ASI 2015 update 1: early start in Beaufort

During the melting season I'm writing (bi-)weekly updates on the current situation with regards to Arctic sea ice (ASI). Central to these updates are the daily Cryosphere Today sea ice area (SIA) and IJIS sea ice extent (SIE) numbers, which I compare to data from the 2005-2014 period (NSIDC has a good explanation of sea ice extent and area in their FAQ). I also look at other things like regional sea ice area, compactness, temperature and weather forecasts, anything of particular interest.

The animation on the right consists of NSIDC
sea ice concentration maps, one for each ASI update.

Check out the Arctic Sea Ice Graphs website (ASIG)
for daily updated graphs, maps, live webcam images and
the Arctic Sea Ice Forum (ASIF) for detailed discussions.

May 19th 2015

Here it is, the first Arctic Sea Ice update for the 2015 melting season, and boy, are we off to a flying start. But more about that later. First a quick overview of what's been happening the last few years.

After the 2007 melting season smashed the 2005 record minimum, it was equalled by the 2011 melting season and subsequently smashed itself by the 2012 melting season. Although the 2013 melting season didn't bode well at all, given the trend and the massive amount of first-year ice, the Arctic sea ice had its traditional post-record rebound after a cold and cloudy melting season.

This (volume) rebound had all but vanished at the start of the 2014 melting season, but again the melting season started out cold and cloudy, after which the sea ice hardly moved during the rest of the melting season. And so there was a similar rebound to the one following the 2013 melting season. However, this time the volume rebound was larger and lingered on through winter.

One would think the ice pack would be strengthened and more resistant to weather conditions at the start of the 2015 melting season. But this also depends on how the volume is distributed across the pack, and as we saw in the 2014/2015 Winter analysis I posted 10 days ago, all of the volume has piled up in the Central Arctic and the Canadian Archipelago, the sea ice's last safe haven. This basically means that as far as the periphery of the Arctic sea ice pack is concerned, there is no big difference with the other post-2007 years. This melting season could turn out to be another rebound, but it might just as well go as low as 2007, 2011 or even 2012. The only thing we know for certain, is that the Arctic won't see below 1 million km2 of sea ice come September, the definition of 'ice-free'.

The outcome is obviously determined by weather conditions, but this month and June are particularly important for what I like to call melting momentum. This momentum is determined by the amount of melt ponds that form on the ice pack during these two months, as they soak up more solar energy that would otherwise be reflected. 2012 had a relatively sunny and warm start of the melting season, after which a stable decrease couldn't be thrown off by weather that was less conducive to melting. And that's how the record was broken, compounded by the Great Arctic Cyclone in August. Conversely, 2013 and 2014 had cold and cloudy starts to the melting season, and this couldn't be made up later on during bouts of sunny weather.

And so melt ponds will be the main theme of this first phase of the melting season. In fact, I'm going to obsess over them in the next two months and report on them outside of the ASI updates. The amount of melting momentum decides whether the melting season has a chance of breaking records.

Off we go.

Sea ice area (SIA)

The people behind the Cryosphere Today website have been experiencing some trouble with their server and so data has been updated up to May 13th only:  The 2015 trend line is among the lowest on record. It will be interesting to see if it goes lowest once data is updated, as it is on the SIE chart.

Sea ice extent (SIE)

There was a delay in data delivery due to maintenance, but everything has been updated this morning:

This is pretty low, and it's probably going to stay that way for the time being.

Regional SIE and SIA

This year I'll be using the regional SIE and SIA graphs on the updated Arctic Sea Ice Graphs website, as provided by commenter and amateur Arctic expert Wipneus. But first, here's a map of the entire Arctic Wipneus has sent me yesterday to show where most of the ice has disappeared in the past two weeks (red = less ice than two weeks ago, blue = more ice than two weeks ago):

Just like last year the sea ice in the Bering and Okhotsk Seas melted out really quickly, which probably has a lot to do with that blob of hot water in the North-Pacific. These regions were also the main reason for the extremely early and record low maximum:

But as we can see on Wipneus' 2-week delta map for the entire Arctic, melt has started in the Kara and Beaufort Sea, and Hudson Bay:

Particularly the melt in the Beaufort Sea is very early, as can be seen on Concentration Maps for May 19th. But these sea ice concentration maps and regional graphs are not even telling the whole story. This LANCE-MODIS satellite image is:

As mentioned in the 2014/2015 Winter analysis there was a cracking event in April, and the ice possibly didn't have enough time for a substantial re-freeze, resulting in this broken mosaic of huge ice floes, interspersed with thin ice, and open water even.

