I don't know if Chris' regional analysis would support this, but would be interesting.
Posted by: John Christensen | July 08, 2014 at 15:04
Sadly I'm not with ljgeoff. Sorry.
I believe that we need a short sharp shock to the system to get the politicians moving. Democracy is not working in this instance because there are too many who are voting like a 3 year old. Deny me what I want and I will throw a tantrum and punish you.
We not only need people to see that there are deep and dangerous changes coming, but for the politicians to see that they will be held responsible for doing what the voters voted them into office to do, namely keep their toys and keep them fed and happy.
In other words politicians need to see that the consequences of buying votes by inaction on climate change will be severe when the mob realise what it truly means.
My nirvana is a sudden drop which uncovers the area around the North pole for 2 weeks, with both sea routes open. Followed by a rebound which keeps things cooler for 5 years.
Enough to drive policy without a critical shift to an ice free arctic in summer which will continue to build and build to an ice free arctic some time in the autumn and spring.
Sadly I think that it will all move too slowly and then impetus will have built so much that when the the Arctic does go ice free in summer, it will continue despite our best efforts. Unless the entire planet were to move to a war footing. To fight a war against climate change.
This, I believe is why so many would like to see a sudden shift now. Something which closes the false debate and starts action immediately.
I believe more time in a false sense of security is the last thing we need.
Posted by: NeilT | July 08, 2014 at 15:55
2012's minimum didn't really cause much of a stir politically and that was an epic fall in the ice coverage. I don't think arctic sea ice is the catalyst that many hope it will be regarding policy.
The arctic continues to be a fascinating region from a scientific standpoint though.
Posted by: Henry1 | July 08, 2014 at 16:35
I have been following global warming, in particular the status of arctic sea ice and the Greenland ice sheet, since 2003. This blog is the best source of information, references and links that I have found.
The most interesting thing that I have come to learn is that there is no way to predict the future except in the most general sense. I am very surprised that feedbacks have not overwhelmed other variables and produced faster melting and faster rising global temperatures up until now.
Although I am concerned about the long-term consequences of global warming, I view the issue as one of many serious problems facing humanity. I monitor the situation carefully, but I don't believe that drastic reductions of CO2 emissions is practical at this time. Of course, I live in a temperate climate with considerable fossil resources over 100 metres above sea level. I am not alone. Most people I know do not deny the connection between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures. But most are not prepared to sabotage the economy and their families' livelihoods to the degree contemplated by the likes of Bill McKibben.
Unfortunately, like with most other political issues, there is no middle ground in the debate, and I therefore forecast little progress on this important issue any time soon, unless sea level suddenly starts rising at half an inch per year.
Posted by: Mike H | July 08, 2014 at 16:46
That 35 year time lag in the climate system is the real Kicker Mike H.
We are seeing events in the arctic play out when C02 was near 350ppm 30-35 years ago.
When that warmth in the pipeline creeps up on us- many will be remembering Bill McKibben,- and trying to salvage whats left of their consumption based economic model - if there is one left.
Posted by: Peter Mizla | July 08, 2014 at 17:00
Henry,
Unfortunately, like with most other political issues, there is no middle ground in the debate...
Sure there is, as soon as you get away from inflammatory, unsupported, and invalid statements like "prepared to sabotage the economy". All of the "alarmist" claims about climate action destroying the economy are nothing more than fear-mongering. We have a huge, fossil fuel infrastructure which will take many decades to revise. Doing so sensibly and methodically will create jobs and improve our lifestyles, while solving a gigantic, dangerous problem.
Moving from coach to rail, rail to road, road to air, paper to telegraph, telegraph to telephone, telephone to mobile phone, all happened without "sabotaging the economy." The only people who will suffer from a move away from fossil fuels are those who currently hold those resources, and value them at current and increasing rates.
Nothing of the "economy sabotaging" kind is needed now, although that may well become true if we wait too long. If everyone one says not "practical at this time", we will be in exactly that sort of trouble when the warning signs are too painful to ignore.
Posted by: Sphaerica.wordpress.com | July 08, 2014 at 17:02
Sphaerica,
Alarmists are perplexed as to why they have gained no traction in the last decade. I am merely trying to lend perspective. So you can save your lectures.
Posted by: Mike H | July 08, 2014 at 17:16
Those preaching immediate urgency on climate change thus far have received little traction.
As I have told on my 'activist friends' the 'climate anomalies' thus far-- and I use the word 'THUS' as an important caveat- those climate extremes have not been extreme enough as of yet- or come in a multitude of dominoes to disrupt the economy in a way that the public will demand answers and expect change.
Sadly because of the 'inertia' in the climate system, a 'perfect' outcome seems unlikely now. It seems that things are going to have to become very bad--before action it taken.
Will an 80%
Posted by: Peter Mizla | July 08, 2014 at 17:27
Will an 80% loss of ice in the arctic in late summer be the tipping point? Will several years of drought, heat waves in the American wheat and agricultural belt- be that 'moment in time'?
Will several hurricanes batter the south and east in a few years time- added to the above 'disasters' be our wake up call, or along with these events in the US- also occur globally?
Personally I believe by the late 2020s, weather events will be the main News item- it may come slowly or rapidly. We are jut not there yet. When C02 passes 450ppm by 2036-- things will start to happen- but then again that will be actually from a time when C02 was near 380ppm 30 years before. I enjoy the posts here by all--- its going to be a hell of a ride - but we are not there yet.
