Arctic Sea Ice Discussion 2015-2016: The Refreeze.

[stewfox]

No indeed that would be very silly and unnecessary. Although not quite as silly as using it as a proxy that it wasn't. On a par with using the glaciers in the Karakoram range whilst the rest of the world's glaciers are busy melting.

 

Given we have studied in detail around 300 of the 600,000 glaciers that comment makes no sense. 19 of the 300 have been shown to not be melting.

 

However the refreeze carries on in earnest . If we see volume and thickness go up we could be in for a interesting 2016.

Edited September 30, 2015 by stewfox

[Methuselah]

Given we have studied in detail around 300 of the 600,000 glaciers that comment makes no sense. 19 of the 300 have been shown to not be melting.

 

However the refreeze carries on in earnest . If we see volume and thickness go up we could be in for a interesting 2016.

lol 

[Midlands Ice Age]

No indeed that would be very silly and unnecessary. Although not quite as silly as using it as a proxy that it wasn't. On a par with using the glaciers in the Karakoram range whilst the rest of the world's glaciers are busy melting.

 

Many people have used the opening of the North West Passage as evidence of the Arctic warming and hence the fulfillment of the global warming theory.

 

Re - my term of it being used as a 'proxy'. I should probably have called it a 'symbol', or 'banner'. So yes you are correct, but I wouldn't be proud.

Well done on getting 4 points by the way!

 

I don't expect Stu will get 4 points for pointing out that your simile of the glaciers is even more totally wrong.

 

But hey ho, we will all learn that the Canadian Arctic is not an easy place to live or to use for global warming promotions

 

It sounds a bit like the recent holiday for the Australian researchers to Antartica!

 

MIA

[stewfox]

Many people have used the opening of the North West Passage as evidence of the Arctic warming and hence the fulfillment of the global warming theory.

 

 

I don't expect Stu will get 4 points for pointing out that your simile of the glaciers is even more totally wrong.

 

 

 

 

Glacier melt has been 'discussed' adnauseam on another thread where its more appropriate, but for 4 points could be worth a try ?

 

Re the North West passage it was seen as the holy grail a few years back on here. 

 

If export routes get cut off the ice will have to melt in situ and that's unlikely.

Edited September 30, 2015 by stewfox

[knocker]

 

I don't expect Stu will get 4 points for pointing out that your simile of the glaciers is even more totally wrong.

 

 

MIA

 

Well I totally refute what he says but as he didn't give a link to the source of his data I will just add some information that very much indicates he is incorrect.

 

The Global Land Ice Measurements from Space (GLIMS) database archives the 122,414 records of the extent of 117,201 glaciers covering 420,859 km² , re[resenting well over half the glaciers on earth. The database is soon to be expanded with ingestion of the Randoph Glacier Inventory. Thousands of Glaciers in the database have multitemporal data. This growing permanent digital archive is accompanied by rich metadata. The archive is freely available.

 

The immediate antecedents of GLIMS are the World Glacier Inventory dealing with field and aerial photo observations of glaciers, and the mammoth 12-volume series Satellite Image Atlas of the Glaciers of the World of which 11 volumes have appeared so far.

 

The Randolph Glacier Inventory (RGI) is a recent comprehensive global glacier mapping project related to GLIMS. The RGI was stimulated by the need for complete coverage of all glaciers for the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. In its current version the RGI contains just over 195,000 glaciers. Several recent global-scale studies rely on the RGI

 

Recent advances, due in part to creation of the GLIMS Glacier Inventory and the RGI, have finally provided a good idea of the speed at which glaciers are disappearing on a global basis.

 

I could go on at great length but you can find all the details if you wish in the 900 page tome Global Land Ice Measurements from Space, compiled by many of the world's leading glaciologists in which they conclude that, apart from a very few exceptions, for example some glaciers in Norway, Mt. Shasta in California and the Karakoram,, the world's glaciers are melting.

 

Or you can consult the data bases of the above online.

 

Seeing that you have agreed that I'm totally wrong perhaps you, or stewfox, would care to support your claim with some evidence that invalidates the above and actually demonstrates that my original statement is incorrect rather than producing a couple of unsubstantiated figures and then retiring to wallow in some mutual back slapping.

 

EDIT

 

I assume the 'discussed' ad nauseam is an indication that the evidence is not to your liking.

