« PIOMAS November 2017 | Main | PIOMAS January 2018 »


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


Thanks, Neven, I note nsidc also did a piece on Chukchi Sea ice!

Muy interesante: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2017/12/record-low-extent-in-the-chukchi-sea/

Robert S

Great work! Given the info that's coming out on 2017 precipitation in the L.A. area - one of the causes of the current fire outbreak - the ridging system/California drought link seems to be somewhat intact, I'm afraid.


Being an open thread I post this: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/06/bmw-electric-car-ad-banned-over-misleading-clean-car-claims

This could be big because nomenclature is one of mans greatest inventions: or should I say adventures!

**** Everything is politics!

John Christensen

Thank you for another great update Neven - and Happy Holidays to you as well!

At least it seems like the Alp region is having some early snow this year, but maybe not as far east, as where you live?

Jim Hunt

Merry Xmas Neven, and all at the Arctic Sea Ice Blog!

Santa's secret summer swimming pool has frozen over once again, so here's my own look at the forthcoming festive season in the Arctic:

"The 2017/18 Festive Season in the Arctic"

Your overview is much more comprehensive than mine, and I too had noticed "the large area of pale blue open ocean still visible in the Chukchi Sea".

However one interesting piece of the Arctic puzzle isn't shown above as yet. The University of Bremen's latest SMOS thickness map:




This talks about sea ice driven precipitation loss: it doesn’t say it can definitely link this to the recent droughts in California but it does mention that it leaves it as a possibility.

Jim Hunt

AJbT - It would have been helpful if the Grauniad had provided a link to the ASA ruling. Here it is:


Here too is an English language overview of a recent French report on EV v ICE lifetime emissions:


The analysis shows today, the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of a small Battery Electric Vehicle (e.g. ZOE – 22 kWh) is 70% less than the GWP of a small gasoline car. The GWP of a large BEV is 57% less than the GWP of large diesel car. In 2030, the gap between Internal Combustion Engines vehicles and Battery Electric Vehicles is reduced due to the mild-hybridization of ICE vehicles but BEVs still have less lifecycle emissions.

Recycling is an important element to reduce life-cycle impacts of large BEVs and should be incentivized. On average, a 30% increase of the battery recycling mass rate leads to a 14% decrease of the overall EV’s GWP.


I worked at a recycling place once and the boss had no finger nails: they reckoned it was from dealing with recycled batteries!

The 20th century spent most of its time avoiding battery technology so I expect there are many profitable ways a full life plan can be made to accomodate vastly increased battery use in the future.

Jim Hunt

AJbT - At the risk of drifting even further off topic, I was discussing that very issue with Nissan's Francisco Carranza, amongst others, not so very long ago:


According to Francisco LEAF EV batteries can first be "recycled" into static battery storage. When they degrade further virtually all the materials can be recycled and reused.

Others didn't seem quite so confident of that:



It’s an open forum: I think all talk about the very real possibility of changing the direction of this out of control mudball by the humble idea of recycling is very welcome here.

My uncle was a boatbuilder: now retired he can work on his own!

But he also loves cars and he reckoned the 20th century spent a large time ignoring battery technology!

As soon as the investment, including the public dollar and its other hugely available resources, go into it the problems come closer to solution.

It’s geo politics in the end: standing armies don’t achieve superiority through battery technology! It’s always been a spiritual struggle!

John Christensen


Neven's Arctic Sea Ice Blog has never been an open blog to discuss any topic of preference, so please respect that. You can stray for a comment or two, but otherwise need to get back on topic or take the discussion elsewhere.

John Christensen

Regarding ice volume distribution:

It seems like the fairly consistent high above the CAB/Laptev in recent weeks is starting to make an impact on ice volume distribution:


On the Siberian side of the CAB into northern parts of the ESS and Laptev, there seems to be nearly as much thick ice as in the safe haven north of the CAA, something I have not noticed since pre-2007. Given the overall low volume, the ice volume north of CAA must be showing a more significant negative anomaly.
If the high continues as is still forecasted, the clockwise rotation of the main pack will pick up speed causing more ice to exit the Arctic via Fram in the coming one/two years - Fram export being also a main culprit of the massive sea ice loss in 1981-82, and contributing in 2007.