Posted by: Peter Mizla | July 08, 2014 at 17:34
Neven, you say "...the obvious reason must be lack of warmth and thus melt ponds over the Central Arctic Basin"
That shouldn't be a direct reason of greater ice volume in June. If i understood well, melt ponds start a run-away of melting that accelerates during June but would not show the real impact until July - August. In June it is just an initial, small, volume of water that can cover a large area. But maybe I got the thing wrong.
Of course, melt ponds count as "zero ice" in CT (the reason why CT is supposed to be a good melt pond indicator) but that should not flaw PIOMAS volume number, or does it?
To me, there is that big mass of ice toward the Atlantic this year. Also PIOMAS did not count in the melting of Kara/Barents side yet.
Posted by: seattlerocks | July 08, 2014 at 17:51
Solar & wind power will give homeowners freedom and control over their energy supply. Carbon intensive energy is costly in many ways other than its effect on the climate. Central control of energy markets gives crooked companies like Enron the power to choke economies. Solar and wind bring freedom to farmers and rural people.
It's amazing to me how rural Americans have been fooled by propaganda from the Koch brothers into believing that cutting carbon consumption will damage the economy and hurt rural Americans. There are huge health benefits to not burning coal and tar sands products. The American economy will do better as we bring solar and wind jobs to American communities and stop paying for dirty carbon products from corrupt petro states like Saudi Arabia and Canada.
FWIW much of the damage to the cryosphere comes from black carbon from burning fossil fuels and from forest fires. CO2 is not the only byproduct of burning fossil fuels that melts snow and ice.
If a building is on fire, hit the fire alarm. The long-term trends are clear, the climate is on fire. Annual variations are entertaining to us, but they are just noise in the long term. The climate alarmists are right to warn everyone. Recent studies show that claims of severe economic damage from cutting CO2 are alarmist nonsense.
Posted by: D | July 08, 2014 at 18:04
That shouldn't be a direct reason of greater ice volume in June. If i understood well, melt ponds start a run-away of melting that accelerates during June but would not show the real impact until July - August. In June it is just an initial, small, volume of water that can cover a large area. But maybe I got the thing wrong.
You may be right, seattlerocks. Then again, if this is true, what is the reason that volume has moved away from other post-2010 years?
Posted by: Neven | July 08, 2014 at 22:17
SeattleRocks,
I don't know if you've seen anomaly plots, but here's one for volume.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BPQuUfEfTFU/U7sCMLmgJwI/AAAAAAAAAm8/mFVv92fBHsw/s1600/Anomaly+PIOMAS.png
That's calculated by working out the average daily volume for each of the 365 days a year for the period 1980 to 1999 - e.g. for day 45 I calculate the average volume for 1980 to 1999 on day 45. I then subtract that daily average volume for each day of the year from the years shown in that plot to give an anomaly - or difference from th average.
In recent years after 2010 there has been an aggressive spring melt, but this year it has started off aggressive in May only to fail in June. Part of the reason is weather. But part of the reason may be the thicker ice in the Central Arctic. I've previously shown that the greatest single part of the spring melt in 2011 and 2012 were losses in the Central Arctic.
The change in 2010 is due to the massive loss of thick ice in 2010.
One reason for less melt ponding this year may be the greater amount of ice left over from 2013. First year ice tends to be mainly smooth and flat, supporting melt ponds. The older the ice, the more deformed it is. It not only doesn't give a flat surface for melt ponds, but it also contains numerous stress fractures which help with drainage.
But a lot of this year's muted melt in June is weather IMO.
Posted by: Chris Reynolds | July 08, 2014 at 23:00
Yeah but Chris, that's just what I meant. There is more volume, i dont think PIOMAS has been flawed other years by melt ponds (probably I misunderstood Neven). From the graphs I agree some saying it is that myi mass, product of 2013 increase, tilting now toward the Atlantic. Maybe that older stubborn ice had a lot of snow, not early sun... You know better than me for sure (the Pacific-side part seems in worse shape though).
It'll be interesting to see what happens with that mass from now to 2015
Posted by: seattlerocks | July 08, 2014 at 23:24
A lot of the volume increase is along the shore of the Canadian Archipelago and northern Greenland where the multiyear ice has been preserved. If you recall, this past winter we didn't see much export. Only a few week period in the spring.
The colder weather in June kept the thinner stuff from losing as much thickness as we've become used to. So combine those two things.
I do think the colder June was definitely a big part. Had it been warmer, the thinner FYI melting off would have offset the increase of the multiyear ice.
Posted by: Henry1 | July 09, 2014 at 03:49
For whatever it is worth, the IJIS SIE graph still has this year tracking the lowest years ever.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/Sea_Ice_Extent_v2_L.png
The Point Barrow web cam suddenly shows open water and a few drifting bits right up to the shore. Such was not the case a few days ago. The Nares strait ice bridge at the little island is shedding mroe bits.
Posted by: George Phillies | July 09, 2014 at 03:55
SeatleRocks,
I get you. No I don't think PIOMAS had been 'fooled' by melt ponds. The model takes in atmospheric data and is 'trimmed' by sea ice extent (observed), not area - that keeps it closer to 'reality'.
In 2012, for example, the same conditions that enabled the large development of melt ponds in June also enabled a large spring volume loss. Both acted as precondioners, both seem to have been lacking this year.
