The Arctic Thread - Page 3 - Weather Spotlight - 33andrain Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 10/31/2018 at 8:09 PM, Midllands Ice Age (UK) said:

 

BB  (Dave) ..

 Thankyou for your, as usual,  brilliant and informed reply. I thought that your comparison with 2016 was very good, and although I have deleted quite a bit of it, I found it very convincing. There are some differences though, which I will discuss below...From your graph above (that I left) , you can see that -

 

1)The SST's on the Siberian side,  a month ago, were higher than those of 2016. Now they are remarkably very similar.

2) Whereas on the Canadian side the SST's were lower this year - and they still are at present.

 

The same is true for the 2M temperatures. With the temperatures showing as -40C in Greenland  (much lower than 2016) and those in the central and eastern Arctic still a little bit higher than 2016.

 

Now, I have no problem with agreeing with the demise of the ice over the satellite era. But, this year, I think is somewhat different. At the moment, the ice is way ahead of 2016 on the Canadian side (western side?). The ice extent on the Eastern side was behind, but appears to have caught up (as per the last 2days).

The effect is that we more ice extent than 2016, and we seem to be moving further away. As I hope you can see 2018 has accelerated away from 2016 in the last week and a half. 

 

Now you are 'expecting' to see a slow down in 2018, (as per 2016), but there are some difference, and so far this month,  the rate of acceleration is quite impressive. Now I tend to use 'Maisie' for the very latest updates on ice changes (it gives the daily values by region) and an overall value for the latest 24 hour period.. It shows all types of the ice - and tends to be more accurate on coastal ice than NSIDC products, at this time of year. (Clearly. at this moment ice is freezing both at sea and around the coast) .  It therefore tends to 'forewarn' changes in the other products and therefore gives advance 'warning' of what is currently happening. It tends to be more reactive to any current changes.  It has consistently had daily ice gains of over 150K Km2  with three of over 200K Km2, over the last 10days, until today, when it dropped to a 40K Km2 gain, mainly because of a 60KKm2 decline in Kara. It has gained 2M Km2 in the last 12 days. Average is normally about 1.2 M Km2.  

 

Is the drop in Kara  the start of your forecasted slow down?    It could  be.  This year has been an interesting year so far, with the ice refreeze being delayed by the flood of warm air from the Pacific in September, just when the refreeze should have started, So far incursions from the Atlantic have been kept to a minimum. This I believe will be the deciding factor as to whether this year ends up as a 'rebuild' year or not.  Note - not a recovery year.

 

I hope that I have not upset  people with an attempt at identifying the actual changes that are occurring today.  The historical recent past gives cause for concerns, but  'current' is at an interesting stage and could go either way.   Dave    -  MIA (UK)

 

Edit - I will do a more detailed look at ice thicknesses based upon the DMI charts above,  in the next  couple of days..

 

SNIPPED - charts removed and text edited (to save space)

 

Hello again Dave (MIA), 

 

Firstly, as we are both Davids and I am called either David or Dave, I'm happy to stick to David on weather forums and I see that you prefer to call yourself Dave. This will avoid confusing some of members who read our posts :) 

 

Thank you for your recent update.  It's great to have your contributions on this thread and I'm delighted that you are joining me in being a very frequent poster on here. I hope that others will join us too, such as Malcolm @Blessed Weather who has posted a number of times but has other commitments with the stratosphere coming first for him ahead of the Arctic - although the two subjects have a closer than ever relationship these days with Arctic amplification and ice loss perhaps complicating the surface to troposphere and more significantly the troposphere to stratosphere coupling processes (or lack of it at times).  I have other weather interests too but this thread will be my number one priority throughout the year.  Between us (all) we can ensure that we keep the latest statistics updated.

 

This post is just a short (by my standards that is!) reply to yours as I'm in the middle of preparing my "glacial ice" post which will be ready very late today or tomorrow morning. I accept that 2018 has raced ahead of 2016 during the last couple of days.  As I said last time, we can pick from a range of charts and some showed the cross-over less than a week ago and some, like the one you showed just now, show that happening, a few days earlier than that (it looks like October 23rd on yours) and your chart is up to October 27th.  Let's look at the October 30th chart produced late yesterday (October 31st chart due in several hours time).  I'll use the first one that I referred to last time for consistency.

4b.PNG

This also has the cross-over with 2016 around October 23rd and shows a week of further rapid recovery for 2018 while 2016 had that pause. Indeed 2018 has now caught up with 2012 which saw that sustained rapid recovery from the record low point in September practically without a pause until the second week in December.  In recent years that was unusual and most years have seen periods of rapid recovery with several pauses or even a short setback. Now we can see that 2016 started another spurt from November 1st-12th. Should 2018 have a pause we could be back to square one and neck and neck again with 2016 within a week or so. By which time 2016 had a setback and slight net melt.

 

I am now even more confident that a pause is highly likely (but nothing is certain) within the next few days.  I refer you to my post yesterday on the "Countdown to Winter 2018-19" thread.  That gave my latest thoughts along with the evidence with snow cover/ice and 2m surface temp charts up to October 30th (SSTs have hardly changed in just 4 days up there).  The Pacific side of the Arctic which, unlike some recent years, is perhaps the biggest worry right now has warmed and is predicted to warm further with some 2M temps going above 0c. The Bering Sea has (in recent years) tended to freeze over more quickly than on the Atlantic side (especially the Barents and Kara Seas) as it's more land locked. The powerful typhoon season has produced those anomalously high SSTs in the far north Pacific. This will definitely restrict ice growth for at least several more weeks there and then, as always, it will largely depend on circulation patterns and the overall distribution of 2M surface temps. I probably also disappointed snow and winter cold hunters on that thread with what I said about the recent Asian snow cover growth in the last few days with something of a setback to come there too. We completely agree on the -ve anomalies over on the Canadian side of the Arctic and over most of Greenland (I've covered that in a number of recent posts and in my Greenland post - all on here).  The problem is that the colder areas are already pretty well "iced up" with rather less growth possible.  The ice free and open water areas of the Arctic are, unfortunately, mostly where the highest temps are likely to be during at the least the next week or so. 