 

 

Glacier melt has been 'discussed' adnauseam on another thread where its more appropriate

Edited October 1, 2015 by knocker

[Midlands Ice Age]

Re the above...

 

All agreed.

 

MIA

[ghrud]

Well I totally refute what he says but as he didn't give a link to the source of his data I will just add some information that very much indicates he is incorrect.

 

The Global Land Ice Measurements from Space (GLIMS) database archives the 122,414 records of the extent of 117,201 glaciers covering 420,859 km² , re[resenting well over half the glaciers on earth.

 

Over what period of time has this data has been accumulated. Whats being compared? 

[knocker]

Over what period of time has this data has been accumulated. Whats being compared? 

 

Obviously the satellite data base is within the satellite era and prior to that photographic and field data mostly back as far as the mid 19th century. I'm not sure anything is being 'compared' but rather detailing the current strong trend of ice loss among the world's glaciers.

Edited October 4, 2015 by knocker

[stewfox]

Massive gains occurring 

 

Another 143,000 yesterday on top of nearly 600,000 in a week

 

https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/vishop-extent.html?N

[BornFromTheVoid]

Massive gains occurring 

 

Another 143,000 yesterday on top of nearly 600,000 in a week

 

https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/vishop-extent.html?N

 

October typically sees the fastest coverage growth of the year. While the recent gains seem impressive (684k in 7 days), they've only averaged 12k/day above the 2000s average for the last 7 days, and pale in comparison to 2008 (820k) and 2002 (907k).

 

The average October since 2002 sees 15 daily gains of over 100,000km2, varying between 9 in 2003 and 24 in 2008. We still have quite a way to go before this refreeze begins to stand out in any way.

[stewfox]

October typically sees the fastest coverage growth of the year. While the recent gains seem impressive (684k in 7 days), they've only averaged 12k/day above the 2000s average for the last 7 days, and pale in comparison to 2008 (820k) and 2002 (907k).

 

The average October since 2002 sees 15 daily gains of over 100,000km2, varying between 9 in 2003 and 24 in 2008. We still have quite a way to go before this refreeze begins to stand out in any way.

 

Another 147,000 for yesterday and with virtually no melt in Antarctica at present global sea ice extent is certainly on the rebound

[Midlands Ice Age]

Another 147,000 for yesterday and with virtually no melt in Antarctica at present global sea ice extent is certainly on the rebound

 

I make that around 800K now in the last 7 days. Another day of 140- 159 K and it will come close to 900K and over 1 million in 10 days.

 

Would that be a record ?

 

MIA

Edited October 9, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[Midlands Ice Age]

Even more dramatic is the following arctic sea ice depiction of the Arctic Ocean. Incredible over the last 48 hours and the next few days.

 

http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictn_nowcast_anim30d.gif

 

MIA

 

What could be causing this huge change?, as I thought that according to all the climate sst temperature datasets , the Arctic ocean is supposed to be 2-3 degrees celsius above the climate comparison periods.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[Gray-Wolf]

All the older ice that melted left some very fresh water over the surface of Beaufort M.I.A. so we are freezing at higher temps than normal............ (LOL)

[stewfox]

I make that around 800K now in the last 7 days. Another day of 140- 159 K and it will come close to 900K and over 1 million in 10 days.

 

Would that be a record ?

 

MIA

 

139,000 yesterday or 1.4m above 2012 for this time of year

Edited October 10, 2015 by stewfox

[BornFromTheVoid]

Another gain with ADS of about 140k.

What's happening? Well, SSTs have cooled and ice is forming. It's known as Autumn in the Arctic ocean, happens every year. And now that we have so much more of the Arctic ocean available for new ice to form than usual, it's likely that ice formation will be above historical averages for a while.

 

Big gains are the norm in October. In the last 10 years, only 2013, 2010 and 2009 haven't seen a 7 day increase above 1 million km2.

[The PIT]

Interestingly cryosphere today isn't really reflecting the increases with sea ice area showing only slight increases.

[Daniel*]

Null.

Edited October 15, 2015 by Daniel*

[stewfox]

Another gain with ADS of about 140k.

What's happening? Well, SSTs have cooled and ice is forming. It's known as Autumn in the Arctic ocean, happens every year. And now that we have so much more of the Arctic ocean available for new ice to form than usual, it's likely that ice formation will be above historical averages for a while.

 

Big gains are the norm in October. In the last 10 years, only 2013, 2010 and 2009 haven't seen a 7 day increase above 1 million km2.