Posted by: Chris Reynolds | July 09, 2014 at 07:43
What lacked this spring is the same what lacked last summer and FI during the summers ’08 and ’09.
It’s energy to melt…
Seems pretty obvious. But it became clear to me after having spent some time jiggling with NCEP/NCAR data on comparisons for this spring to earlier years.
I decided to do that for the whole seasonal range summer/winter back to 2005. The mean temps for winter clearly prelude the conditions during the following melt season. And those during summer reflect the minimum-outcome for the sea ice in that season.
Of course there must be some sort of feedback (low ice higher temps). And there are lots of other factors that weigh in when a prognosis is to be made.
But looking back, temperature is a strong proxy for sea ice condition. In that case, the global warming trend as, FI, expressed in GISTEMP, is also an indicator for Arctic sea ice behaviour. The role the warming plays for the Antarctic Works out in a different way.
There may be a period of slow warming globally since 1998. Still, based on the preconditioning during the decennia before 1998, the Arctic sea ice endured some severe reductions in ’07, ’10 and ’12 during this slow warming period.
This may continue for some years to come. Minima slinging up and down, even further down than ’12, leading to an almost icefree early September.
Some time after the year the global warming trend picks up again, the line will be crossed. That crossing may irreversibly lead to the bifurcation moment often discribed, a year round icefree Arctic Ocean and at least for the Northern Hemisphere an equable climate.
My guess is that crossing the line will happen well before the much discussed +2dC mean global warming. It may still take some decennia; I may not live to witness that (in a way that comes as a relief).
But there’s always a possibility that a sudden shock might trigger the bifurcation much earlier. Feedbacks may occur rapidly after an extra low sea ice minimum in the slow warming trend period that reflects Earth’s climate now.
For now, my graph ranges suggest this melt season has strong similarities to summers ’08 and ’09.
But the minimum will be influenced by the warmer winter preceding this season when compared to those years. The same goes for the deteriorated quality state of the ice. And last but not least the weather during July-August to come.
A fifth place for this summer’s minimum seems reasonable. But there’s a chance even this season may still surprise us.
Posted by: Werther | July 09, 2014 at 10:36
Werther... In agreement, but will quibble with you on one detail. There is no slowdown in warming since 1998. There are differences as to where the heat has been going, but no slow down. This image summarizes my sense of it.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/ocean-heat-content.gif
Posted by: jdallen_wa | July 09, 2014 at 19:27
Thanks, JDAllen,
I should have restricted "...period of slow warming globally since 1998..." to the mean temps in the lower troposphere. That's where my line of thinking based on mean seasonal temps in the Arctic is relevant (at least, in my post...).
Posted by: Werther | July 09, 2014 at 20:57
Werther - that is what I thought you meant, but I would rather not leave your words open to deliberate misinterpretation.
Posted by: jdallen_wa | July 09, 2014 at 21:08
Werther | July 09, 2014 at 10:36
That crossing may irreversibly lead to the bifurcation moment often discribed, a year round icefree Arctic Ocean and at least for the Northern Hemisphere an equable climate.
Groeten, Werther
I think there can be no equable climate when the production of Arctic bottom water shuts down in the absence of Winter sea ice.
Loss of the halocline-induced circulation in the Arctic ocean leads to > +20C regional warming. This precipitates rapid loss of the Greenland ice sheet. I'm curious, how many North Americans live within 7 M of sea level?
Yes, it is good that we will be gone because our survivors will likely bury us at sea... or the sea will come fetch us.
Regards,
Lodger
Posted by: Artful Dodger | July 09, 2014 at 23:48
And so at what point do we all reconsider our global warming articles of faith, and adjust to the reality of the empirical evidence.
Posted by: keithwqq | July 10, 2014 at 02:47
keithwqq writes: And so at what point do we all reconsider our global warming articles of faith, and adjust to the reality of the empirical evidence.
I suspect keith is a drive-by troll, or he has poorly phrased his comment. Perhaps he'd care to elaborate on what the empirical reality is and how it necessitates adjusting GW 'articles of faith'?
Posted by: Kevin O'Neill | July 10, 2014 at 03:57
keithwqq
I think the deniers will still be proclaiming that 'Its just natural variation' when the summer ice has been gone for 10 years. The rest of us just accept the empirical evidence we have, that it will all be gone soon, even if we can't predict the exact date.
Posted by: DavidR | July 10, 2014 at 04:06
Lodger,
"Loss of the halocline-induced circulation in the Arctic ocean leads to > +20C regional warming."
Is this due to none formation of the fresh cold arctic surface water if sea ice formation in winter doesn't occur, allowing the warm deep waters to access the surface?
And have the subsurface cold fresh water layer under the arctic changed with the recent ice thinning, lower minima and longer melt season?
For if that fresh water cold cap is lost, the arctic would heat more quickly in all seasons, is that correct?
Is there an extent of no return? I have read previously that due to internal mechanism that winter sea ice loss follows summer sea ice loss in a none linear way, suggesting a tipping point to an ice free arctic.
There is also the permafrost on land and the continental shelfs.
Does anyone know what the model predict happen to the Northern hemisphere atmospheric weather patterns if the Arctic becomes ice free?
Just seems that sea ice melt is going to have quite an effect on the weather and GHG amounts in the atmosphere, and seems on a reasonably rapid downward spiral.