Jim Hunt

AJbT - There you have it. If you'd like to discuss the "recycling" of EV battery packs further perhaps we might adjourn to my "professional" blog? How about here for starters?



John, I think you missed the memo about PIOMAS threads!

Robert S

A good article about the wider impacts of changes in the Beaufort gyre http://e360.yale.edu/features/how-a-wayward-arctic-current-could-cool-the-climate-in-europe

Thoughts on the differences in ice formation rates as a result of an increasing fresh water cap?

John Christensen


Here is how it works on Neven's blog:

He will post an update on some topic; melting status, monthly PIOMAS, or a specific topic of interest.

He then indicates an update to be the open thread like these monthly PIOMAS reviews, where you can stray from the topic of the update - as soon as you stay within the realm of everything Arctic sea ice/climate.

I don't mind a few stray comments at all, and this is not my blog, but responded to your notion of an 'open forum', which is not the case for this blog.


...John, I was speaking in context of this thread! It’s the only reason neven has such a large readership that includes contributors of actual caliber: because he gives latitude within reason! For all intents and purposes this thread is an open forum because it is a PIOMAS thread! Should I have used the word, ‘relatively’???

That is called splitting hairs...


I know, and with the proper respects included, that neven likes to read Robert Scribbler yet possibly thinks he can be alarmist at times... that said:


This article says that possibly some of the Alaskan permafrost is warming at 4 degrees per century!

Is this mass consensual thought?


The idea that electric cars will save us from CO2 is a pet peeve of mine. Rather then rant about the issues here is a very good blog post that describes the problem:


(PS Neven, if you feel this is too far off-topic, go ahead and delete my post, I won't be offended. I'm just pissed about many peoples attitudes about electric cars.)


Jim Hunt

Jim - At the risk of repeating myself, I have a blog devoted to that sort of thing.

Would you by any chance care to have a rant about the concept of "mobility as a service" and "electric car clubs"? If so please feel free to go to:


If you don’t possess a car you’re more likely to indulge in healthier alternatives such as walking or cycling for short journeys.

Rob Dekker

Jim said :

The idea that electric cars will save us from CO2 is a pet peeve of mine. Rather then rant about the issues here is a very good blog post that describes the problem:


When comparing carbon intensity of ICE cars to EV, if they come out about even, you ALWAYS have to check the facts.
As in this case too.
Your link tells about the original Mini :

Burning a litre of petrol results in 2.3 kg of CO2 being released, hence a gallon results in 10.4 kg of CO2 or as it is usually expressed these days, 162.5 g/km.

and about the Leaf :

The Leaf requires 12.4 kWh of electricity to cover 64 km, and that results in 155 g/km of CO2 if the car is charged from the Dutch electricity network.

Now, we can argue if the original Mini and the Leaf are comparable automobiles (one could argue that the Mini is a Mr.Bean car where you can only comfortably drive it if you are sitting on the back seat).
And we can argue if the 12.4 kWh for 64km is comparable, since EVs have a much better efficiency in city traffic than ICE vehicles.
But even with all that assumed equal, there is still a BIG problem with this story :

That 12.4 kWh causing 155 g/km data is not referenced anywhere.
So I did some digging myself and found this scientific paper :


That one clearly states that on the Dutch grid, the carbon intensity of supplied electricity is about 547 g/kWh.
For 12.4 kWh that is 6.782 kg CO2, spread over 64 km is 106 g/km.

That is some 40% better than the Mini on petrol.

And since the Netherlands is phasing out coal and increasing wind/solar, that number will only get better over time.

Fact checking rules.

Jim Hunt

Rob - Whilst I do appreciate that people publicly peddling porky pies do need to be publicly corrected, do you think it might be possible to try and stick to the Arctic/Antarctic theme in here?

For much more on the carbon intensity of the UK grid see for example:



“Go Rob!”, I say!!!


Now, in Robert Scribblers last post (https://robertscribbler.com/2017/12/13/new-science-confirms-that-harveys-record-rains-were-made-much-worse-by-climate-change/his second graph) entitled,”Global number of record-breaking daily rainfall events”, he seems to show real anomaly post about the year 2000.

Could this be a real problem or nothing to write home about?