 

So, overall, I may be wrong but I strongly believe that we'll have a slow down in the recovery rate, more likely a pause and possibly even a short setback between now and Nov 6th/7th.  I rarely like to look much further ahead than a week anyway.  Things can change quite quickly of course. Let's keep monitoring it (which we will both do for sure) and then report back on here then.  By which time the latest full NSIDC monthly update is likely to be available, which is always a fascinating read for us Arctic lovers.  David :)   

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GLOBAL GLACIAL ICE REPORT - INCLUDING GLACIERS, ICE CAPS AND ICE SHEETS

 

I told Malcolm @Blessed Weather back in August that I intended to do a post on global glacial ice and he posted a useful chart showing the cumulative glacial ice loss since 1980.  I show part of his post below but please go to near the bottom of page 1 to find his full post. 

 

On 8/28/2018 at 2:41 PM, Blessed Weather said:

Mountain Glaciers (1980–2017)

As you're planning a glacial ice extent post @Bring Back 1962-63 (David), I've posted this State of the Climate report here as well as in the Climate thread.

 

The graph below shows the mass balance of 37 reference glaciers each year since 1980 (bars), along with the total mass loss over time (red line).

 

Glacier Graph 1980-2017.jpg

 

 

SNIPPED (edited - with most of the text removed with the chart retained for reference)

 

Well, following a number of distractions on the hurricane, teleconnections and other forum threads (here and in the UK) as well as my more recent posts and updates on here including on Antarctica and Greenland, I am finally getting around to it!

 

We often hear news reports that the world's glaciers are retreating so quickly that most of them will disappear during the course of this century and many within the next 20 to 30 years. Some of this "may" be partly exaggerated by those at one extreme of the global warming and climate change debate and, at the other extreme, climate change deniers might argue that these are temporary or mostly naturally occurring changes.  As I've said repeatedly on this thread, I want to endeavour to remove the hype and take a balanced and measured approach, so in this report I want to look at many of the facts about global glacial ice.  I will draw data and information from quite a range of sources and this has been much harder than I would have thought. There is such an array of data and some very inconsistent analyses and quite a few misleading charts and statements. There are monitoring sites on many glaciers and ice sheets, satellite data is invaluable and some figures are best estimates based on photographic evidence.  Some of these records are quite out of date but I have tried to pull together information based on measurements taken in the last few years but some data goes back to 2006 which I only use for comparison purposes. Therefore I shall include the date (alongside each fact or chart) where ever possible and when it's relevant.  Whenever any of us find much more current data in place of the early data I will edit this post so that we can ensure that it is updated. In due course, a full update can be done. I feel that a good way to approach this now will be for me to run through a series of facts and figures which can be discussed in follow up posts by any of us.

 

Please note that in this post I am referring to all "glacial ice" which includes mountain and valley glaciers, tidewater glaciers,, ice caps, ice shelves and ice sheets (including Greenland and Antarctica). 

 

  • About 10 percent of the Earth is covered in "land ice" with glacial ice, including glaciers, ice caps, and the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica (NSIDC 2018).
  • This area is covered by about 15 million square kilometers of glacial ice.
  • To be termed a glacier it must be a minimum size of 0.1 square kilometers (or 25 acres).
  •  99% of glacial ice is contained within vast ice sheets (also known as "continental glaciers") in the polar regions. 
  • There are about 198,000 glaciers in the world, covering 726,000 square kilometers (June 2017).
  • It is difficult to identify and measure very small glaciers (from snow fields) which are under 0.1 square kilometers, these are called "glacierets".
  • If glacierets are included, the number of glaciers in the World would be around 400,000 but still only 1.4% of the World’s glacierised area.

  • The region with the most ice is the Antarctic and Subantarctic with 14 million square kilometers (including the main ice sheet).
  • The Antarctica ice sheets contains 30 million cubic kilometers of ice or about 90% of the Earth's total ice mass! 
  • Antartica glaciers (excluding the main ice sheet) have an estimated 132,000 square kilometers of ice. 
  • Second is the Canadian North Arctic with 104,000 square kilometers of glacial ice (excluding the ice caps there).
  • On the other hand, New Zealand has only 1,160 square kilometers of glacial ice.
  • 44% of the World’s "glacierised" area (not sea ice) is in the combined Arctic regions and 18% is in Antarctica and Subantarctica (excluding the main ice sheet).
  • Glaciers (excluding ice sheets etc) cover 0.5% of the Earth’s land surface.
  • The Little Ice Age from about 1550 to 1850 with lower global temperatures than today saw most glaciers and ice sheets expand.
  • The period from 1850 to 1940, saw a warming global climate with a widespread retreat.
  • This was reversed temporarily between 1950 and 1980 as global temperatures cooled slightly.
  • Since 1980, a significant global warming has led to glacier retreat becoming increasingly rapid and some glaciers have disappeared altogether.
  • The glacier retreat into the Rockies, the Andes and the Himalayan ranges has the potential to affect water supplies in those areas.
  • An ice sheet is a mass of glacier ice that covers surrounding terrain and is greater than 50,000 square kilometers and is also known as "continental glacier".
  • The Antarctic ice sheet is effectively a glacier and has existed for at least 40 million years. Smaller glaciers break away from the main ice sheet.
  • Antarctic ice is up to 3 miles thick in some areas.
  • The largest individual glacier in the world is the Lambert-Fisher Glacier in Antarctica at about 250 miles long and 60 miles wide.

11_antarctica_map_ice_flow_1.jpg

Ice Flow Map: This map produced in 2011 shows ice movement in 1996, 2000 & 2006. The colors indicate the speed of the ice flow: purple/red is fast; green is slower. This velocity map is derived from synthetic aperture radar and overlaid on a Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) mosaic image of Antarctica.        

  • Since 2006 Antarctica has seen increased snowfall and ice gains in some years - with increased ice flow in recent years, we need a later comparison.

41598_2018_22765_Fig1_HTML.jpg

Antarctic ice velocity in 2015 and the velocity change between 2008 and 2015. The mosaic of the Antarctic ice velocity (2015) from L8 panchromatic images from January 2015 to March 2016 is shown here overlaid on a MODIS mosaic of Antarctica (MOA)34,35. The magnitude of the ice velocity is coloured on a logarithmic scale and overlaid on gridded potential seawater temperature data (PTM) at a depth of 200 m from the World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE). The velocity changes at grounding lines are calculated for 466 glaciers between 2015 and 2008 and are shown for 211 glaciers with high confidence levels (>2 σσ), which are coloured on a logarithmic scale. The names of selected glaciers and ice shelves are labelled. ‘A’ through ‘F’ delimits the six oceanic sectors. The details of ice velocity changes along grounding lines are presented in Table S1. The solid grey lines delineate major ice divides. This map was created using The Generic Mapping Tools version.