How much more carbon emissions is safe again?
Posted by: Ranyl | July 10, 2014 at 12:14
Hi Ranyl,
Ah, it seems you've got the cause/effect in the Arctic halocline somewhat reversed. Here is an article which provides a nice primer on the topic: (click the image to visit the web page)
"When sea ice forms, it releases salt into surface waters. These waters become denser and sink to form the Arctic halocline - a layer of cold water that acts as barrier between sea ice and deeper warmer water that could melt the ice." (Illustration by Jayne Doucette, WHOI)
When you've got that under your belt, we can talk about the polar halocline catastrophe(PHC), and it's implications for an equable climate in the Northern hemisphere.
Cheers,
Lodger
Posted by: Artful Dodger | July 10, 2014 at 21:51
Thanks I agree it reads all upside down, I meant relatively fresh cold sea water compared to the warmer denser deep water, although I did realize that the formation of the ice removes the water and leaves the salt causing the salinity to increase and thus the water density to increase and the water to sink,just had in mind that the overall fresher cold water effectively caps the warmth below.
Presuming the freshest top water layer is mainly derived from the rivers discharges and some sea ice bottom melt. Not sure if the cold fresher water cap would be lost if there was no sea ice, presuming cold Pacific water would still enter the Arctic as well as fresh waters from the rivers etc.
PHC may occur of course, that should make sea ice return in the North Atlantic anyway.
Interesting paper on equatable climates here, not really equatable and again CO2 is the prime player.
http://www.clim-past.net/7/603/2011/cp-7-603-2011.pdf
A single Hadley seems possible though if Arctic amplification keeps going, what would the weather be like then?
Posted by: Ranyl | July 11, 2014 at 03:49
With all the reports of lack of melting in June and the notion that this may be caused by a lack of melting ponds in the Arctic, I'd like to share something with you guys.
Here is a graph of NSIDC June average ice 'extent' minus 'area' over the full (1979->2014).
In my opinion, ('extent' - 'area') represents ANY 'dark' (water) part of Arctic sea ice where solar energy absorbed will go directly to melting ice. That includes not just melting ponds, but also polynya and fragmented ice boundaries.
Note that 2007 and 2012 are obvious winners (largest amount of 'water' in between (and on) the ice).
June 2014 comes in in 4th place right after 2013 (which showed a fragmented pack due to persistent lows (PAC)).
So I'm not sure if I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm not seeing much observational evidence of the lack of melting ponds on and dark water around the ice at this point.
Posted by: Rob Dekker | July 11, 2014 at 03:51
@Artful,
You wrote:
"Loss of the halocline-induced circulation in the Arctic ocean leads to > +20C regional warming."
It would seem to me that 'loss of halocline-induced circulation' would require year-round ice-free conditions in the Arctic.
In the meantime, since the Arctic halocline is a consequence of top waters freezing due to being exposed to cold Arctic air, the halocline-induced circulation should actually strengthen, as the Arctic is transitioning away from MYI cover to FYI cover.
E.g. in the winter of 81'-82', the volume increased from 16.1 to 30.8km^3, a gain of 14.7km^3.
In the winter of 12'-13', the volume increased from 3.6 to 23.3km^3, a gain of 19.7km^3.
That is 5km^3 more than by the early eighties, which enlarges the halocline layer and strengthens the circulation.
As you also see, the strengtening of the circulation would increase inflow of warmer, salty Atlantic waters, which should increase the Arctic heat sink effect, but be rather detrimental to remaining MYI.
The reason why this seems to work - for the time being - is that Arctic winter temperatures reach -20 - -30C across a wide area, and the reason why more ice is not created, is that sea ice forms an insolating barrier between the cold air and relatively warm top waters during winter months.
Therefore, even as more MYI disappears and we get to a more complete regiment of FYI dominating the Arctic ice pack, it would seem that the halocline circulation is still well supported and could strengthen further.
Only when winter air temperatures increase to -8 - -12 and higher, then ice buildup will slow down, and it we would start in a new direction most likely, where winter ice buildup is reduced.
It just seems to me that both the required temperature increase and then the decrease in ice buildup would take a long time to materialize given that the Arctic is still subject to the gain and loss of sun radiation every year, which is by far the major determinant for ice creation and loss.
Please let me know where this argumentation is flawed, as I would be happy to know more.
Posted by: John Christensen | July 11, 2014 at 15:12
@Rob,
Thank you for sharing the NSIDC June average for area minus extent.
To understand the numbers you have two main factors to explain the difference, as mentioned:
- Ice fragmentation, and
- Melt ponds
I would think there is a strong correlation between the ice fragmentation and % of FYI, and that the ice fragmentation is a more important factor than melt ponds in explaining the 'extent minus area' metric.
Therefore, even if 2013 had few melt ponds, this was outweighed by the considerable ice fragmentation, caused by the massive melt and deterioration of the pack in 2012.
For 2013, it seems we have more melt ponds than in 2012, but ice fragmentation has been lowered, so that the metric is slightly better than in 2012, but not enough to catch up with June of e.g. 2010 and 2011, which probably saw more melt ponds than this year, but where ice fragmentation was considerable less.
Posted by: John Christensen | July 11, 2014 at 15:26
Mainstream news mentions polar vortex from Neoguri, not a "real" polar vortex? Anyone better informed than I who might explain this? Thanks.
