Arctic Ice Discussion. 2013 Melt Season

[Styx]

 

Giant, floating umbrella design restores Arctic ice

 

 

 

 

An American architect has won first place in a design journal’s competition for a building plan that’s intended to reverse the melting of Arctic ice caps. His design of giant, floating umbrellas that could potentially restore ice by harvesting and freezing the water underneath comes at a time when transportation and energy giants, as well as the governments of the world’s economic leaders, aim to take advantage of a potentially navigable Arctic region.

 

According to the National Snow & Ice Data Center’s (NSIDC) most recent Arctic sea ice analysis, the region’s ice extent declined at a near-average rate through May, but overall, it remained below average when compared to the 1979-2000 average -- there’s less ice than in the past.  

 

The analysis mentions Alaska’s frigid temperatures through May, even naming the report “Un-baked Alaska.â€

Verticality near the North Pole

“Polar Umbrella†by Derek Pirozzi has won eVolo magazine’s 2013 Skyscraper Competition, which was established in 2006 to recognize innovative ideas for vertical living.

 

While Pirozzi’s design potentially could keep northern sea routes closed, the giant umbrellas are just a concept at this point. The design would allow for the large structures to operate like a buoy, floating amongst the ice, the architect told Wired.

 

The umbrellas theoretically reduce the surface’s heat gain. As envisioned, the interior of the structures would house desalinization plants, solar powered research facilities and ecotourism attractions.

 

Placed in the fastest melting areas of the Arctic, and Antarctic, the large buoys would provide shade and absorb ultraviolent rays, converting the rays into energy instead of allowing them to melt the ice. The structure’s design allows the umbrella to be angled to catch the max amount of sunshine, and Pirozzi contends the surrounding area’s temperature would decrease by about 5 degrees Fahrenheit.

 

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130607/giant-floating-umbrella-design-restores-arctic-ice

 

Edited June 13, 2013 by Styx

[songster]

The guy's an idiot, and so are the people that judged the competition.

 

Edit:  No doubt someone will ask why, so here goes.

 

1)  It's far too large to sanely construct in the Arctic.  It's ~150 metres tall, even leaving aside the umbrella cover.  That's close to the size of the Gherkin - and you want it to float?  Some oil rigs get close to that size, but they have an open superstructure to stop themselves being capsized by the wind.  This proposal has a closed umbrella cover - there's no way you could make it stable.

 

2)  It's far too small to make any impact whatsoever.  The Arctic ocean is 14 million km^2, each of these structures will shade around 0.16 km^2.  The numbers needed to make a difference are astronomically high. To put it in other terms, London is around 0.1% the area of the Arctic ocean - this means that to shade 0.1% of the Arctic ocean, you need to build another London at the North Pole.

 

3)  It won't work even in principle, and will in fact make things worse.  Apparently the umbrella is supposed to shade the ice and absorb the "ultraviolent" energy. So, where does that energy <i>go</i> after being absorbed?  Use it to power your research base? Sure, and that means it ends up as heat.  <i>Whatever</i> you do with that energy, ultimately it will end up as heat, unless you've found a magic way around the second law of thermodynamics.  The only way to have an actual effect would be to reflect the energy, not absorb it - and do so more effectively than the bare snow and ice.  Snow has a really high albedo - pretty much any structure you put on it will only mean you absorb more energy, not less.

Edited June 13, 2013 by songster

[Red Raven]

The guy's an idiot, and so are the people that judged the competition. Edit:  No doubt someone will ask why, so here goes. 1)  It's far too large to sanely construct in the Arctic.  It's ~150 metres tall, even leaving aside the umbrella cover.  That's close to the size of the Gherkin - and you want it to float?  Some oil rigs get close to that size, but they have an open superstructure to stop themselves being capsized by the wind.  This proposal has a closed umbrella cover - there's no way you could make it stable. 2)  It's far too small to make any impact whatsoever.  The Arctic ocean is 14 million km^2, each of these structures will shade around 0.16 km^2.  The numbers needed to make a difference are astronomically high. To put it in other terms, London is around 0.1% the area of the Arctic ocean - this means that to shade 0.1% of the Arctic ocean, you need to build another London at the North Pole. 3)  It won't work even in principle, and will in fact make things worse.  Apparently the umbrella is supposed to shade the ice and absorb the "ultraviolent" energy. So, where does that energy <i>go</i> after being absorbed?  Use it to power your research base? Sure, and that means it ends up as heat.  <i>Whatever</i> you do with that energy, ultimately it will end up as heat, unless you've found a magic way around the second law of thermodynamics.  The only way to have an actual effect would be to reflect the energy, not absorb it - and do so more effectively than the bare snow and ice.  Snow has a really high albedo - pretty much any structure you put on it will only mean you absorb more energy, not less.