But also clearly visible are the lack of snow on the Alaskan mainland that is in something of a heatwave, the early clearing of ice in the Amundsen Sea and a bluish hue on the fast ice and a part of the ice pack, which is a sign of - you guessed it - melt ponds. This is a very early start of the melting season in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, the places where a lot of the rebound multi-year ice has been transported this past winter to possibly form a barrier that protects the ice behind it:

Let's have a look at what the forecast has in store.

Weather conditions

Sea level pressure plays a crucial role in determining the position and percentage of melt ponds on the Arctic sea ice pack, as it gives an idea of where the open skies are and if there is a transport of warmer air from lower latitudes into the Arctic. Open skies due to high SLP mean lots of insolation.

This two-week animation of Danish Meteorological Institute SLP images shows what has been going on with regards to SLP: 

Weather systems aren't al that stable and follow each other in rapid succession, but a high pressure area is taking over the Beaufort towards the end of the animation. Like said, this means insolation, ehat being pulled in from the North Pacific and Alaska, and clockwise transport of (the cracked) sea ice towards the Siberian coast.

Here's the weather forecast for the coming 6 days according to the ECMWF model (click for a larger version):

It seems the highs are more or less sticking around over the Beaufort Sea. They're not particularly high (1015-1020 hPa isn't that high), but there will still be plenty of sunlight hitting that part of the ice pack. And so we turn to temperatures.

Surface air temperatures have been low across much of the Arctic sea ice, except for the Beaufort and Kara regions, but very low north of 80°as can be seen on the DMI 80N temperature graph:

The cold is also visible on the NOAA/ESRL 1-day anomaly map (the 7-day and 30-day maps can be found on the ASIG), although it has been slowly dissipating in the past couple of days:

Now this is where things get interesting, as the GFS temperature forecast is showing some massive changes. Below is an animation I made using actual temperature forecast maps provided by the excellent Climate Reanalyzer website (I'll be using temperature anomaly maps in future ASI updates, but these actual temperature maps nicely show the distinction between freezing blue and melting green):

This forecast is showing above freezing temperatures spreading over much of the ice pack. If you want to see how anomalous these temps are, you can check out the new Forecasts page on the ASIG. The forecast gets even warmer after that, but of course becomes less reliable the further out you go.

I can't interpret this in any other way than a heavy assault on the multi-year ice in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. This combination of above freezing temperatures and insolation should cause considerable melt ponding. At the same time it looks like melt onset is delayed somewhat on the Siberian side of the Arctic.

Of course, high temps across Alaska and NW Canada don't bode well when it comes to wildfires.

Sea surface temperature anomalies on the Atlantic side of the Arctic are already on the up side of things, slightly warmer compared to last year, with some orange showing up in the Beaufort Sea already, but these colours can fluctuate from day to day:

Despite the red blob in the North Pacific there's not much anomalously warm water to be seen near Bering Strait. It's possible that some of it is being transported below the surface waters through the Alaskan Coastal Current, but that's nothing more than speculation:

Conclusion

This melting season started out cold, like 2013 and 2014, but in the past week or so things have been changing, notably in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas where a lot of multi-year ice has been transported to during winter. This ice is going to get it hard in the next week or so, which will probably mean that sea ice extent and area are going to keep tracking low, if not lowest, on their respective charts. But not only because of this, the ice in the Kara Sea and Hudson Bay is also looking fragile and in for a bout of (relatively) warm, sunny weather.

