Jump to content

Recommended Posts

One of the most intense Arctic cyclones on record whipping up the Kara Sea, a 3-4 day blowtorch (relatively speaking for the area) across the Laptev, and a warm+sunny type HP environment developing across the Pacific-Canadian sides that not only threatens extensive melt beneath, but sets up an at least brief dipole pattern.

The actual sequence of events over the next 5-8 days may bare more resemblance to science fiction... but no - it’ll really be happening.

 

It remains to be seen just how heavy the impacts will be on the sea ice via a combination of mechanical actions (mainly Kara), rainfall (Kara, Laptev, maybe even CAB for a time) and melt ponding (Pacific-Canadian sectors, possibly CAB at times)... but I fear they will see 2018 gain a lot ot melting momentum that will be hard to apply the breaks on this side of mid-late August.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Singularity!

Yes indeed! This will be very interesting to see especially with the 'new' pack dynamics of well fragmented and mixed ice?

In the past we would have had solid ice cover to damp out any waves but as we see on the Laptev coast there is ample open water to allow swells to form and then the ice beyond will act more like chain mail than plate armour effectively breaking apart any floes 'glued' together by late formed FY ice.

We will also see transport increase but this may prove a 2 way street as the depression moves through with the expuision toward Barentsz then reversing into a compaction event so we may see some 'growth' in Barentsz ( unless the waters there overpower the ice?) and then a rapid drop there.

The ice over the Pacific side will see good melt conditions as the high promises extended sun for areas of the pack. That 'brown ice' in Chukchi would soak up the heat.

Interesting times eh?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Interesting times indeed. The storm itself probably won't alter things much extent wise despite it's strength as whilst it's very deep, in terms of how much ice it affects looks minimal but it will be interesting too see tomorrow's breman sea ice update in the Northern Kara sea area too see what affect it has had. 

Too me the concern is in the Laptev sea the huge hole which has developed will no doubt get bigger in the coming days as hot winds off the landmass hits this area for at least several days but apparently the ice is thicker on that side of the Arctic so be interesting how it reacts to such warmth and as GW says waves also.

If the high sets up over the ESS then melt ponding could really come into play and according to the models this is where the fast ice is which tend to suggests it's quite thick so this will be a good test for the ice there.

I suppose one consolation perhaps is conditions should be cold and cloudy over the Beaufort sea and the ice is much thinner here so if this dipole was the opposite way round you could say it looks 2007 like and the damage to extent numbers would of been felt much quicker. 

 

Edited by Geordiesnow
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks pretty scary to me - I can't remember ever seeing 850hPa temperatures above 5C so widely so near the North Pole in mid June before.

2018_06_09.png

The GFS looks more apocalyptic than the ECMWF, sustaining that sort of warmth over the Siberian side of the pole for over a week, while the ECMWF has been consistent in suggesting a few days of this regime followed by a moderating of the extreme warmth.  It will be interesting to see whether the ice on that side of the pole can hold much ground against it, but according to NSIDC there are already pockets of low sea ice concentration in the affected area.  On the other hand like Geordiesnow suggested it looks like staying relatively cool and cloudy over the region where most sea ice has tended to survive the summer melt in recent years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The warmth over Laptev may of subsided slightly as the flow is more variable with a shallow low/vortex developing which I assume will bring more cloud and perhaps slightly cooler Temps but models in general are more or less  suggesting a reverse dipole so high pressure over the siberian section and low pressure on the Canadian/Alaska side of the basin.

Its the ESS turn in terms ofor winds blowing in from a hot landmass. Wonder how much melt ponds we will see here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

With JAXA logging a 3K gain in ice yesterday I think we might be approaching a time for a more accurate measure of the new , more fragmented and mobile, pack?

It is an entirely possible scenario where we see every grid square in the Arctic mask holding 15% ice yet the measure we are told of being 100% cover for the whole basin???

That tells us nothing and leads to unnecessary debate over just how much ice we do have in the Arctic. Surely we now have imagining and algorithms that could deal effectively with a new , more accurate measure than one developed solely to deal with peripheral ice at a time when this was the only place in the Arctic we had fragmented ice?