Its an intellectual competition not one that is to be seriously considered!

[joggs]

Whats the point in having such competitionps then when clearly its POINTLESS?.

Competitions*

[SomeLikeItHot]

Whats the point in having such competitionps then when clearly its POINTLESS?.Competitions*

 

Well yes, if we want to go down an engineering route, surely a plan to inject aerosols into the stratosphere would be cheaper and less environmentally impacting than this. Not as structurally pretty of course so unlikely to score good marks in a design journal.

[Gray-Wolf]

Back to the ice and some our our posters apparent misconceptions the melt seasons potential this year?

 

The current trend toward a single thickness/ice type will mean alterations to the way we witness the pack disappear. More and more we have been seeing 'the cliff' type melts in June/July, closer to what we see in Hudson Bay each year, and this will encompass more and more of the ice area as FY ice takes more and more of the share of the ice?

 

Folk have been calling a 'slow start' for the ice this year so far but with vast areas FYice and of a thickness that an 'average summer has no problems melting those folk may find themselves stunned later in the season as huge areas (of similar thickness) go critical and 'blink out' over a period of days (as we saw in the FY ice of the NW Passage last July?)

 

The ice is already showing signs of how badly mangled it is on concentration maps so once full melt arrives this 'weakened' ice will begin to 'blink out'.

 

It may end up July and not June (due to a 'slow start') but the ice, just like Hudson's, cannot withstand a season of melt.

[reef]

Back to the ice and some our our posters apparent misconceptions the melt seasons potential this year?

 

How is it a misconception if it hasnt happened yet? You know as much as anyone else. We may finish on 2million sq km or 6 million sq km, nobody knows. It matters not what potential there is if the conditions arent right to melt it.

 

Coming from someone who rarely ventures in here, perhaps you wouldnt get such hostile responses (as often seems to be the case) if you just said what you had to say without resorting to lines like the above.

[Gray-Wolf]

There is no chance of the Hudson Bay not melting this summer Reef. That said why should vast swathes of the Basin, with ice the same, not also be confidently predicted?

 

EDIT: The sad fact is that the two 'extremes' you mention , 6 and 2 are not both extreme? One is a very frightening possibility and the other would take something very 'extreme ' to enable it to occur? It may well prove to be that the synoptics so far this year have already primed the pack for the 2 million figure where as nothing has occurred that could allow all the older ice plus 1.5 million of the 2m FY ice to survive? As it is the older ice has already been impacted by fram over Winter (and was replaced by Younger than FY ice) and the Di-pole , now setting up looks to take a swathes more?. this means you would be needing upward of 2 million SQ KM of 2m FY ice to survive the whole season? Have you seen the land temps surrounding the basin recently? Have you see the summer forecasts for the lands surrounding the basin? How can the areas within 1,500km not be impacted by these temps?

 

The past few weeks of LP over the central basin has ripped the heart out of the Arctic basin like never witnessed before and we all know how low the volume of the ice this year was and how such figure have dealt with 'average summers' over the past few years?

 

I would suggest that you think on what we have learned since the 07' crash and how the ice has altered over this period allowing 'all' synoptics to find ways of causing large losses?

 

You should not feel as though you are not welcome in the area ( no one should) but you must accept that the debate is robust and will always need folk to bring their 'data' to the table with them?

Edited June 13, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[BornFromTheVoid]

I think, GW, if you backed up some of your assertions with some charts and data some might not interpret them in quite a negative light?