The big question now is how much melt ponds are going to form, as this is crucial for the melting momentum that can make or break a melting season's record potential. I'll be keeping as close a look on that as possible, as melt ponds are difficult to measure, and come back to it in the next ASI update at the start of June. Or as someone on the Arctic Sea Ice Forum called it Junction June.

Enjoy the Arctic sea ice, it's the only Arctic sea ice you've got.

Comments

[Kevin O'Neill]

Osteopop says: "show us the proof"

Um, I already gave you a link to the Summary for Policymakers. Here it is again since you apparently missed it the first time around.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf

Page 14, 2nd bullet point under "D.2 Quantification of Climate System Responses"

"The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multicentury time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)."

Difference between you and I is that I don't make shit up. You do. I don't intentionally mislead. You do.

[D_C_S]

Ostepop1000:

Regarding your statement "Here on this forum, people are cheering on the ice to melt as soon as possible.", note my comment earlier under this blog article which reads "I'm hoping for a slow melt season."

[wayne]

Chris, well deduced indeed, I can see why they are somewhat faulty, but you have mentally figured it out.

Very likely heat traveling up and down the thermistor pipe, this also goes during the dark season. Optical observations, fewer because of darkness, but numerous enough, have never confirmed a deep horizon adiabatic profile. There was always a raised horizon implicating strong Long Wave originating from the sea penetrating thinner ice. Warm air advection may make the top of ice/snow warmer, and there can be very shallow adiabatic profiles, but none high enough to be seen.

I still think buoys give us good sonar data and surface temperatures. But thermistor string temps are hard to know when accurate. There should be very little temperature difference between top of snow to surface temperatures, that is the only thing I go by to judge if the data may be probably acceptable.

[Kris]

From the US NWS (National Weather Service) which never can't be taken to serious:

Fairbanks public announcement

Do read the article (click onto the bold as always.

[Kris]

Meanwhile, what we do know are the differences between each year from 2003 on.

Do have a look at the 1st Juin parade.

BTW, it looks to me as if our friend Cincinattus made his re-appearance. Nothing wrong with that, Gods and Divinities reveal in many occurances. Only, they should learn to make a better use af translation machines. :-)

[Neven]

Hey, everyone, I'm back again. The past 10 days have been interesting it seems, had to adjust my IJIS SIE chart. I'm going over to the ASIF now to read up.

[Neven]

Update 2 should be up before the week is out.

[D_C_S]

Ostepop1000:

... and the comment that immediately follows that comment of mine reads in part "I'm with you, D_C_S", and the comment that immediately follows that seems to concur.

[Bill Fothergill]

Hi Neven,

Hope you enjoyed the hols, welcome back.

NSIDC have posted the provisional monthly averages. See...
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/

The average extent for May 2015 (10.65 million sq kms) is 3rd lowest in their dataset, just behind 2006 (10.61) and 2004 (10.58). That's every month this year in the bottom three.

As regards area, 2015 (10.78) was 5th lowest. The bottom four were: 1995 (10.76), 2007 (10.7), 2011 (10.67) and 2006 (10.38). We can certainly expect to see 1995 slip rapidly down the rankings in the forthcoming months. One cannot speak with such certitude about 2006, except to say that every year since has had a lower average area come September.

Meanwhile, in the SH, the area and extent figures for May 2015 have replaced their 2014 equivalents as the highest values seen thus far.

To some, this represents some kind of global yin-yang. On the other hand, knowing a bit of physics is always useful, and therefore some of us are aware of the Coriolis deflection concomitant with an increase in the strength of the circumpolar Westerlies down there.

cheers bill f

[Chris Reynolds]

Osteopop,

Boring.

"Show us the proof."

1) Read Working Group 1, The scientific basis.

2) Read the references of Working Group 1, The scientific basis.

3) Do so with an open mind.

4) er...

5) that's it.

[opensheart]

As I understand, The human threat detection and response system is built a certain way. Humans will make a quick evaluation of the situation. If it detects Immediate Life Threatening danger and knows a response it will go over the top to execute the response. If the threat does not warrant that level of response, the human mind will discredit the threat. Perhaps putting an “Ignore” post-it note on it.