 

  • Antarctica's ice velocity is at its highest and accelerating the fastest close to the coast where ice bergs and shelves break off.
  • The Ross Ice Shelf and Ronne Ice Shelf and a few small ice shelves are moving much more quickly than the majority of the land mass ice. 

 

10_antarctica_map_labeled.jpg

2017 Map: Antarctica has 15 major ice shelf areas, and 10 of the largest appear in this map. Most of these ice shelves are glacier-fed, but ice formed from direct snowfall accumulation is a significant part of all permanent ice shelves.

 

  • Glaciers usually take centuries to develop but can retreat and melt much more quickly. Ice melt is seasonal and varies considerably from year to year.

  • Once glacial ice begins to break down, the interaction of melt water with the glacier's structure can cause increasingly fast melting and retreat.

  • Glaciers have white surfaces that reflect the sun's rays. As glaciers melt darker surfaces are exposed which absorb heat raising temperatures even more.

  • Greenland's ice sheet has an area of 1.7 million square kilometers, an average thickness of 2.3 kilometers and holds 7 percent of the world's freshwater.

  • If Greenland's glaciers and ice sheet melted completely, global sea level would increase by up to 7 meters (23 feet).

  • Contrary to popular belief Greenland's glacier retreat was much faster in the early 20th century than it is now (confirmed by my recent Greenland post)

  • Glaciers are found in 47 countries.

WGI_AR5_Fig4-8-1024x651.jpg

 

This figure shows the global distribution of glaciers. The diameter of the circle shows the area covered. The area covered by tidewater glaciers is shown in blue. The numbers refer to each RGI region (shown in the table below):

5d1.png

This table dates back to 2012 and ice extent figures have changed since then but it does give us a good idea of global ice distribution for comparative purposes.

area_elevation_distributions_Pfeffer.png

Area-Altitude distributions for each of the RGI regions. The top figure is the distribution of regional glacierised area with altitude. The lower figure is the distribution of normalised area with normalised altitude. The dotted lines are idealised approximations; the triangle is for mountain glaciers, the curved line is for ice caps.

Source:  Pfeffer et al., 2014.

 

  • Most of the World’s glaciers lie below 2000 m above sea level and most of the glacierised area is in the mid-elevation ranges (see charts above)
  • Antarctica has many low-lying tidewater glaciers near the coast has a large amount of low-lying ice.
  • In contrast the North Canadian Arctic has many ice caps on high-elevation plateaus.
  • The distribution of glacier area with altitude is important, as it means that different areas will respond to climate change in very different ways.
  • Glaciers store about 75 percent of the world's fresh water.
  • If all land ice melted, sea level would rise approximately 70 meters (230 feet) worldwide.

 

images_Assessment-Reports_AR5-WG1_Chapte

Current contributions of glaciers and ice sheets to global sea level rise. From the IPCC AR5 Working Group 1 (Ref. 13) 2014

 

  • During the maximum point of the last ice age, glaciers covered about 32 percent of the total land area.
  • In the United States, glaciers cover over 75,000 square kilometers, with most of the glaciers located in Alaska.
  • There are 616 officially named glaciers in Alaska and about 100,000 unnamed glaciers (estimated in November 2017 - far more than recorded previously)
  • North America's longest glacier is the Bering Glacier in Alaska, measuring 190 kilometers (118 miles) long and the ice covers nearly 2,000 square miles.
  • The Bering Glacier has retreated by 8 miles since 2004 but does have short (annualised) growth periods too - this image was taken in August 2004 

1280px-Bering_glacier.jpg

NASA Earth Observatory's Image of the Day for Aug 3, 2004:Image description: Bering Glacier

 

5c.PNG

  • Not all glaciers are declining; in some areas global warming produces much higher snowfall and this can exceed the ice melt or loss - the proportions above from this 2009 chart still apply now.
  • The Hubbard Glacier in Alaska has been steadily advancing for over 100 years and is accumulating mass near its origin faster than it's losing it in the ocean.(June 2015).
  • The Kutiah Glacier in Pakistan holds the record for the fastest glacial surge. In 1953, it raced more than 7 miles in three months, averaging about 367 feet per day.
  • Tidewater glaciers are valley glaciers that flow down to the ocean and often calve small icebergs. Taku Glacier winds through the coastal mountains of SE Alaska (photo below). 

1200px-Taku_Glacier_1992.jpg

After flowing for 55 kilometers (34 miles), the glacier terminates in Taku Bay near Juneau, Alaska

 

  • Valley glaciers are really mountain glaciers that carve their way through mountain valleys and enlarge them.
  • The "Great Aletsch Glacier" in Valais, Switzerland is a valley glacier and the longest glacier in the Alps at 23 kilometers..  

5a.PNG

 

  • The Aletsch Glacier covers an area of 81.7 square kilometers, has a volume of 15.4 cubic kilometers and declined by 3 kilometers since 1880.
  • Around 400 billions tons of glacier is lost ever year (NASA 2017).
  • The US Glacier national Park in Montana has lost 124 glaciers in the last 100 years with just 26 remaining (US Independent, May 2017)

 

Glacier_Mass_Balance.png

Source:  CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1168903  (2006)

Global glacial mass balance in the last fifty years, reported to the WGMS and NSIDC. The increasing downward trend in the late 1980s is symptomatic of the increased rate and number of retreating glaciers.

 

  • Over the past two billion years there have been at least five main ice ages. The last one spanned from 2.6 million years ago to the present day (see below)
  • That statement is hotly disputed and most climatologists say that the last ice age ended around 10,000 years ago.
  • It is believed the earth has seen much warmer periods between previous ices age than we have now and these lasted for up to 10,000 years.