 

Anywho, latest NSIDC daily graph.

 

[Geordiesnow]

There is no chance of the Hudson Bay not melting this summer Reef. That said why should vast swathes of the Basin, with ice the same, not also be confidently predicted?

 

EDIT: The sad fact is that the two 'extremes' you mention , 6 and 2 are not both extreme? One is a very frightening possibility and the other would take something very 'extreme ' to enable it to occur? It may well prove to be that the synoptics so far this year have already primed the pack for the 2 million figure where as nothing has occurred that could allow all the older ice plus 1.5 million of the 2m FY ice to survive? As it is the older ice has already been impacted by fram over Winter (and was replaced by Younger than FY ice) and the Di-pole , now setting up looks to take a swathes more?. this means you would be needing upward of 2 million SQ KM of 2m FY ice to survive the whole season? Have you seen the land temps surrounding the basin recently? Have you see the summer forecasts for the lands surrounding the basin? How can the areas within 1,500km not be impacted by these temps?

 

The past few weeks of LP over the central basin has ripped the heart out of the Arctic basin like never witnessed before and we all know how low the volume of the ice this year was and how such figure have dealt with 'average summers' over the past few years?

 

I would suggest that you think on what we have learned since the 07' crash and how the ice has altered over this period allowing 'all' synoptics to find ways of causing large losses?

 

You should not feel as though you are not welcome in the area ( no one should) but you must accept that the debate is robust and will always need folk to bring their 'data' to the table with them?

 

I don't think too many are fooled really GW by the the higher extent tbh, I would be a bit more encouraged by it if we did not see the substancial damage to ice thicknesses to the East of the North Pole, rather worrying to look at to be honest but if ice was thicker I would be a bit more encouraged because of the positive feedback regarding sea ice(e.g the longer the ice lasts in coastal areas should in theory mean cooler SST's by September than say last year) but sadly the ice thicknesses look woeful to say the least. 

 

A large high pressure is forecast to send some very warm air on the bering side of the Arctic, so we could see some thinning of the ice here aswell as some drops in extent from this area. Looks like the "Laptev Bite" will increase with warm air moving over this area but maybe just maybe the ice will survive for a bit longer as conditions look set to remain quite cold it would seem and wind direction may help the ice in parts of the Beaufort Sea not to retreat from the coast. So alot to keep an eye in the next 5-7 days I feel and I be watching that 30% extent figure very closely indeed, its still showing to be reasonably steady so I don't expect any sharp drops to be appearing in the 15% figure just yet(at least thats what the theory is telling me) but I won't be surprised if we see a nose dive in the 30% figure but hopefully this won't happen. 

 

I also want to point out GW you menturn Hudson Bay as a comparison for ice in the basin to fall off like a cliff. I find this odd as Hudson Bay is shallower than the Arctic Ocean and despite getting warm temperatures, the ice does manage to hold in most years for most of June so it does not add up in my eyes because the warm spells Hudson does get will warm up the shallower waters much quicker hence ice should in theory drop more like a stone than it does in the Arctic Ocean?

 

Still I get the feeling you could be right about a sharp decline in extent later on in the season though because of the thin ice to the East of the North Pole. 

[Gray-Wolf]

Sorry G.S., I could have been clearer? I cannot compare sea ice to the ice on the waters of Hudson but can compare the fact that it is all seasonal ice that puts on an average thickness that does not show the variance in ice thickness that some surviving 'perennial' ice there would show?

 

The next 'perfect storm' in the Arctic Basin will , I fear, send the basin 'seasonal' and , as such, all of the ice will be a very similar beast with views to how it would act in an 'average weather year' melt season?

 

Some folk were saying , last June, that the ice in The NW Passage was very thick ( 3m+) and that they doubted that the passage could be open that year? I still do not know if this was ;

 

1/ Wishful thinking

 

2/ Trolling

 

3/ A bit of both

 

But the fact that it was surrounded by land and was all 1st year ice did not give it a cat in hells chance of surviving.

 

There is not much 3m FY ice in the central basin any more.