John Christensen

Warmer at the core of the high?

I have noticed since yesterday that at the core of the high, the 2m temp is a few degrees higher than in the surrounding area:


This seems counterintuitive, so I was wondering if the sensors are being tricked in this situation, or if anyone would know why the near ground temp at the core of a cold high should be higher than the surrounding area?

Rob Dekker

Jim Hunt wrote

Whilst I do appreciate that people publicly peddling porky pies do need to be publicly corrected, do you think it might be possible to try and stick to the Arctic/Antarctic theme in here?

I'll try to restrain myself, but when disinformation pops up, that's hard.
Either way there is a good thread on the forum that discusses more details, if (the other Jim) would like to continue the conversation :
"Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and...."


"Warmer at the core of the high?"

Is not faulty sensors

Been studying it since inception, only possible explanation is thinner sea ice with a wetter but mostly cloudless upper air profile. In addition
2 Cold temperature North Pole Cells , NE Siberia and CAA have been advecting warm air, hence creating and maintaining this High , with warmer air respectively from the North Pacific and Atlantic.

Hi Jim,

I must remind the past incapacity of top buoy thermistors with respect to measuring proper temperatures has been confirmed by a new technique I use to remove sun radiation. I have found that a same thermistor measuring top snow in sun outside has a very large error compared with same snow sample taken inside (no sun radiation). However , since we can't ask polar bear to work for us, this artifact is reduced and eventually eliminated when sun elevation is below 5 degrees elevation. In other words, sun elevation matters when considering accuracy.

Jim Hunt

Long time no see Wayne. The IMB buoy page has just been updated. There are still no numbers available for 2017C & D, but after floating in its hole for a bit 2017B is firmly fixed once again:


No sun angle issues at this time of year!


Well Jim

I think that Neven's sabbatic has it right, to be creative, to find other means to be convincing, one must meditate, get lost somewhere, and come back renewed. Regenerated a la Doctor Who..

Thanks for the graph by the way, is spot on.

Note all surface temps warmer than top thermistor, Temperature top of sea ice (snow) always colder than surface air. A grand extremely simple equation, which I am currently writing about:



It'not the atmosphere, it's the ocean.


Jim Hunt

Wipneus has issued his PIOMAS mid month update:


There's also a new sea ice age paper from Pierre Rampal et al.

That one's for January 1st 2016.


I like the first map Jim

It basically has the frozen footprint of September's or rather October's freeze up. The summer sea ice circulation was so 13-14-15 and 2016, except the densest sea ice was seriously broken up in late summer 2016. It seems the densest pack has trouble reforming.

Long ago us Celts and many Aboriginals throughout the world celebrated the new year today, which according to all archeological sources was as festive as Christmas, if not more.

Happy solstice day brothers and sisters!

How darkness shapes winter in these days of AG warming has become very interesting with respect to snowfall, it is perhaps the greatest more apparent Climate Change we can see everywhere.
I have pinpointed the real beginning of coldest winter when permafrost or top of land becomes just as cold or colder than surface air. This does not come in a matter of days, but months. On this article:


I pinpoint our current 2 CTNP's, Cold Temperature North Poles coinciding exactly where land is more exposed. These areas where not so cold not long ago, their top of land gave up the proverbial "heat ghost".


Dmi temp looks stubborn again. I think I read on the forum that arctic sea ice extent actually went down 12k....


From the ASIB,

Fairbanksnchill, from the thread “Fix this analogy”, said:

In a closed system, condensation causes a vacuum to occur. In a closed system evaporation causes the pressure to rise.

My question is how does condensation occur in a closed system?


Hi Jim

Whatever happened to "skin temperature" option on NOAA daily or monthly composites? A victim of T***<=Ts ? I wonder.....

Yes it is cold in some parts, then again NE Siberia warmed substantially after a Pacific Kamikaze Cyclone crashed right in its coldest air zone a mere few days ago, its Cold Temperature North Pole almost vanished today (a repeat of what happened with CAA CTNP of a few weeks ago). What is left of the 2 vortices within the Polar Vortex, was the CAA in origin one, which migrated South exactly where there was least snow. The result was a much colder atmosphere to the South of the CAA, because the sun is not high enough in the sky to warm the surface well. Again the Arctic Ocean which some weathermen claimed was the origin of this cold spell, is close to warmest in history, with JAXA sea ice extent lowest in history.