 

The post has ended up much longer than I expected (sorry Geoff @33andrain) but I wanted to get the facts out there, so that many of us can debate them on this thread, the climate change thread or elsewhere. It presented one of my toughest challenges ever with so much conflicting data and reports around with huge inconsistencies. Frankly, there's enough material out there for anyone to support an argument at either extreme of the climate change and global warming debate. I have tried as hard as possible to retain a thoroughly balanced approach as well as my sanity while researching all of this. I have saved nearly 50 new papers and presentations related to this topic and added them to my store.  I'll be very busy adding them steadily to the Research Portal.  David :) 

 

EDIT: Having quoted so many statistics it's possible (in fact likely) that I've made a few errors.  I just spotted one which should have said 14 million square kilometers of ice rather than 14,000 - now that would be a pretty significant loss ? Please draw any errors to my attention - that would be greatly appreciated.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

BB  (David) 

 

Thanks for your response..

 

Before I produce my analysis of the thickness and volume, I thought that I would like to finish of my review of the current ice extent, mainly by way of adding information.

 

Firstly a quick review of the last 2 or 3 days.

 

After  a reduction in all the various monitoring platforms on the 28th,  growth has now accelerated again.  Gains recorded were over 200K Km2 on the NSIDC platform  and around the 150K Km2 on Maisie and JAXA. It should be realised that at this time of the year, the increase is normally around 95 -110K Km. The growth still appears to be continuing in the last 24 hours at high rates.

 

The latest figure from JAXA is presented -

 

index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2223.0;a

 

It has now overtaken 2017, but more importantly it is still on an high growth trend. Now another 3 days of this and 2018 could well be in the middle of the 'pack?' having then caught up with years like 2007, 2010 and 2011. 

 

As we all know, ice is very fickle, and could well move down just as quickly as it moves up. So  the above is not a prediction, but is quite possible.

 

I am not pretending that this is anything but a 'rapid' catch up after a very slow start, but it is notable, because this 'catch up' has occurred whilst the 2M temperature has averaged between +2.5C and +4.5C anomalies, according to Climate Reanalyser. Even today it still stands at up to +3.7C

 

Forecast Image  

So - How can this happen?

 

I have a theory as to what is happening but I will leave it for now. 

 

Other points I would like to clarify is the relationship (in actual graphical terms), between the models.

I tend to use Maisie as it is the most reactive, as described in my previous post.

 

Other (and I think very good - if not better), is this chart from ASIF user Aluminium , which shows the rapid ice build up (and decline) in a real time fashion. I am not certain whether the graphics will work on here, but if it doesn't then click and open it in a new window, and it should then work OK.

 

Period 27 - 31st October

 

index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2413.0;a

 

I think it shows clearly where the ice is changing in real time mode (assuming that the graphic works).

 

It shows all ice types and therefore picks up on 'new, slush and Nilas,etc' and this shows up as a difference from the more conventional JAXA and NSIDC products. It seems to mirror Maisie. 

 

As an example I show a similar  graphic  from more conventional sources such as DMI (also applies to JAXA and NSIDC).

The following is an ice thickness map (for the initial date in the above graphic in case the graphic does nor work) , but it seems to follow the graphics and extents of say the ADS Vishop presentation service. 

 

CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20181027.png

 

So I will be using the  most reactive tools in order to get the latest trends and feautures of ice growth (or decline).

 

This will clearly show many different trends. The job I set myself is to spot any pertinet changes early, without looking too foolish!

 

MIA (UK)      Dave

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Midllands Ice Age (UK) said:

 

 

BB  (David) 

 

.

 

After  a reduction in all the various monitoring platforms on the 28th,  growth has now accelerated again.  Gains recorded were over 200K Km2 on the NSIDC platform  and around the 150K Km2 on Maisie and JAXA. It should be realised that at this time of the year, the increase is normally around 95 -110K Km. The growth still appears to be continuing in the last 24 hours at high rates.

This will clearly show many different trends. The job I set myself is to spot any pertinet changes early, without looking too foolish!

 

MIA (UK)      Dave

 

Also in reply to my query on Kara in the previous posts.

 

After the drop of 60K Km2 when I was posting my first posts, it increased by 82K Km2 the next day, and this morning it looks to have grown by a much larger amount.  The graphics have been updated but not the actual data as yet.

 

Dave (MIA UK)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 12:30 PM, Midllands Ice Age (UK) said:

 

Also in reply to my query on Kara in the previous posts.

 

After the drop of 60K Km2 when I was posting my first posts, it increased by 82K Km2 the next day, and this morning it looks to have grown by a much larger amount.  The graphics have been updated but not the actual data as yet.

 

Dave (MIA UK)

 

A further quick update from the last 2 days....

 

On Maisie,  Kara has increased by a further (+42K) and (+19K).

 

Whilst total ice has increased by 392K Km2.

 

So the pace of ice refreeze has not yet reduced, and we are now  above the average for the 2010 decade. but rapidly catching up with the pack. 

 

index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2223.0;a

 

As the ESS is within 200K of being full and Laptev is about 400K away, it will be up to Kara to keep up the freezing momentum. 

Will  it do this?

 The fact that we were last 3 weeks ago, and are now heading into the 'upper' reaches shows how volatile ice can be.

 

Dave (MIA UK)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2018 at 12:39 PM, Midllands Ice Age (UK) said:

 

I am finally getting around to producing my review of thickness and volume and I will be using the just produced data on PIOMAS as published on the ASIF.

 

I have discussed  extents in my few previous posts. Basically the message is that there is some small reasons to be slightly less pessimistic. (I am a half full glass type of person). So where to start.?  I am intending to concentrate on recent events as I feel that we all acknowledge the events of the last 30 -40  years and BB has described them in full detail.  So I will start with the sea ice thickness and volume maps of DMI, since they are produced daily and have a reasonable graphical interface.  This is the graph for this year - Compared to the one for 12 months ago.   Now as can be seen the ice is more advanced this year in the 'west', but not so in the 'east'.(the Russian waters).  Further more the total volumes are not that different due to the gains made over the last few days.  We are in practice about 0.3 K Km3 lower, but it will soon be eliminated. (probably).  Study of the detail of the central ice pack of the  DMI maps shows little difference, but there is a more pronounced portion of 3.5Metre to 4Metre ice this year.  I believe that this is significant as it represents the first substantial thickness of ice actually in this area for quite a while  (5 years), back to 2013.  There was some in 2015, but this was counterbalanced by a huge area of thin ice next to it across the pole..   (see below). By way of interest this followed a virtual absence of thick ice over the pole in 2014.