Edited by Gray-Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Gray-Wolf said:

With JAXA logging a 3K gain in ice yesterday I think we might be approaching a time for a more accurate measure of the new , more fragmented and mobile, pack?

It is an entirely possible scenario where we see every grid square in the Arctic mask holding 15% ice yet the measure we are told of being 100% cover for the whole basin???

That tells us nothing and leads to unnecessary debate over just how much ice we do have in the Arctic. Surely we now have imagining and algorithms that could deal effectively with a new , more accurate measure than one developed solely to deal with peripheral ice at a time when this was the only place in the Arctic we had fragmented ice?

Cor not more adjustments GW...

Last week it was a bit of this and now it is a bit of the other.

We have had 3 major changes in the last few years on NOAA and hence on PIOMASS.

1) To adjust for salt

2) To adjust for thickness for 'bad' ice 

3) To adjust the monthly trend by reducing it by 2.8%. (only last Oct )

And still you want more?

I  believe you will only be happy when the official figures show no extent and yet a record high volume.

The whole point of a dataset is that it can be used for comparison, how can this be carried out sensibly when continual adjustment is performed.

 The question is how ould it have been measured in the 1980's   IMO?

Meantime just for a bit of balance on here Maisie shows the 5th highest extent for the date. It also shows the greatest volume and thickness for all years since it was started except still for 2003 and 2004. It actually started in 2003.

Note that this ice report (Maisie)  is used and run for the US Navy. It has not had any adjustments to handle  either salty ice or for mushy ice.  It just records what we used to think was the correct extent, thickness and volume.

1839226666_Screenshot2018-06-1319_40_47.thumb.png.c5ec38bf34c9cfb90998704c9f3b9262.png            

 

 

 

Note that the ice volume has now exceed the average level (2004 - 2013) for the first time since 2005.

It looks so good that I think that NOAA will have to do something about it? Don't you agree?  

./sarc    😁

 

MIA

Edited by Midlands Ice Age

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that most improved scientific predictions only happen as a result of improving observations (quantum theory, relativity, stellar evolution, biological evolution and meteorology, for instance) it seems absurd to me that anyone would want to stick to old antiquated measurements of natural phenomena...To suggest that 15% ice-cover should be read as 100% seems equally daft...?🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

NSIDC figures indeed suggest minimal ice losses but significant drops in ice concentrations where the warm air masses have been coming in.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

It hasn't been as bad as I'd feared though, as it's happened over a relatively small area.  I was envisaging possible ice losses very near the North Pole.

Edited by Thundery wintry showers
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Gray-Wolf said:

With JAXA logging a 3K gain in ice yesterday I think we might be approaching a time for a more accurate measure of the new , more fragmented and mobile, pack?

It is an entirely possible scenario where we see every grid square in the Arctic mask holding 15% ice yet the measure we are told of being 100% cover for the whole basin???

That tells us nothing and leads to unnecessary debate over just how much ice we do have in the Arctic. Surely we now have imagining and algorithms that could deal effectively with a new , more accurate measure than one developed solely to deal with peripheral ice at a time when this was the only place in the Arctic we had fragmented ice?

If you change how the data is shown then you have to write off every bit of  data since 1979 then so I just dont see the point of it just because we have seen a stall/slight gain in extent. Besides it's not totally unusual in the christmas pudding to have these slowdowns and slight gains during the summer months.

Back to the ice and it looks too me the ice pack is getting less compact and the compactness charts seem to agree with this. How much this is down to the ice pack getting spread out or down to melt ponds or even just satellite error(due to clouds for example) is unclear but be interesting to watch especially as in theory weather conditions for the next 3 to 5 days looks favorable for ice retention in the Beaufort and Chuckchi Seas. Laptev and Kara do look warmer but winds for the most part don't seem to be blowing too much off the landmasses unlike previously

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Geordiesnow said:

If you change how the data is shown then you have to write off every bit of  data since 1979 then so I just dont see the point of it just because we have seen a stall/slight gain in extent. Besides it's not totally unusual in the christmas pudding to have these slowdowns and slight gains during the summer months.