 

NW Passage was open by Aug.

 

If a 'colder position' took 4 weeks longer to fade it would still mean that any ice under 3m+ will just 'fade away' over a melt season? That only leaves The north of Greenland and the upcoming Di-Pole has a helping hand from the low to our NE over the next 2 weeks?

 

EDIT: It's the old 'getting the oil tanker moving' thing? If the Di-Pole breaks the ice free and imparts enough momentum then any more 'persistent Arctic Cyclone's over the pole will just keep that mass of precious ice in motion toward Fram ( I fear?) and lead to a very bad thing happening?

 

EDIT;EDIT: Sorry BFTV but I take it you do not need to see any links to data? I kinda thought so as the folk who are watching the melt season ( and post their beliefs) are all 'singing from the same sheet'?

 

We all follow the data day in ,day out ,week in ,week out?

 

As such folk wishing to 'discuss ' ideas will be up to date? Folk wishing to 'ask questions' can be guided to where to find those answers ( and given a 'view' of how we see it going?)

 

I'm not trying to be 'obtuse' but do feel that it would 'calm ' things here , to a 'sea ice Forum' chill if we could work in such a way?

 

I am not saying anything about this Forum , this season, but you know that 'In the Past' folk have 'trolled', using asinine statements, that just leave the like of You and Me in bother by trying to show our readership that they were just that (and then the culprit whines to management about being treated so?)I wish to continue posting here, I enjoy it? but can see that some 'Scientologist-esque' baiting will draw me into a 'Red Card'?

Edited June 13, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[reef]

There is no chance of the Hudson Bay not melting this summer Reef. That said why should vast swathes of the Basin, with ice the same, not also be confidently predicted?

 

EDIT: The sad fact is that the two 'extremes' you mention , 6 and 2 are not both extreme? One is a very frightening possibility and the other would take something very 'extreme ' to enable it to occur? It may well prove to be that the synoptics so far this year have already primed the pack for the 2 million figure where as nothing has occurred that could allow all the older ice plus 1.5 million of the 2m FY ice to survive? As it is the older ice has already been impacted by fram over Winter (and was replaced by Younger than FY ice) and the Di-pole , now setting up looks to take a swathes more?. this means you would be needing upward of 2 million SQ KM of 2m FY ice to survive the whole season? Have you seen the land temps surrounding the basin recently? Have you see the summer forecasts for the lands surrounding the basin? How can the areas within 1,500km not be impacted by these temps?

 

The past few weeks of LP over the central basin has ripped the heart out of the Arctic basin like never witnessed before and we all know how low the volume of the ice this year was and how such figure have dealt with 'average summers' over the past few years?

 

I would suggest that you think on what we have learned since the 07' crash and how the ice has altered over this period allowing 'all' synoptics to find ways of causing large losses?

 

You should not feel as though you are not welcome in the area ( no one should) but you must accept that the debate is robust and will always need folk to bring their 'data' to the table with them?

 

Nowhere in my post did I say what I think, you quickly assume I disagree with what you're saying, yet Im simply telling you not to be so condescending and we might get a better debate in here. This is exactly the reason why I and many others dont often come into this section.

 

As it happens Im well aware of the data, Ive held a keen interest in the Arctic ice for a good decade now. I do agree we will probably see rapid melting soon as the pack is thin, fragmented and the synoptics which have allowed weaker melting during May and early June are about to change. I also admit that despite that I dont pretend to have any idea where we'll end up come September, just as you dont. Having a theory is fine, but thats all it is, a theory. Perhaps if you hang fire until we have the actual data of this melt season at the end, then you can look at whats correct and not?

[stewfox]

Not seeing the 'massive losses' predicted last week and the week before and we remain above the 2000s levels

 

 

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

 

 

A good 700,000 to 800,000kms 2 above recent years. cf 675,000kms the area of France.

 

Sun starts to head south end of next week

 

I will let the others talk of doom and gloom

Edited June 15, 2013 by stewfox

[UV-RAY]

Not seeing the 'massive losses' predicted last week and the week before and we remain above the 2000s levels

 

 

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

 

 

A good 700,000 to 800,000kms 2 above recent years. cf 675,000kms the area of France.