Posted by: Susan Anderson | July 11, 2014 at 16:12
It's just a strong trough in the jet stream. Neoguri gave the ridge into NW Canada a boost, pushing warm air far north. The strong ridge into Alaska and northwest Canada pushed cool Canadian air towards the midwest, amplifying the trough to the east of the ridge.
It's kind of like waves on a rope.
The polar vortex stuff is hyperbole. This is a classic Rossby wave. We used to call this kind of weather a cool snap.
Posted by: D | July 11, 2014 at 17:08
Closest explanation I can get. https://www.facebook.com/larry.cosgrove/posts/10154403075130235?comment_id=10154403170785235¬if_t=like
Now the question how much heat will that pull into the Arctic from Siberia.
Posted by: LRC | July 11, 2014 at 17:37
NASA worldview Modis Aqua shows that the Nares ice dam has failed and ice has just started to move from the Arctic basin into the Nares strait. Although much of the strait is cloud covered the cracking and ice movement just north of Greenland towards the strait could only happen if the ice in the strait had started moving south.
Posted by: D | July 11, 2014 at 19:25
Regarding Nares, I do not see this has opened.
'Kennedy' two days ago at mid/southern end of Nares:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/image_container.php
And 'Lincoln' at the north-end of Nares:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/image_container.php
Both show solid ice as of June 9th, in clear weather..
Posted by: John Christensen | July 11, 2014 at 19:32
DMI MODIS/Aqua 11July is the first image that shows ice movement into the Nares. Clouds hide the strait but image comparison with 7July shows ice movement into the strait and crack formation just north of Greenland. We'll know for sure when we get a clear image of the strait. The ASAR radar image didn't cover the strait today so it's no help.
Posted by: D | July 11, 2014 at 21:53
The hair splitting here blows my mind .
Terra/MODIS
2014/188
07/07/2014
19:05 UTC
Fires and smoke in northern Canada
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/imagery/single.cgi?image=Canada.A2014188.1905.1km.jpg
The burning of the northern forests , is a player now . All that soot is going some place.
Posted by: Colorado Bob | July 11, 2014 at 23:45
I have never seen a dust storm like this -
Terra/MODIS
2014/189
07/08/2014
08:25 UTC
Dust storm over the Red Sea
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/imagery/single.cgi?image=RedSea.A2014189.0825.1km.jpg
You can not see the ocean.
The feed backs in the Arctic need rethinking.
Posted by: Colorado Bob | July 11, 2014 at 23:59
@John Christensen | July 11, 2014 at 15:12
"It would seem to me that 'loss of halocline-induced circulation' would require year-round ice-free conditions in the Arctic."
Precisely, which is indeed why I wrote in the previous sentence:
"the production of Arctic bottom water shuts down in the absence of Winter sea ice."
How soon can this occur? Perhaps 30 years after the first sea-ice free Summer, according to some modelling studies. A lot depends upon how stupidly (selfishly?) we act. Preserving the Winter sea ice is the real fight now, as the fate of Summer sea-ice is all but sealed.
Cheers,
Lodger
Posted by: Artful Dodger | July 12, 2014 at 02:03
Re: "It's the Polar Vortex!!!!!"
I have the feeling that if I knew nothing about climate science other than what I had learned from the rather hysterical mass media reports, I would believe that the newly observed "Polar Vortex!!!!!" was a never-before-seen creature which was ravaging the US like a Godzilla-sized polar bear. I'm actually rather curious about what the subset of our lurkers who derive most of their knowledge about climate science from mass media reports believe has been going on based on these reports.
It has long been known that the strength of the polar vortex is variable, and that when it is strong, cold weather is confined to northern locations, and that when it is weak, the Arctic Ocean itself is warm, but central land masses of Eurasia and North America are cold, forming two distinct centers of circulation. Traditionally the "Arctic Oscillation Index" is used as a gauge of the strength of the arctic vortex.
Last winter can synonymously be described as a "split Arctic Vortex year", a "weak Polar Vortex year", or following traditional definitions, as "an AO- winter". Whatever the terminology, it is indisputable that a breakdown of the normal circulation around the pole allowed cold conditions to penetrate farther south than usual on land, while conditions were warmer than normal in the Arctic Ocean.
Last year is certainly not the only AO- year. In terms of daily low temperature records, it was only about a 1 in 10 year event and has been exceeded by other historical events, but in terms of persistent cold weather, the ice coverage of the Great Lakes set a new record for the satellite era, indicating a >30 year recurrence interval.
There are other, different explanations for last winter. The positive Pacific North American Pattern resulted in a jet stream ridge over western North America which contributed to Polar Vortex splitting, as did the PDO+ pattern. Both of these patterns are probable in the year before an El-Nino, which appears to be happening this year.
Traditionalists would define the "Polar Vortex" as referring only to the high stratosphere, say, 50-100 mb, or the highest 5-10% of the atmosphere. If this definition is used, the Polar Vortex unambiguously disappears during the summer. The newer definition which I tend to follow views it as referring to approximately the 500mb level, in which case it persists through the summer, albeit in a less strong and perturbed form relative to the winter.