The cold temperature vortices within the Polar vortex are very vulnerable to warmer cyclones, meaning they are not made from a strong cooling foundation. As they shrink in size, cold air incursions can move quickly Southwards. All this was analyzed in advance with the previous 6 of 7 articles written http://eh2r.blogspot.ca/


ειρωνεία !

11,763,440 Km2 lowest sea ice extent in history for December 27.
While many parts in the US largely devoid of snow on the ground , never mind the snow effect from our most beautiful Great Lakes, the fact they are wide open (12.6% cover) doesn't really connect with current conditions, indicating the winter didn't start cold. However at 45 degrees altitude the sun is a mere 21.5 degrees elevation at Local Apparent Noon.

Now some feel 22 degrees sun is a faint reminder of summers 67 degrees noon elevation. It still warms the ground, but not very much.
I gasp at the prevalence of pronouncements of "Arctic Air" blast while much of the cold currently forming is a mix between Arctic-Subarctic and Temperate predisposed Geophysical conditions.

The East Siberian one of 2 Cold vortices of the Polar Vortex is regaining its lost prominence as I write.



This article is interesting for the very fact it seems to put a number on the worlds glaciers



Zac Labes graphs are starting to show accelerating trends!

Fair enough it’s anomaly at the end of 2017(present) but it sure does look spooky as a continuation of definite trend!


Clueless FM

Found this on the Forum this week: «No. growing up would entail not being scared of being ridiculed or called unscientific, or alarmist for not being ultra conservative and understating everything.
Even in an anonymous poll people are scared to express an opinion that might be too extreme. Growing up would not be allowing oneself to be bullied into silence and child like submission by vested interests in industry and the reputations of outdated science.
Growing up would be realizing that action avoiding a chance of a major disaster occurring at the risk that some might claim it never would have anyway, is much better than not speaking or acting and living with the consequences.»

Well put. And by the way: Where are the grown–ups with regard to admitting the 2017 average sea ice volume was lower than ever recorded?


Many people who suffer this current deep CAN-AM freeze will be very surprised, aside from North America, the rest of the world is mostly above Normal in temperatures. This implies a much smaller winter zone, perfectly in accordance with a warming planet.


I go in great detail here explaining that these deep freeze events will shock not only North Americans, but people everywhere. 17-18 winter
has two more or less steady Cold Temperature Vortices, which literally vanish at the faintest modest cyclone merge, the Urals has still not gone deep down the mercury. Mean time, sea ice extent is all time lowest. So we need explain the cold ones, may be one day they will understand our vanishing winter. Enjoy the cold while there is still some!


Must point out the current Northern Hemisphere snow extent matches very well with ENSO cloud seeding theory:


Although lots of people in Beantown USA (Boston) will think otherwise, we have here another case where the exception of the rule, just like despite Anthropogenic Global Warming it can be cold somewhere, the theory is quite sound, because the main key word is "Global" .....


Nice post Wayne, I think I understood that one ;^\/

John Christensen

Fortunately, the Arctic sea ice is still faring better than a year ago with a slightly thicker sea ice pack: Sea ice area similar to last year and about 1400-1500km3 more sea ice in the pack.


John, that would be because there was less FRAM export one supposes!

John Christensen


The answer to the question of why we currently have more arctic sea ice than a year ago is found in Neven's PIOMAS updates: The past few months have been colder (Read: Less anomalously warm) in the central Arctic region than they were a year ago during the extremely warm 2016/17 winter.

Secondly, heavy snow fall on the sea ice caused by the frequent late fall/early winter storms a year ago further hindered sea ice build-up, while the past few months have seen a much higher degree of clear skies above the ice, enabling a more efficient heat exchange between water/ice and the atmosphere.

In the next PIOMAS update I would expect still overall relatively high average sea ice thickness numbers, as area has remained low (Slow sea ice build-up in peripheral seas), while the sea ice volume is growing relatively well in the central Arctic seas.


Psst, next PIOMAS update was published two days ago. ;-)

John Christensen

Thanks Neven! ;-)

The comments to this entry are closed.