The Human mind is not programmed to correctly respond to a more general, longer term threat, especially if the threat is not personal enough.

Thus it is not human nature to correctly understand and believe the threat/response level for something like climate change, Arctic Sea Ice decline, etc. The human mind wants to say it is either not an issue, or it wants to make it worthy of triggering one’s personal engagement threshold.

Now we humans have some understanding of our own responses. We know when someone is on this personal edge with an issue, it can be fun to poke them just enough to trigger an emotional response.

Hence the reoccurrence of troll behavior. Go into an area where people chosen to be on edge for something they personally believe is that important and then pick a fight.

I would suggest this behavior occurs on both sides of issues that fall into the middle ground of human responses. Issues that are important and serious, but not Immediately Life Threatening or that are larger than a personal Emergency Evasive Maneuver. Where some people can see the threat warrants personal and social engagement, but the larger society does not. Where our social programming has has not yet evolved to handle things correctly.

For those who may be reading this or other similar threads, trying to understand the ‘truth’ of Climate Change and feeling lost or confused, Please understand the truth is that things are serious, very serious. It is a Long, Slow, serious. It would make a really boring disaster movie. But just because it is moving slower than our expected pace of drama, does not mean it is not moving.

Think about a movie scene about being caught in a room where the walls are moving in to crush the occupants. You can see the walls move. You can appreciate the real and present danger the characters are in. Now slow the movement of the walls down. Down to the point where you can’t see them moving. Down to the point where you have to measure it a year apart to see that the walls are moving inward. Even if the characters figure it out, what’s the big deal, they will be long gone before the walls meet. So they (and you) can ignore it.

Except that every inch lost is an inch less space for our grandchildren to live in. Every inch lost to sea level rise, every inch lost to desertification, pollution, etc, is less space for future people to live in. Every area that can no longer support crops, or tress is less food and resources for generations to come. Do you want them to live their lives in a room the size of a planet? With plenty of room to move around int. or in a phone booth? What ever habitable space is left? At some point we need to care about how much living space, livable climate, our descendants will have to live in.

We are programmed to expect that some heroic human action can save the day in a very short time. The parent or authority that solves a problem. The sports player that wins the game.

The solutions to Climate Change do not fit into our solution expectations. If the problem has been brewing for well over 100 years, the solutions may take another 100 years. And that is just too long of a timeframe for humans to care about correctly.

Thus discussion about such issues frequently devolve into name-calling, and other discrediting tactics. The discreditor’s have invested their personhood into their position. They will tear down any attempt to convince them otherwise. While the believers are seriously scared for the future, including the personal future of the individual discreditor. Thus they want to convince the other that it is indeed a threat to them personally. Since Personal threat is well, personal, such discussions are not winnable. As frustration rises, the conversation devolves.

Educating someone to understand the threat correctly, and what we as a society should do about it, is VERY, VERY Difficult. To correctly understand it, we have to build new mental constructs. We need ways of thinking about the future of the general population that are at least equal to our thinking of our own future. That something is a long term threat or at least infringement to our species and that we need a multi-generational focus and commitment to change things we personally will never live to see.

So if you’re reading this, don’t like the verbal jabs back and forth to blind you to the fact that there is something real and serious slowly unfurling in the Arctic. And that it will have consequences for everyone for generations to come. And that we should support broad, long term action for the sake of the generations to come.

[NeilT]

Denialists are easy to spot. They change to another argument as soon as you destroy the current one. Witness one idiot on WUWT stating "One inch per year of sea level rise. I can walk faster than that".

When pointed out that he may be able to walk but where is he going to walk to as it is already owned. Who is he going to take it from as his own wealth and property will be valueless, inundated with the sea. Never acknowledged, just moving on to another angle of attack. A continuous game of whack a Mole.

To my mind their biggest danger is in allowing the vast majority of the apathetic to believe there is no immediate danger to face.

To my mind and my understanding the problem is systemic.

We have a society where we talk about inalienable rights such as human rights or the right to personal liberty.