 

So why do I think this years thick ice is significant?  Well I would like to show a series of charts from the last ice year. showing the evolution of this 'patch'

and on to the beginning of march (the SSW period) - It clearly shows how this ice 'developed' during last year stretching out from the Russian coastline to 'embrace' it. (These effects can be seen in detail by accessing the chart and scanning through them by day or month).  A month late and the effect of the SSW is obvious - Now you can see the effect of the SSW on the ice thickness, in the sudden bulge in ice volume at the start of March and further on by  2 months and we have -  Now this resembles the 'lion rampant'  - for non UK viewers this is the emblem on much UK coinage and on the England football and cricket shirts - so recognisable,  If I carry on through the melt season we come to this - Clearly melting out , but still a patch of presumably thicker ice in its position. It does not seem to have moved very far. Which could be a factor this year.

 

Lastly, and showing the end of the melt season - You can still see the outline of the 'lion' in thicker ice.  This seems to have survived the melt season, and is now thickening up rapidly again.  So why have I spent some time explaining it all?

 

Well  it shows -

 

1) That multi year ice is still being produced.

2) Looking back at previous years it is obvious why we had reducing multi year ice.  (eg 2014 and 2015)

3) That the ice suddenly thickened dramatically during the SSW.

 

To me it is obvious that it is still possible that we could get a recovery in multiyear ice, despite the higher temperatures now in the Arctic. I produce the multi year thickness chart offered up by BB … It shows the dramatic 'drop'  of the ice in the early teens. Could it be that in the last 2 years, that the 2 year old ice is starting to recover? I will leave it for now (have been called out!) but I will come back to these points later..   Dave (MIA UK)    To Be Continued.

 

SNIPPED (CHARTS REMOVED AND TEXT ABBREVIATED TO SAVE SPACE)

 

Please note:  For those wishing to follow the sequence of posts referenced, Dave (MIA) competed his full post (and edited it) after I had responded with this post and that appears "below" this one.  

 

Thank you Dave (MIA) -  this is a wonderful analysis and this Arctic thread is all the better for your excellent contributions. I can only reply briefly right now as I have an extremely busy business week ahead (already started) and will have little time for weather activities all week (unfortunately). 

 

Firstly, as I said before, we are not in any disagreement over the rapid ice expansion during the last 3 weeks or so and I love respectful debates like this as it can throw up some angles that one has not considered fully before.  All I have been doing is suggesting (with some good reason) that we are likely to see a slow down, pause or setback in the re-freeze - I sincerely hope that I'm wrong and only time will tell.  I'll review this again around next weekend - that is to focus on the changes by then and to revisit the 2m surface temps in particular and you seem to like to do this every day or two :) 

 

I am also at least "a glass half full" guy - in fact I like to inject optimism in many of my posts but I try to ignore my personal preferences (for at least a 1960s type of Arctic profile to return) in order to take a balanced approach so that I can keep an open mind and examine all the facts  (not that I'm saying that you do not do this too). I apply this principle even more strongly to the climate change/global warming debate. You may not have seen my latest post on the "33" climate change thread (link to thread below by clicking on the chart): 

Please note that for some reason my first post shows in the link chart above (perhaps as it's the one at the top of a page) but I added one this week further down. Well you know I have recently posted on Antarctica, Greenland and Global Glacial Ice and this is all land ice which is so much more important than sea ice in terms of sea levels rising (or not) but they are equally important in terms of future warming (or cooling) trends. In that post there, I highlighted the good news in Greenland in 2017 and particularly in 2018 and how the climate change protagonists have put out an incredible amount of misleading data. The deniers also do that when stats don't suit them and the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. My long posts on Antarctica (which has nearly 91% by volume of all the global land ice) showed that things are very different down there with increased snowfall (as in Greenland in 2018) helping to maintain the net amount of ice. That does not mean that there are not problems going forward.  I intend to report on the tundra and the melting permafrost regions and on methane gas release quite soon. Again, this is not always "all bad news" but I'll explain all that in my post.

 

Returning to your ice "age" and "thickness" analysis where you say "to be continued" (which I'll look forward to).  I like to monitor it as you do throughout the year as it's so important going forward in terms of future melt seasons and overall longevity of Arcitc sea ice.  I do, however, like to take a really close look twice a year just as NSIDC do.  This is to coincide with both the times of maximum and minimum annual ice extent.   The former tells us how much new multi-year ice has grown (0 to 1 year , 1 to 2 year etc) and the latter tells us almost exactly how much multi year ice remains.  I copy one of my recently posted charts just to make several more comments:

aru7.PNG

This was produced very close to the time of the 2018 overall minimum Arctic sea ice extent.  Statistically, what a few readers may not realise or bear in mind (you and I and many who follow this closely will do of course) is that as we lose the really old ice (5 years +) then there is likely to be more much younger ice. During each re-freeze season (and, just for a few seconds, ignoring trends and other factors like circulation patterns, SSTs and adjacent Arctic regional land surface temps - which are all so important) with more open water there is a larger area of ocean that can potentially freeze over.  Any remaining 1 year+ multi year ice will thicken during the re-freeze.  This is why, while we have seen a worrying decline in older ice (5 year+ and 4 year+), the 3 year + has remained almost unchanged with only small year to year variations but there is not much of it anyway, while the 1 and 2 year old+ ice has increased very slightly. None of the trends are at all even with some quite significant year to year changes. Interestingly, in 2018 we have seen even more 4+ and 5+ year old ice melt as well as 1+ ice but a significant increase in both 2+ and 3+ year old ice (more below on that).