 

Sun starts to head south end of next week

 

I will let the others talk of doom and gloom

Maybe that's why this thread is so quite Stu. Still early days but could this be the start of a recovery, one does hope so.

[BornFromTheVoid]

If you just look at one measure, you could be led to believe things aren't too bad. Also, with IJIS they've been having problems recently, doing massive revisions and have many days of missing data. Surely it's better to use a more consistent measure?

 

The recent loss of sea ice has been focused on concentration drops across the central Arctic, with many areas there now down below 80% concentration. The recent and ongoing storm has has caused a divergence in the sea ice, sending it into the coastal regions of the Arctic. This has boosted the extent values to a degree (still a drop of 455k on NSIDC though), but not the area, which has begun to plummet, dropping 770k over the last week. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

 

 

The amount of open water already across the central Arctic is much greater  than this time last year (more comparable to last August), especially across the eastern side north of 80N

 

Here's yesterdays MODIS image of the central Arctic, with the NE of Greenland on the bottom left, and Russia to the right

 

 

We are seeing a lot of blue ice across the Arctic recently, which is usually a sign of melt water on the surface of the ice, and generally occurs just before it melts out. Couple that with the very warm air forecast to arrive across the Pacific side of the Arctic (Alaska is heading for some new records) we could see those extent values catch up quite soon.

Upper air values at:

................ t24 ......................................... t92 .......................................t144

 

These area along the coastal regions of the Arctic (Beaufort and the CA, through to Laptev) are currently seeing a big warm up not and are likely to show signs of significant melt in the near future. These areas always melt out during, completely in recent years, during the summer, with mainly the central Arctic ice remaining by September. So the fact that we've already lost so much of the central Arctic ice, despite the high values in the coastal regions, is not the sign of a recovery.

 

As for the reason for things being quiet, best to ask management SI. There have been some selective pruning of the members posting in this area of late, the justification for which escapes my understanding.

[BornFromTheVoid]

The first sea ice outlook of the season has been released, with a median prediction of 4.1 million km2

http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2013/june

[stewfox]

If you just look at one measure, you could be led to believe things aren't too bad. Also, with IJIS they've been having problems recently, doing massive revisions and have many days of missing data. Surely it's better to use a more consistent measure?

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

I don't think you should dismiss something because its not showing what you want ? IJIS has been the fairly standard referral on here for a few years , there are of course many others. I don't suggest recovery of course or anything but a poor artic but less not dismiss something because it doesn't show the large losses predicted. Lets see what happens in the next few weeks.

[Geordiesnow]

I think the JAXA data is accurate but there has been some unpredictable extent movements during the spring season in particular but all websites show more or less the same with the 2013 extent just being above the 2009 extent. 

 

I think some were too quick(perhaps my self included) saying they will be big drops occuring but the upcoming weather set ups don't look great especially on the Alaskan part of the Arctic with some serious heat building on the land masses and this is projected to spill across some of the Arctic Ocean so some retreat of ice around here looks very likely. 

[BornFromTheVoid]

I don't think you should dismiss something because its not showing what you want ? IJIS has been the fairly standard referral on here for a few years , there are of course many others. I don't suggest recovery of course or anything but a poor artic but less not dismiss something because it doesn't show the large losses predicted. Lets see what happens in the next few weeks.

 

I didn't dismiss it at all, and a large loss is not what I want. I just suggested some caution and that using a more consistent measure, as well as looking at other data sources, would be of benefit.

Those kind of accusations aren't really necessary now. I didn't accuse you of anything, so please treat my posts with the same level of respect.

[BornFromTheVoid]

While sea ice extent continues to decline at near average rates, sea ice area is dropping very quickly, dropping 392k over the last 2 days, and 1.23 million km2 over the last 10 days (though still slightly slower than the 2012 melt rate at this time).

The difference between the extent and area melt rates is down to the lowering in concentration due to divergence in the central Arctic, melting along the peripheries and the effects of the "blue ice" caused by surface melt water on top of the sea ice (which creates false concentration drops, but isn't an issue unique to this year). While the area measurement will pick up on these drops in concentration from close to a hundred down to near 15%, the extent measurement will not read any change until the concentration drops below 15%.