The cold snap predicted by GFS in about a week is roughly a 1 in 2 years event, which is to say it is notable but not extreme. Hudson Bay remains cold even in the modern climatology, and for air to flow from it across the Northern Great Plains of the US is somewhat improbable but not a terribly extreme event. This event would occur with only slightly decreased amplitude even in the absence of Neoguri, as it is mostly due to moisture in the northern US Great Plains feeding into a low pressure in Baffin Bay (displacement of the normal Labrador Sea low pressure into Baffin Bay is very much associated with global warming). This event has had its probability of occurrence greatly increased by both global warming and the current incipient el-Nino.
Posted by: Blaine | July 12, 2014 at 09:40
@John Christensen,
Your argument, that the increasing volume of FYI that freezes during the Arctic winter "enlarges the halocline layer" makes sense, and seems to be sustained by the reference (Zhang et al) that lodger quoted :
A pool of fresh water also appears in an experiment in which a small, positive heat flux is added at all latitudes, a situation of relevance to global warming. This leads to an initial cooling in a shallow layer at the surface of the polar oceans, before heating at lower latitudes leads to a collapse of this state.
I wonder if this effect, causing fresher and cooler water at the surface, is may not only be a negative feedback in the Arctic (which may be overwhelmed by the many positive feedbacks in the Northern Hemisphere) but in the Southern Hemisphere may dominate, and be responsible for the small increase in winter ice cover in the Antarctic...
Posted by: Rob Dekker | July 12, 2014 at 10:03
Regarding melting ponds and a fragmented ice boundary, what I wanted to say is that we should not stare ourselves blind on modeling of melting ponds alone.
For example, the method that Schroeder et al uses (which uses atmospheric conditions to model melting ponds) has a June forecast standard deviation of 440 k km^2 when used as a predictor for September ice extent.
That is slightly better than using an extrapolation of the linear trend (about 490 k km^2 SD) but a simple metric like the one I posted above (extent minus area) achieves 410 k km^2 standard deviation.
Then, if you include NH snow cover in June, the SD dips below 400 k km^2, and if you combine snow cover and the "water around ice" (extent - area) variable, we get as low as 320 k km^2 standard deviation.
Thus, maybe "melting ponds" (in June or May) alone is not the ultimate metric that determines ice melt and extent left over in September.
After all, if the sun shines on a fragmented FYI ice boundary, why wouldn't the ice melt as fast (or even faster) as on ice cover with modeled "melting ponds" ?
And if the (extent - area) metric would not be a decent metric for ice melt, then why is extent right now nicely between 2007 and 2012 in IJIS ?
Posted by: Rob Dekker | July 12, 2014 at 11:07
The Schroeder et al team (using melting pond modeling method) posted their prediction of Sept 2014 ice extent on Michel Tsamados twitter page :
https://twitter.com/micheltsamados
"Latest prediction (based on pond fraction 1 May - 25 June 2014): 5.5 +/- 0.44 Mill. km2"
I think using modeling of "melting ponds" based on atmospheric data is definitely important, but the standard deviation suggests that it's not all there is.
I still prefer the to use multiple albedo factors such as snow cover in spring and (extent - area) in June, which point much lower that that (4.7) with better correlation.
Of course, I will deeply apologize if we end up even close to the 5.5 that the Schroeder et al melting pond modeling method projects.
Posted by: Rob Dekker | July 12, 2014 at 11:44
D - See also the Nares Strait thread on the ASIF:
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,176.msg31277.html#msg31277
I figured I could see some cracks in the northern Nares on Terra, and Espen confirmed that with Landsat 8:
Click the image for a closer look.
Posted by: Jim Hunt | July 12, 2014 at 12:02
Thanks Jim. Sometimes it is like counting deck chairs on the Titanic, but we like to get the details right.
The accuracy issue that concerns me the most isn't when Nares begins to flow this year, or any year. I'm concerned, after observing the temperature record from the buoy at 85N 90W, that low clouds and fog have been affecting remotely sensed temperature records over the past decade as the ice fragmented. Either that, or the very warm buoy measured temperatures are erroneous. The remotely sensed temperatures and the buoy measured temperatures don't appear to be consistent.
Posted by: D | July 12, 2014 at 15:07
More on that topic on the forum as well:
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,778.msg30576.html#msg30576
Most of the buoys don't actually report what is usually considered to be "air temperature". In that sense the very warm buoy temperatures measured recently are indeed "erroneous".
Posted by: Jim Hunt | July 13, 2014 at 01:27
Nares is breaking up north of the Petermann glacier but not yet moving. in this most recent MODIS picture you can still see a static ice edge at the south end.
http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r03c03.2014193.terra.250m
Posted by: philiponfire | July 13, 2014 at 04:04
There actually has been movement in the Nares strait that can be seen if you overlay identical image views from different dates. The ice dam on the north end has not only cracked, it has moved southwest. If you don't compare identically mapped images from different dates it's very hard to determine when movement begins.
Posted by: D | July 13, 2014 at 04:37
Regarding the "Polar Vortex" (which, yes does disappear this time of year over the NH), I actually feel so fortunate to live at a time that with a few clicks of a mouse I can get a very good feel for what the atmospheric circulation might look like for various pressure levels.
First, at 500 hPa:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/orthographic=-93.26,75.21,570
Next, let's go higher, up to 250 hPa:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-93.26,75.21,570
Lot's of chaotic stuff going on there.
Finally, way up at 10 hPa:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-93.26,75.21,570
Wow, calm and orderly, and much different in the summer than the winter up at 10 hPa.