In fact, nothing is further from the truth. We have chosen to give up our rights in order to form into communities. These communities, having taken our freedom, give back peace, stability, food, wealth and health.

There is no Human "Right" here. There is a benefit of communal society from the sacrifice we have given.

Implicit in this is the role of government. Which is where I see this problem as systemic.

We gather together in our societies and give power and money to the society in the form of government so that they can tackle the big things which we, alone, cannot tackle. Roads, Sewers, clean water, power.. In short all the utilities which make our lives comfortable and possible.

However Climate Change is something no single person can tackle. It requires fundamental changes in these utilities and the basic infrastructure we live within.

That is the role of Government. That is where Government is falling down. That is the problem and that is who should be responsible.

There is a saying from Robert Heinlein which I like to remember.

"Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost" .

Personally I have pretty much given up hope of any activity which will allow us to avoid the worst of the impact coming. I am firmly moving into mitigation of the impact in my personal and family life, rather than trying to influence people who already know what they have to do but refuse to act.

I won't shut up though....

[NeilT]

I did forget to say though as I posted instead of editing, that the reason I want to see a sudden sharp decline in Arctic ice, with the attendant impact on weather etc, is that this is the only likely way to wake up the apathetic and make strides.

Should this happen, then we could, just, possibly, see enough action to allow the ice to recover.

If it takes another 20 to 30 years, we can forget it. By then it will be far, far, too late to take the action.

[Paddy]

We had a sudden, sharp decline in Arctic ice in 2012. I didn't see many apathetic people wake up then.

[UltraVerified]

Looking at http://cci-reanalyzer.org/Forecasts/ there's a very large dominating low coming in late this week. Really big, and sitting right at the Pole. I can't imagine the winds associated with it are going help reduce the ice loss in the Basin.

[Colorado Bob]

Scientists finally have an explanation for why huge lakes atop Greenland are vanishing

Back in the summer of 2006, scientists studying the vast and in some places mile-thick Greenland ice sheet observed something that can only be called breathtaking.

Due to meltwater, lakes form atop the ice sheet in the summer – scientists call them “supraglacial lakes” — and they can grow to be quite large. And in July 2006, one large lake, over 2 square miles in area, suddenly vanished. It lost most of its water in under two hours – researchers calculated that the rate of drainage “exceeded the average flow rate over Niagara Falls.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/06/03/scientists-finally-have-an-explanation-for-why-huge-lakes-atop-greenland-are-vanishing/

Can anyone say "Feed back loop" ?

That Greenland paper is real depressing , it speaks to an ice sheet that is turning into Swiss cheese. And every a time a lake drains, it's melt water carries more heat into the ice. Making more voids where water can travel . That water jacks up the ice cracks it, and adds to the ice flow . All of which is transporting heat deep into ice sheet .

We are melting Greenland top, bottom, and middle.

[A-Team]

Walls slowly closely in ... a refreshing change from frog in stove pot.

Not to worry:

316,205,000 anti-anxiety drug prescriptions in 2013 in the US alone; in order of popularity Xanax, Zoloft, Celexa, Prozac, Ativan, Desyrel, Lexapro, Cymbalta, Wellbutrin XL, Effexor ER, Valium, Paxil. And that is just a start on soothing medications in daily use.

It will take an impactful event to rouse them. If that.

http://psychcentral.com/lib/top-25-psychiatric-medication-prescriptions-for-2013/

[VaughnA]

Colorado Bob, I made a mention of this factor some time back on this blog. Tremendous numbers of joules going deep into the ice. If liquid water is making it to bedrock it is starting to lubricate and float the ice. If it refreezes in deep cracks then it is splitting old ice apart much like water freezing in a crack in a rock splits it apart.

The results should be increasingly interesting to say the least. From what I am reading about Greenland on the ASIF the increased speed of numerous glaciers and associated calvings indicate the water is already affecting the ice in a non linear fashion.

[Bill Fothergill]

@ opensheart...

"Denialists are easy to spot. They change to another argument as soon as you destroy the current one..."