 

Temperatures across the Arctic have generally been below average this late Spring and early summer, but with very mild conditions now in place across the Pacific side of the Arctic and the potential for some record breaking heat in Alaska this week, things will be interesting to watch.

 

Sea ice area data here

Sea ice extent here and here

Visual imagery here

 

[BornFromTheVoid]

An interesting look at the recent long lasting Arctic low pressure system, names the Persistent Arctic Cyclone of 2013 (PAC-2013), by Neven.

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/06/on-persistent-cyclones.html#more

[BornFromTheVoid]

215k lost on IJIS over the last 2 days (17th and 18th)

 

The NSIDC and CT values for the 18th will update later today. Will IJIS be the outlier with large losses, or will we finally start seeing consistent losses across the board?

 

The current forecast has the very mild air remaining over the Chukchi, Beaufort and Pacific side of the central Arctic over the coming days, with a bout of warmer southerlies moving into the Kara and Laptev region by the end of this week. Colder upper air values look likely to persist over much of the central Arctic and spreading into the East Siberian sea by the weekend.

Baffin sea looks like remaining cool, while Hudson bay will be quite changeable during the next week.

 

Looks like conditions for a slightly higher than average melt rate, but, with the thin ice and unpredictability so far this melt season, things are quite tough to predict.

[Geordiesnow]

215k lost on IJIS over the last 2 days (17th and 18th)

 

The NSIDC and CT values for the 18th will update later today. Will IJIS be the outlier with large losses, or will we finally start seeing consistent losses across the board?

 

The current forecast has the very mild air remaining over the Chukchi, Beaufort and Pacific side of the central Arctic over the coming days, with a bout of warmer southerlies moving into the Kara and Laptev region by the end of this week. Colder upper air values look likely to persist over much of the central Arctic and spreading into the East Siberian sea by the weekend.

Baffin sea looks like remaining cool, while Hudson bay will be quite changeable during the next week.

 

Looks like conditions for a slightly higher than average melt rate, but, with the thin ice and unpredictability so far this melt season, things are quite tough to predict.

 

So far this melt season I'm using the Danish 30% coverage as a rough guide to what may happen to the 15% coverage, today's update has the 30% coverage remaining steady whilst the last couple of days the extent did drop a bit so not too surprised by the slightly larger drops on the 15% coverage. If the 30% extent does not fall too sharply then in theory we should not see the 2013 15% extent line to drop near 2010/11/12 marks for the foreseeable future. 

 

Certainly turning out to be an interesting melt season but particularly later on in the season too see what impacts that fragmented ice near the pole will have on the sea ice extent. 

[BornFromTheVoid]

So far this melt season I'm using the Danish 30% coverage as a rough guide to what may happen to the 15% coverage, today's update has the 30% coverage remaining steady whilst the last couple of days the extent did drop a bit so not too surprised by the slightly larger drops on the 15% coverage. If the 30% extent does not fall too sharply then in theory we should not see the 2013 15% extent line to drop near 2010/11/12 marks for the foreseeable future. 

 

Certainly turning out to be an interesting melt season but particularly later on in the season too see what impacts that fragmented ice near the pole will have on the sea ice extent. 

 

It certainly is interesting. The area is still falling quite quickly, dropping another 143k yesterday, that's 730k in the last 5 days (NSIDC only dropped 218k in the last 5).

 

I think it stands to reason that the area cannot keep falling as it is without the extent reacting sometime soon, or the area seeing an upward revision. Much of the area fall appears to be due to the "blue ice" issue messing with the sensor readings resulting in false areas of low concentration. This contributed to the large June area drop last year too, with extent having a milder and slightly delayed reaction, probably as the blue ice actually melted out properly.

[4wd]

I hadn't seen this area predicting graph until recently, basically it shows the current area then automatically predicts the next few weeks using a range of options from previous years
https://sites.google.com/site/pettitclimategraphs/sea-ice-area#asiapts