Back to the ice and it looks too me the ice pack is getting less compact and the compactness charts seem to agree with this. How much this is down to the ice pack getting spread out or down to melt ponds or even just satellite error(due to clouds for example) is unclear but be interesting to watch especially as in theory weather conditions for the next 3 to 5 days looks favorable for ice retention in the Beaufort and Chuckchi Seas. Laptev and Kara do look warmer but winds for the most part don't seem to be blowing too much off the landmasses unlike previously

I can see what you're getting at GS and I half-agree with it...But as newer, better and more accurate methods of measurement come on stream it's surely better to utilise them? Then again, having said that, the older methods do need to be borne in mind, and frequently referred to, or we'll run the risk of being forever in a state of utter confusion...It's confusing enough as it is?:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

I can see what you're getting at GS and I half-agree with it...But as newer, better and more accurate methods of measurement come on stream it's surely better to utilise them? Then again, having said that, the older methods do need to be borne in mind, and frequently referred to, or we'll run the risk of being forever in a state of utter confusion...It's confusing enough as it is?:D

But what are these new methods though. I see nothing wrong with the 15% cut off point for extent no matter what the state of the ice is. Obviously the larger like drops should commence soon and area is still going down steadily which suggests the slow down is down to ice spreading out into open water.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not an expert on ice, I'm not an expert on data, in fact I'm an expert on very little, except putting my foot in it! 

That said, I am reasonably experienced in pragmatic use of information. 

If systems and measurement techniques have evolved to be more accurate, or are they more precise?( the two are not the same, data can be more precise but no more accurate) then you have to use the old data alongside and use the new data to create a correlation and backwards extrapolate for any of the data to provide meaningful continuity and comparison. Don't you? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Geordiesnow said:

But what are these new methods though. I see nothing wrong with the 15% cut off point for extent no matter what the state of the ice is. Obviously the larger like drops should commence soon and area is still going down steadily which suggests the slow down is down to ice spreading out into open water.

Good question!

But, at the end of the day, whichever method/methods 'we' choose to employ, the reality of the situation will remain the same: apart from the usual annual 'recoveries', Arctic sea-ice will continue to decline...So, I guess, as long as we all agree on how things are to be done, the methodical minutiae ought to be irrelevant...I think!

But, I wonder: are these 'new methods', that I am supporting, and that others are just as vigorously opposing, even real?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a case of one or the other. There are multiple measurements of ice, at multiple resolutions, using multiple techniques.
You can use different measures for different purposes, but if you want to make historical comparisons then you have to be consistent in the method used. This is why extent is the most common measurement form as it has the longest history (back to 1978).
As Jeff mentioned earlier, accuracy and precision play a role. The historical datasets may not be the most accurate, but they use a very consistent methodology (they are precise). Some of the newer products can be more accurate (such as MASIE) but because they regularly change methods, from day to day and year to year, they lack consistency and are not so useful for long term comparisons (they are more accurate, but imprecise).

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

It's not a case of one or the other. There are multiple measurements of ice, at multiple resolutions, using multiple techniques.
You can use different measures for different purposes, but if you want to make historical comparisons then you have to be consistent in the method used. This is why extent is the most common measurement form as it has the longest history (back to 1978).
As Jeff mentioned earlier, accuracy and precision play a role. The historical datasets may not be the most accurate, but they use a very consistent methodology (they are precise). Some of the newer products can be more accurate (such as MASIE) but because they regularly change methods, from day to day and year to year, they lack consistency and are not so useful for long term comparisons (they are more accurate, but imprecise).

Indeed so the methods could be precisely accurate or imprecisely accurate or precisely inaccurate or imprecisely inaccurate. Hence as BFTV mentions above consistency of methodology is key.

Once there is enough data from new methodologies, comparison, correlation and extrapolation can be made, but with the caveats re precision and accuracy being important.