 

Folk talk about 100k losses in the summer so no harm talking about another 178,000 gain yesterday.

 

Arctic melts in the summer refreezes in the winter all is well.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Folk talk about 100k losses in the summer so no harm talking about another 178,000 gain yesterday.

 

Arctic melts in the summer refreezes in the winter all is well.

 

Sure, there's no harm in talking about it, but acting like ordinary ice gains are somehow defying explanation is stretching things a bit.

 

Whatever you need to convince yourself all is well, though.

 

Now, the 213k jump today, that's slightly more interesting, though not unusual given that October has produced 24 >200k increases in the last 10 year. If we can manage a several >200k jumps in a row, or even better some >250k or 300k in a row, then we might have something that requires some additional explanation.

[stewfox]

Sure, there's no harm in talking about it, but acting like ordinary ice gains are somehow defying explanation is stretching things a bit.

 

Whatever you need to convince yourself all is well, though.

 

Now, the 213k jump today, that's slightly more interesting, though not unusual given that October has produced 24 >200k increases in the last 10 year. If we can manage a several >200k jumps in a row, or even better some >250k or 300k in a row, then we might have something that requires some additional explanation.

 

If we were having 50k increases some folk would be talking about terminal decline

 

204,000k yesterday , your own stats will support a phenomenally good week for ice growth and thats worth a mention in my book, otherwise might as well just have a melt thread.

Edited October 18, 2015 by stewfox

[BornFromTheVoid]

If we were having 50k increases some folk would be talking about terminal decline

 

204,000k yesterday , your own stats will support a phenomenally good week for ice growth and thats worth a mention in my book, otherwise might as well just have a melt thread.

 

So far in October we've had 5 days with 61k or less of an increase, has anyone described those as a terminal decline?

 

Actually, the increase yesterday was 243k, and we've gained over a million km2 in the last 6 days (2012 gained more during the same time). A strong increase during that time, but far from phenomenal.

 

Once again, I think discussing the rate of increase is interesting and worthwhile, but, there is no point (other than to mislead) in making out that the growth so far has been phenomenal, it hasn't. Even just comparing to the last few years, the increase so far this month is about the same as 2012 and well behind 2008.

[stewfox]

So far in October we've had 5 days with 61k or less of an increase, has anyone described those as a terminal decline?

 

Actually, the increase yesterday was 243k, and we've gained over a million km2 in the last 6 days (2012 gained more during the same time). A strong increase during that time, but far from phenomenal.

 

 

 

204k gain ? I'm referring to this IJIS figure

 

https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/vishop-extent.html?N

 

Mid Oct and back to 2005 already and 1.2m above 2012 and much better then 2007

 

ps nobody mentioned 'defying explanation'  so time to move on

 

 

 

Edited October 18, 2015 by stewfox

[BornFromTheVoid]

The DMI graph hasn't been posted in a while

 

 

So, how could we be seeing slightly above average gains with temperatures nearly 10C above average? Well, because north of 80N is only a small portion of the Arctic. If we look at the Arctic ocean as a whole we get the graph below.

 

 

Just a little above average then, and given the extra space available after the low minimum, not much needed to explain the slightly faster coverage increases over the last while.

[stewfox]

The DMI graph hasn't been posted in a while

 

 

So, how could we be seeing slightly above average gains with temperatures nearly 10C above average? Well, because north of 80N is only a small portion of the Arctic. If we look at the Arctic ocean as a whole we get the graph below.

 

 

Just a little above average then, and given the extra space available after the low minimum, not much needed to explain the slightly faster coverage increases over the last while.

 

 

Nice to see some of that cold air flooding south out of the 80N region which of course leaves a 10c+ abnormality up there,The temps will drop back shortly and should help ice volume growth when it does and complete the 100% extent on the western side of that area .In recent years temps have remained stubbornly above average up there during the winter months , in fact in the last 10/15 yrs the +ve  temp abnormalities (80N) have shown more consistency (ie regularly occurring)  then the end of melt season -ve extent abnormalities.

 

The temps at 2000ft (925hpa) although interesting don't show much re what going on at 2m or at 6 feet

 

If (and its a big if) the current trend of ice growth continues outside of 80N we could be back to 2000s averages by month end (supporting graph attached)

 

Its pleasing to see a lot of open water in 2007 at this time of year is already freezing over (supporting images attached)

Edited October 20, 2015 by stewfox