 

This can be explained quite rationally and almost for the same reasons that apply to Greenland and north east Canada land ice. We have seen below or well below 2m surface temp anomalies over the land areas for prolonged periods throughout 2018 in complete contrast to the rest of the Arctic region.  We have also seen an extraordinary amount of snowfall in both the winter and summer months in that side of the Arctic.  The fresh white snow cover has produced strong albedo effects on many days - something that's so important in the summer to reflect well over 85% of the sun's rays rather than the areas (with melting and darker cover) absorbing more heat. We did have that period of Siberian forest fires and a smoke plume which helped with blotting out some of the sunshine and we did not see the potential downside with ash deposits darkening the ice sheet (I posted on that event on page 1 of this thread). In any event we already have seen in recent years that most of the older ice that remains is largely on the Canadian side of the Arctic with many islands there too assisting with that. Meanwhile, the much more open ocean towards the Siberian/Russian side and especially the waters on the Atlantic side have seen the most net melting in recent years, especially the Kara and Barents Seas.  This year, in particular, they have been joined by the Bering Sea which I've highlighted as the most worrying factor in terms of the 2018 re-freeze season. This was largely due to anomalously high NPAC SSTs pushed up by some of those super typhoons and a very active WPAC cyclone season overall. 

 

It is no coincidence that the ice that has rapidly formed in the Kara Sea for example, is extremely thin and still largely broken - ie: not yet a full extension of the thick ice sheet but it is getting there (unless this potential pause or setback occurs). That region will be particularly vulnerable to 2m surface temps (quite apart from the longer term struggles with the +ve SST anomalies.  Let's hope that northern Siberian temps fall back again soon (I'll take another look at them in my report next weekend).  We need a good feed of deep dense cold air from the usual Siberian "freezer" to help with the re-freeze and assist in thickening the ice sheet closer to the coast there.  The Bering Sea is a different matter altogether.  With vast areas of open water, 2m surface temps often above 0c (with 10c to 20c +ve anomalies for periods) this may take many more weeks to re-freeze and the main ice sheet in the centre of the Bering Sea actually retreated slightly recently - as shown on your excellent animated chart from your recent post (for anyone who missed that - Dave helpfully provided a link and you can view the animations and study the recent changes).  What we need is a combination of the following: The land temps to fall.  Favourable circulation patterns with the winds blowing from the land areas or at least from the pole side of the Bering Sea off the existing ice sheet to cut off the flow of extremely warm waters from the NPAC - with the WPAC typhoon season drawing to an end, at least further north, we then need to look to a weaker and favourable jet stream pattern.  Then the ice can build across from the pole side and out from the coastal areas and fringes. Being much more land-locked on the Pacific side,  the Bering Sea "normally" freezes up pretty quickly - so we just need the process to get going and then a rapid catch up is still likely. I know that it was even worse at this stage last year (and in several recent years) but those NPAC SSTs were not so high and the 2m surface temps fell to rather lower levels during November - so we need this to happen in 2018 too (hopefully).

 

Given the colder conditions on the Canadian side, there is a better than average chance of ice thickening substantially there (something you'll be reporting on shortly) and then 2019 may well see an increase in ice surviving for 1 year+.  Not just a glass more than half full but we need the contents of that glass to freeze over too ?  Finally, as I already hinted at, may I request that you pull out a few charts (similar to the ones that you just posted) from the last couple of years to match as closely as possible the min and max ice extents (which varies so much in timing from year to year). Overall, I'm thrilled that we have seen such a rapid refreeze and really only 2012 in recent years has seen such a sustained strong recovery (but that was from that record low summer extent). Again the circulation patterns were pretty key drivers of both the record melting and the rate of recovery. If we can see a good re-freeze (eventually) and those colder Canadian/Greenland temps persist and even expand and we have a weaker jet (quite possible if we see a "weak" El Nino but not a super El Nino like in 2015 which brought those high SSTs into the Arctic) on both the Atlantic and Pacific sides then we might sea those ridiculously high SST anomalies start to fall back.  Not impossible but perhaps just wishful thinking right now.  David :)  

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Midllands Ice Age (UK) said:

I must  apologise for the sudden cut off in the post.....

 

My children and Grandchildren were returning from a holiday (in France), and had broken down on their way home on the motorway. I went to get them home. I also had no time to do a spelling check..so again I apologise.

 

SNIPPED - most of this "incomplete" post has been deleted as the full "continuous" version has now been competed and appears immediately below this post

 

Please note:  My incomplete post originally appeared above David's (Bring Back 1962-63) post and he replied to that (above) before I deleted it and the full version now appears immediately below.  Many of the points I raised were discussed in David's reply post (above) which followed my original entry of my deleted part post.  

 

I apologise for the confusion.  Dave (MIA)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Midllands Ice Age (UK) said:

 

I am finally getting around to producing my review of thickness and volume and I will be using the just produced data on PIOMAS as published on the ASIF.

 

I have discussed  extents in my few previous posts.

Basically the message is that there is some small reasons to be slightly less pessimistic. (I am a half full glass type of person)..

 

So where to start.?

 

I am intending to concentrate on recent events as I feel that we all acknowledge the events of the last 30 -40  years and BB has described them in full detail.

 

So I will start with the sea ice thickness and volume maps of DMI, since they are produced daily and have a reasonable graphical interface.

 

This is the graph for this year -

 

FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20181103.png

 

Compared to the one for 12 months ago

 

CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20171103.png

 

Now as can be seen the ice is more advanced this year in the 'west', but not so in the 'east'.(the Russian waters).

 

Further more the total volumes are not that different due to the gains made over the last few days.

 

index.php?action=dlattach;topic=119.0;at

 

We are in practice about 0.3 K Km3 lower, but it will soon be eliminated. (probably)

 

Study of the detail of the central ice pack of the  DMI maps shows little difference, but there is a more pronounced portion of 3.5Metre to 4Metre ice this year.

 

I believe that this is significant as it represents the first substantial thickness of ice actually in this area for quite a while  (5 years), back to 2013.

There was some in 2015, but this was counterbalanced by a huge area of thin ice next to it across the pole..   (see below). By way of interest this followed a virtual absence of thick ice over the pole in 2014.

CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20151103.png

 

So why do I think this years thick ice is significant?

 

Well I would like to show a series of charts from the last ice year. showing the evolution of this 'patch'.

 

CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20171208.png

 

 

and on to the beginning of march (the SSW period) -

 

It clearly shows how this ice 'developed' during last year stretching out from the Russian coastline to 'embrace' it.

 

(These effects can be seen in detail by accessing the chart and scanning through them by day or month).  

 

CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20180308.png

 

 

A month later and the effect of the SSW is obvious -

 

CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20180408.png

 

 

Now you can see the effect of the SSW on the ice thickness, in the sudden bulge in ice volume at the start of March.