It's a bold move to bin an entire dataset due to a new way of testing / evaluating. If we look at sun spot No's, we know there were inaccuracies in the data, but the "new improved" data hasn't just trashed the data from e.g. the maunder minimum, because there has (I believe) been a correlation exercise which takes the limited equipment etc into account. Maybe something similar could be achieved with ice extent, thickness and age by running methods alongside for sufficiently long to be meaningful.

 

Edited by JeffC
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jeff!

This is more like I had in mind as a hat tip to just how much has altered in both the makeup of the basin but also the new way melt season works under the well fragmented /thin ice/young ice new baselines.

It is also just honing our measures as we move down to ever smaller remnant ice amounts come seasons end?

Before long folk will be posting up comparative years to show up how amiss things are if we have exact same end numbers but the more modern one crammed with squares of very low content compared to the older ones with square 100% ice?

If anything it is to safeguard the science from those who wish to discredit it due to data issues ( we've seen this with the temp record).

So, crack on you ice agencies and give us a near perfect measure of the ice as it melts so the increasing number of ice watchers can make better sense of what they are seeing😊

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The generally low pressure on the Canadian side has outlasted many model projections from prior to the major storm event.

This may well have greatly mitigated the immediate impacts of that storm on that side of the Arctic, though we can't be sure until any clearer conditions arrive.

Meanwhile, the Siberian side has suffered extensive and severe snow cover loss and lowering of albedo, and with further areas of high pressure looking likely there in the near future as part of an intermittent 'reverse dipole' pattern, it's easy to envision that side seeing a total melt out by late in the season. 

If this happens without much change on the Canadian side, then it seems to be that we'll see the greatest test so far of the power of oceanic-driven ice loss relative to solar-driven, firstly in how much any 'warm' air transport from Siberian side are able to melt ice on the Canadian side, and secondly - and most significantly when looking at the overall health of the Arctic sea ice - in how much the freezing season is impeded on the Siberian side. 

An important factor in this will be the interaction of the warmer waters with the sea ice boundary; melting ice can restrict nearby SSTs to around freezing, but just how far does 'nearby' apply?

17thJun18_ArcticSnapshot_NullSchool_Temp_II.thumb.JPG.229e754f2b8f736b03dd864bd902191f.JPG

Given that I can now find persistent 3-5*C temps way out at sea here, perhaps the margin is not very far at all?

17thJun18_ArcticSnapshot_NullSchool_Temp.JPG

Edited by Singularity
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a very interesting season this year but at least we've managed to avoid 'The Perfect Melt Storm' synoptic for another year?

As we lose the snow over the Eurasian side we may well see more active storms pass through the basin through July/Aug?

Maybe a season that leaves us with more questions than answers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Gray-Wolf said:

It is a very interesting season this year but at least we've managed to avoid 'The Perfect Melt Storm' synoptic for another year?

As we lose the snow over the Eurasian side we may well see more active storms pass through the basin through July/Aug?

Maybe a season that leaves us with more questions than answers?

Well avoid it thus far thankfully because we will no doubt be seeing different results if the true dipole did form giving how vulnable Beaufort ice is.

Models are still trending more or less cooler Alaskan/CAA With warmer Siberian and Kara seas which means a continuation of the reverse dipole although the pressure patterns are quite slack at this moment in times. Trend also seems to be to once again push that cold low further towards Beaufort and Chuckchi seas after a bit of a retreat in the next few days. That said I have seen other runs(albeit the exception rather than the rule) of pressure trying to rise around Beaufort with lower pressure towards the ESS and whilst no run indicated a huge dipole it does mean a favourable set up on paper becomes less favourable so it can quickly change.

One thing of interest/concern has to be the retreat of the Atlantic front, it's no secret the ice between the pole and Svalbard is quite thin so just how far north will that ice edge go? 2013 style perhaps? 

Either way it's good too see the ice on the Pacific side of the Arctic is being a bit more resilient than it was last year, the real low volume did show in the early part of last year's melt season and this year is the total opposite on last year in respect there is more ice this year in the Pacific regions but less in the Atlantic sector this year(With the exception of the Kara sea). 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×