Regarding a summer "vortex disruption"-- it really just does not happen in a traditional sense, because there is no summer vortex to disrupt. What a large typhoon or hurricane can do however is to alter the lower jet stream winds, but this is not polar vortex disruption.
Just a final note-- the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool (the largest single local energy reservoir of energy) is of course what has been generating the large super-tyhoons we've been seeing these past few years. To generate these monsters, no only do the sea surface temperatures need to be high, but deeper waters need to be warm as well, as it is those deeper waters being churned up that allow the storm to keep growing. Considering these storms represent the single largest and most rapid transfer of energy from ocean to the atmosphere, it should not come as any surprise that that energy can manage to alter jet stream patterns in the summer.
Posted by: R. Gates | July 13, 2014 at 05:03
The wording of your comment that arctic sea ice volume may not show a record low level in 2014 and may in fact be greater than all of the other post 2010 years is somewhat surprising. The wording to which I refer is;
"And so it might be possible for this melting season to end up in the top 3, despite its bad start and lack of melt ponds.
But for that to happen, a lot of weather that's conducive to melt, transport and compaction is needed.
It seems very strange in view of the apparent concern that is shown about the lack of decline in Arctic sea ice volume that you consider it a "bad start" that ice volume might well not be declining. Surely this is good unless there are reasons why increases in Arctic sea ice volume are a bad thing. From this comment one could conjecture that you considers a lack of decrease in Arctic sea ice volume is not good for the concept of anthropogenic global warming. Of course that is merely conjecture and I'm sure there must be some other explanation for this extraordinary remark. However this comment from John Christianson also tends to make one suspect that surprisingly, the slow drop in Arctic sea ice volume may not be seen as a blessing by everyone. Christiansen writes:
The colder June temperatures are the main culprit in the slow volume drop.
"Culprit" seems an unusual choice in the context of a possible halt in the decline of Arctic sea ice volume. Can anyone explain why a slowdown in the decline of Arctic sea ice volume warrants the concern indicated by the wording of these comments?
Posted by: Ashton | July 19, 2014 at 20:19
Thanks for your concern, Ashton.
I usually specify what I mean with 'good' or 'bad', but sometimes forget to, assuming that everyone knows what I mean. This might be confusing to new readers. In this case and most of the time, when I say 'bad start', I mean 'bad for melting'.
As for my position in general: I have stated in this blog post many years ago what I deem good and bad about Arctic sea ice loss.
Short summary: I think it's very risky business to have summer sea ice cover disappear in the time span of one human generation, and thus bad. If it's the Pearl Harbour thing (I don't think it will be, even if all the ice goes) that makes society serious enough to start managing the risks in a responsible way, then this would be somewhat good. If one or a couple of melting seasons that don't break records are used by fake skeptics to spread doubt among the public and thus paralyse any meaningful risk managing action that threatens their pocket or free market religion, this would be bad. Heavy melting seasons are very spectacular to watch, and thus fun.
So you see. Nothing is either good or bad, there are many sides to Arctic sea ice loss, but when I say 'bad' or 'good' in posts on volume or ASI updates, I almost always use it to mean 'bad/good for melting'.
Hope this helps.
Posted by: Neven | July 19, 2014 at 21:43
just a quick observation:
this is impossible.
either there has been a change in the model
or
there has been a transformative change in the environment, non-linear, and completely unlike all other years.
This does not make sense.
Posted by: Jai Mitchell | July 19, 2014 at 22:18
I agree, Jai. It does not make sense. I've been trying to qualify it as well. What is the source of the difference?
Posted by: jdallen_wa | July 19, 2014 at 23:41
Sorry, need to qualify - "What is the source of the difference?" is a rhetorical question, not direct.
Posted by: jdallen_wa | July 19, 2014 at 23:42
@ Neven, Ashton.
I've also noticed the same thing. On the one hand is the fascination with seeing a change in the Arctic unprecedented in several thousand years unfolding over the course of a generation. And on the other is the unknown (but likely net negative) impact on the Arctic and circum-Arctic biosphere.
I think others may share my feelings that summer Arctic sea ice may be doomed, but that it possibly may serve as the proverbial canary in a coal mine with respect to even more serious and widespread polar and global climate changes.
Recall that such birds were expendable and warned the miners of toxic gas by their deaths.
Posted by: Magma | July 20, 2014 at 02:46
A little late on this, but this seems very thoughtful and complete about the "polar vortex". Sad that people are freaking out about the terminology, when it's the phenomenon that is interesting, and interestingly dangerous. Since most of the southern/eastern half of the US is still reeling from the winter just past, it seems worthwhile to regard the action and consequences instead of quibbling about the higher forms of semantics. Words in the end are only approximations of meaning.
Andrew Freedman is a very fine reporter and has moved from Climate Central to Mashable. I'm trying to make a habit of checking his writings.
http://mashable.com/2014/07/11/polar-vortex-in-july-explained/
Also, if you're crazy like me:
http://mashable.com/2014/07/16/polar-vortex-heat-canada-cold-midwest/
http://mashable.com/2014/07/14/polar-vortex-usa-canada-weather/
He seems to be writing a lot, covering current events.
http://mashable.com/people/andrewfreedman/
Speaking of words, visitors seem confused about lay and scientific interest in phenomena that are notably "bad" for our future. This is a waste of time, worry about the facts and note the stellar work done here over the years.