 

and further on by  2 months and we have - 

 

CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20180607.png

 

Now this resembles the 'lion rampant'  - for non UK viewers this is the emblem on much UK coinage and on the England football and cricket shirts - so recognisable,

 

 

If I carry on through the melt season we come to this -

 

CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20180807.png

 

Clearly melting out , but still a patch of presumably thicker ice in its position. It does not seem to have moved very far.

Which could be a factor this year.

 

Lastly, and showing the end of the melt season -CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20180908.png

 

You can still see the outline of the 'lion' in thicker ice.

 

This seems to have survived the melt season, and is now thickening up rapidly again. 

 

So why have I spent some time explaining it all?

 

Well  it shows -

 

1) That multi year ice is still being produced from the 1st and 2nd year ice.

2) Looking back at previous years it is obvious why we had rapidly reducing multi year ice.  (eg 2014 and 2015), as there was no ice capable of surviving the refreeze in the Central Arctic.

3) That the ice suddenly thickened dramatically during the SSW.

 

To me it is obvious that it is still possible that we could get a recovery in multiyear ice, despite the higher temperatures now in the Arctic.

 

I copy the multi year ice thickness chart from David's post (where he replied to my incomplete post above this post)

aru7.PNG

It shows the dramatic 'drop'  of multi year ice in the noughties and early teens.

This total ice thickness, extent and volume loss, was clearly associated with the loss of this multi-year ice.

 

Last year the green and blue portions of the graph increased.  (i.e. 2 and 3 year ice). My assumption/belief is that it is the caused by the increase in thickness in the central polar region. 

This ice has not been as easily melted out in a period of refreeze and the early signs in the 2018 season are that it is increasing rapidly again.            

 

Other factors are clearly at work -

 

1) This year (2018) has seen relatively benign conditions in the Arctic, with long periods of benign low pressure and relatively weak anti-cyclonic conditions.  Only an occasional deeper low crossed the polar cap in July/August, and did not seem to cause too much disturbance to the ice.

 

2) The cyclone of 2013 obviously caused a massive drop at that stage and resulted in the atrocious ice conditions in the central Arctic in 2014. This may happen again at some stage.

 

3) The   advection of warm air into the Arctic is interesting.

a) It was the relatively 'warm  air advection' (WAA)  into the Arctic stratosphere in February 2017 (the SSW) that led to the massive cold outbreak in Europe and also resulted in the extremely rapid ice volume increases in early March. 

 

b) On the other hand an anticyclone centred over Aalska, Bering (or the Yukatan) seems to pull in massive amounts of warm air at low level, and causes rapid ice melt in most of the 'Eastern' Arctic.

 

c) Warm air has been pushed into the Western Arctic  for that last 30-35 years through the North Atlantic via the North Atlantic jet-stream and ocean currents. This has clearly resulted in the ice pack around Svalbard being despatched to the North and East, impacting  Barents dramatically, and other closer sea areas as well.

There are signs that the Atlantic Ocean Oscillation (AMO) is now moving into a negative mode. 

In the UK we have seen it in the lessening of the SW winds and frequent intrusions of NW winds  instead.

This would mean less heat arriving in the Western Arctic. 

 

d) There is evidence that the volume of ice being despatched from the Arctic by its 'overflow' route of the Fram Strait is diminishing.

This (if one  follows the ice movement) seems to have been caused by a reduction  of cross polar flow.  The ice is not moving anti-clockwise around the basin (across North Greenland)  and down into the Fram area, as was the case  several years ago. Indeed there have been times when the ice movement is clockwise - follow the 'lion rampant' for its movement last year, and you will see it turn to the north for some periods.

 

The following chart shows the transport of ice through Fram - (thanks to ASIF)

  

index.php?action=dlattach;topic=119.0;at

 

It is possible to see that it actually reversed during the SST in February/March timeframe, and has remined very low for the last 2 years.

 

and finally - (but not least)

e) the impact of Global Warming in the area, and its associated impact on the ice.

Much has already been written on this.

The only thing I would point out is that despite average anomaly temperature figures of +(3.0 - 5.0C) for weeks on end this refreeze season that the ice still has achieved a rapid recovery, presumably because of the benign conditions up there, and  once more presumably a certain temperature  was reached..

or maybe it is possible that we are seeing some unexplained feed-back effects.

 

All the factors above have,  at  different times,  had differing affects and which one is dominant has been it seems  constantly changing...

particularly over the last 2 years.

 

The Arctic is clearly a very complex environment. 

 There is much that we still need to understand.

 

Dave (MIA UK) 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BB (David)…

Thanks again for another fantastic post. 

The information you display and produce is the best I have seen.

 

This really is an update from me, but one in which I would like to look  at what has happened over the 8 -10 years in more detail, in order to see to see what has caused the major impact to multiyear ice.

 

First of all the current extent (and area) continues to improve (relative to recent years) apace.  

 

Kara is still filling  in quickly, keeping the NH daily gains quite high, and now (despite my,  and others concerns) the  Arctic perimeter areas such as Bering, Chukchi and very recently Barents appear to be gaining momentum, and keeping the comparative rates for 2018 refreeze looking very good.

 

From being last 6 weeks ago the extent seems to be somewhere between 8th and 10th depending upon the measure and ice service chosen. 

 

Hudson and Baffin as previously discussed are now in full ice growth mode, and Hudson could fill up very quickly now.

 

Can the ice continue on this more rapid growth path? At the moment the refreeze is at similar rate to these reported in the 20th century. though clearly not in such a solid position.

 

I will not dwell too much on the above as other forums deal with this on a day to day situation.

 

 

 

What I wanted to do in this post was to use the same techniques I used for displaying the changes to ice thickness in the last year in my previous post, which clearly showed the ice development to be 'stronger' in the Arctic above 80 degrees this year, and therefore for its possible effects for the future of the pack.  

 

By examining the last 10years it is possible to see why we have ended up with the poor state of multi year ice we have today.

 

First of all I have chosen a pretty random recent date - 15th November 2018 - as the current position. 

 

As can be seen the area of increased ice thickness I discussed in my previous post is still enlargening and becoming also  thicker. Also note the increased yellow in the Arctic circle. CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20181115.png

The Arctic now looks reasonably healthy in the central region, (the vital area for multi year ice to survive), although not so good in Barents (where ice never survives in the summer), and Bering is now about average for the last 10 years (as you will see), and Hudson and Baffin are above average.