I have just had to hunt out a quote I wanted to employ in a recent SkS posting. As a consequence, there is an old copy (April 2010) of our local Parish magazine on my desk at present. Contained within a single article in the magazine are approximately 2 dozen unrelated myths/memes/bollox all taken from either WUWT or some of Rupert Murdoch's rags. Basically it's a case of "Chuck enough muck, and some of it will stick".

@ NeilT

" ... a sudden sharp decline in Arctic ice ... is the only likely way to wake up the apathetic and make strides...

That happens to be my (forlorn?) hope as well: the Arctic could well be our "canary in a cage". However, as Paddy pointed out ...

"We had a sudden, sharp decline in Arctic ice in 2012. I didn't see many apathetic people wake up then."

The above mentioned 2010 Parish magazine article was not written by an idiot, but was written instead by someone who took the time to point out that they had spent "over 30 years as an academic computer scientist". Here's a small quote relevant to the Arctic...

"The arctic ice did indeed go low in 2007 (most likely due to unusual wind patterns) but we don't hear that it grew significantly in 2008 and again in 2009. Nor did anyone trumpet the fact that according to the DMI satellite data the winter 30% ice extent has just reached its highest level since that satellite record started five years ago. Also, incidentally, polar bear populations are double their numbers from 50 years ago and are increasing rather than decreasing. Oh, and damaging hurricanes are at a 30-year low." [Sic][Possibly that should read "sick" instead.]

On this forum during 2015, we've had the usual suspects claiming that there has been a rebound for two years, and that everything is just hunky-dory. Perhaps they might care to reflect on the above quote, and then have a long hard look in the mirror. (Of course, that isn't going to happen, is it?)

At least back when that article was written, the Arctic September extent had risen for two consecutive years - albeit in much the same way as it had from 1981-83, 1990-92 and 1999-2001. However, this time around, 2014 had a lower minimum (and lower annual average) than 2013.

It appears that in la-la land, "rebound" is synonymous with "not a record".

I fear that the only hope of the "caged canary" functioning, is when 2012 is eclipsed on a regular basis. Whether or not that is in time remains to be seen.

cheers bill f

[Susan Anderson]

I see this has already been mentioned (ColoradoBob at Washington Post). Nice graphics from WHOI article about melt pond dynamics:

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/scientists-find-trigger-that-cracks-lakes

[Susan Anderson]

Actually, not quite the same thing. Please do look at the graphics.

[A-Team]

In some ways, they are just kicking the can down the road by saying this particular melt lake didn't initiate a hydro-fracture on its own, but needed an established moulin nearby to buckle the melt lake region via hydrostatic pressure from underneath.

How then did that first moulin form with nothing to trigger IT? It seems hydro-fractures can and do form on their own, as indeed proposed in ref 8 cited by this paper (1973, J Weertman). So how many ab initio moulins form each year and are they limited/favored by increasing elevation?

As CB notes above, rapid draining is unfavorable for Greenland melt in three ways: first, the meltwater quickly exits the glacier without warming up the interior via latent heat, second by helping establish efficient sub-glacial tunneling that will prevent later melt water from jacking up other melt lakes and third, providing widespread sliding lubrication.

Retained meltwater that warms either surface firn or the deep interior, (exacerbating creep) would contribute more to overall acceleration of the ice sheet. The question is how this stacks up compared to early season inefficient drainage lubrication from melt lake drainage.

Note non-subscribers have free access to full size figures and legends -- open in new browser tab or you will just get a thumbnail. It is a very nice study in terms of quantitating tensional changes during the event.

[Bill Fothergill]

el Nino watch:

NOAA have just posted the monthly Nino 3.4 figure for May, and it is 28.82 degrees C. This is the highest 3.4 temp recorded since Jan 1998. The dataset runs from 1950, and this figure ranks 13th overall.

The monthly anomaly (0.91C) is the highest in any month since March 2010.

The rolling 3 month (March-May) is not out yet, but it will be +0.7C when it does appear.

It still hasn't made its mind up whether or not to be seriously big, but...