Posted by: Susan Anderson | July 21, 2014 at 16:02
Here's a vital comment on terminology, from the 3rd link above (Canada), Paul Douglas:
The terminology we've been using is all wrong. Global warming suggests everyone warms up, simultaneously. Climate change? Our climate has always changed, although this time we're the ones stepping on the accelerator," he said on his Minneapolis Star Tribune blog.Climate volatility is a better descriptor. From a record warm 2012 to last winter's Polar Vortex. From "flash drought" last summer to June 2014, the wettest month in Minnesota history. That's what we're seeing in the data and on the maps.
Posted by: Susan Anderson | July 21, 2014 at 16:35
Susan,
For a few years I've been using the term "climate disruption" - with or without "anthropogenic" as a prefix.
Sadly, that seems to have become a tad political these days.
cheers billf
Posted by: Bill Fothergill | July 21, 2014 at 18:57
Jai, JD Allen,
Personally I don't see anything odd. The post 2010 aggressive spring melt was muted this year, probably due to a combination of weather and thicker ice in the Central Arctic region. Taking the spring melt as the difference between May and June volume here are the spring melts from 1978 to 2014.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--Opo8u4fADM/U8JYLhF2c9I/AAAAAAAAAqQ/kCEBq-XmaKY/s1600/PIOMAS+Spring+volume+loss+anomalies.png
As you can see, the massive losses of volume in 2010 to 2012 were in part due to massive spring melts, with the Central Arctic (pink) being the largest single contributor. This year whilst the peripheral seas of the Arctic Ocean (except Beaufort) show spring volume losses as large as last year and the 2010 to 2012 average, the Central Arctic has seen the spring melt fail.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-i1YFe_W8n28/U8JYMm8Yi3I/AAAAAAAAAqI/QuWw0Bj_XoA/s1600/Recent+spring+vol+loss.png
Posted by: Chris Reynolds | July 21, 2014 at 19:14
Susan,
I'm sticking to AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) for the process leading to the change and Climate Change regards the regional impacts.
Climate volatility is just what is to be expected as the previous normals of climate shift, I don't think it needs a title as such.
With regards CC, I recently posted this at Realclimate, the UK is shifting to a wetter climate, other published scientific research shows that the shift is due to more intense rainfall events.
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3891/14457253230_dfc9e409d5_o.png
So we're seeing a shift to wetter weather already, at less than 1degC GW, note that the data shown goes back to 1910.
Posted by: Chris Reynolds | July 21, 2014 at 19:31
@ Neven, et al
Those wondering about the genesis of the somewhat ambivalent comments on this thread concerning the phraseology and terminology employed on Neven's blog might care to have a quick peek at...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-extreme-weather-jet-stream-waves.html
At the time of writing, there were just 15 comments on that thread.
Posted by: Bill Fothergill | July 22, 2014 at 11:42
Thanks guys. What you all are doing is so interesting and full of information I hesitate to break my lurk but given your patience it's only fair to acknowledge I hear and agree with your points.
I often say "climate change due to global warming resulting from an accumulation of heat-trapping greenhouse gases"
It preempts the usual nonsense. So far, nobody has come up with a good rebuttal when it's all put together.
I agree, standard terminology needs to be consistent over time, regardless of better semantic options. Words, after all, are only signifiers of meaning.
I just rather liked volatility as another descriptor. We get way too much of this cold stuff since the polar disruptions.
Posted by: Susan Anderson | July 23, 2014 at 08:22
Just came across this article. Maybe we should refrain from communicating in English when talking about AGW/Climate change/disruption. (Misschien is het goed om in het Nederlands door the gaan?) http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/07/climate-denial-us-uk-australia-canada-english
Posted by: Crozet Dutchie | July 23, 2014 at 17:08
@Crozet Dutchie
This should make you feel better:
The Press Council has handed down an adverse ruling against The Australian for a front-page article published in September last year that relied on a rapidly debunked Daily Mail story claiming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had revised down the rate of global warming since 1951.
Don't believe everything you read about us down under :)
Posted by: Kate | July 24, 2014 at 11:56
Kate,
I'm sure you are aware the 'The Australian' is a serial offender in this area, using the standard propagandists position that a lie repeated often enough will come to be seen as the truth.
For the Press Council to present an adverse ruling the errors must have amounted to blatant incompetence in the ability to lie.
Australia remains depressingly dominated by an extremist right wing press in this area.
Our only redeeming feature is that all the public opinion polls show that our concern is growing and the lies are not hitting the mark. Despite the Abbott governments' claims Climate policy is the area where it has the least support from the population. And when the arctic sea ice melts away they will look like the fools that they are in this area.
Posted by: DavidR | July 24, 2014 at 14:43
Let's hope that Rupert Murdoch (our real Voldemort-in-flesh) cannot get his sharp claws in other media companies (like their bid on Time-Warner). Most of them in the USA are bad enough to allow plenty of lies and misinformation to be aired straight out of the mouths of politicians and other snake-oil salespeople without debunking anything. The courts even ruled that it is perfectly legal for "news" channels to spread deliberate lies.
Posted by: Crozet Dutchie | July 24, 2014 at 16:07
The disappearing ASIB post story reminds me to mention my own take on the Mail/Australian saga:
Shock News! Murdoch Plagiarises David Rose Errors
Rupert claims it’s absolutely true because he read it in The Daily Mail.
Posted by: Jim Hunt | July 28, 2014 at 09:57