 

Going back to 2017, and further back you will see how the ice has fluctuated over the last 3 years (back to 2015), but has never been 'thick' in the Central/East areas.


2017 -  much larger 'deep blue' areas in the central, but a thick area up in the ESS, which was the precursor for the

            central ice in 2018.

            Bering,  Hudson, Baffin worse than this year, but slightly stronger in Barents, and around Svalbard.

 

2016 -  much worse than 2018 in all areas! 

 

2015 - similar extents to this year with a 'nice' patch in the Central patch of thick ice, but also with a massive areas of               very shallow ice right   over the pole, which appears to be the ' left over and not recovered ice' from the poor                 state of the ice in the central area in 2014.  

 

2014 -  Very strong ice over the Greenland coastline (last of the real multi year ice), but a huge 'open' gulf on the

           Siberian side, which would   allow  rapid melt the following year (2015 summer), but the extents, particularly                     around Barents are looking good, although Bering is             'suspect' and wide open.

 

2013  -  Looks very similar to 2018 in extent terms, but with a much larger amount of multiyear ice in and around the

             Central Arctic pack

 

2012 - Large portions of thick multi year ice in the Greenland central regions, but Barents is a car crash, and Hudson

           and Baffin are also down.

 

2011 - Extents lower than todays, but the central ice looks very 'stable'.

 

2010 -  Extents a bit lower than 2018, but central ice looks thicker/stronger than today.  

 

 

2008 - A very poor Central ice pack following on from the 2007 rapid drop, but the extents seem to be similar to today.

 

2007 -Extent lower in all areas, and a massive 'hole' has eaten into the ice from the Bering side.  

 

2006 - Similar extents as compared with  today apart from Hudson and Baffin, which were much lower in extent.

 

CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20171115.png

 

CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20161115.png

 

CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20151115.png

 

CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20141115.png

 

CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20131115.png

 

 

CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20121115.png

 

CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20111115.png

 

 

 

 

CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20101115.png

CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20081111.png

 

 

 

 

 

CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20071112.png

CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20061112.png

 

So.  it looks as if 2 major events hit the central ice pack and both occurred from the side of the Bering Sea.

One in 2006-2007 and the other in 2013-2014.

 

Now we know that the  great Arctic cyclone hit the ice in 2013 -2014 year, and this appears to have caused the chaos in the 2015 -16 winter seasons, but a recovery seems to be taking place at the moment. 

 

Did we have a similar event in 2006 - 2007?

 

In each instance, however, the ice seemed to be recovering. It does not appear that temperature is the defining factor for the ice regrowth. It is clearly very important, but the ice over the last few years has shown 'regrowth' (when it is allowed to), despite high Arctic temperatures. 

 

These two occurrences explain the precipitous drop in the multi year ice in the period of 2005-7, and again more recently,  as seen in multi year ice graph above.

 

I think that it is asking too much for the ice to recover all its multiyear ice, as it possibly will require a spell of 10 -15 years without a major 'disaster' year.

 

To do this we will need either  a cessation of AGSW(?), or a major change in the atmospheric patterns which have been driving 'ice melt' events into the Arctic, maybe even both.

 

However the Arctic does show signs of attempting to recover on each occasion, so perhaps all is not quite lost just yet!

 

 

15thNov2018.png

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off @Midllands Ice Age (UK) and @Bring Back 1962-63 Thank you for such a brilliant objective presentation on the subject.  I will cont to look forward to the updates as they become available.  Somewhere above one of you two briefly mentioned the direction from which the more fragmented ice is moving; however, one thing I did not see specifically mentioned throughout the 3 pages of incredible information is the "Beaufort Gyre".  I have recently been reading about this and that there appears to be a delay in the periodic large scale reversal of the gyre on the order of several years.  I've been following along with the Beaufort Gyre Exploration Project headed by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution which concluded in Sept.(http://www.whoi.edu/website/beaufortgyre/home)   Im wondering what role the Beaufort Gyre's current state and potential large scale reversal has on the big picture.

 

Also on a separate topic, but not sure where to post it, Its been claimed that approx. 80% of the worlds volcanoes are located deep beneath the surface of the world oceans; many if not most of which are, simply stated, unexplored and poorly researched.  I'm wondering if there is somewhere within 33&rains threads, and/or somewhere else, links to information/research into the roles(if any) of total magma output/volcanic activity occurring beneath the oceans surface and how or if they perhaps contribute to the overall large scale ocean currents (deep sea or surface) and perhaps consequently the SSTA patterns over time?  ie: oscillations such as the AMO on the Atlantic side; PDO and perhaps even some influences on overall ENSO cycle frequencies and/or intensities in the Pac, and perhaps the IO dipole SSTA configurations to name a few?  It appears that at least from some of my research into the topic, that the sun and sun spot cycles etc may play an important role on earthquake activity, and consequently changes in the movement of the earths liquid core. 

 

Perhaps in a similar fashion to how the jet stream patterns at various levels of the atmosphere are driven by temp gradients horizontally between the northern latitudes and southern latitudes as well as vertically between the depths of the troposphere and stratosphere, the oceanic currents are driven in a not that dissimilar fashion in both a horizontal and vertical fashion with fluctuations in deep sea volcanic activity on the order or months, years, decades, and perhaps longer influenced by solar cycles and other more cosmic effects are a much more important drive in Oceanic SSTA effects than we currently know?   I feel like there is a huge void in the research into the potential fluctuations in underwater volcanic activity combined with the more mundane but constant deep mid Atlantic ridge magma activity the role of which may get overlooked (combined with many other important atmospheric driving factors of course) in the big picture in driving ocean currents and perhaps larger time scale SSTA configurations/fluctuations.   Again any links to information or just general discussion about the subject is greatly appreciated.  Keep up the phenomenal work. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bring Back 1962-63  I appreciate the response for sure.  Like you time is a precious commodity in my life these days.  As a self proclaimed, above average weather enthusiast, I pursue advanced knowledge in all areas of the weather, from predicting potential winter storm or tropical entities in my neck of the woods, to a deeper understanding of the much bigger picture that governs the climate as a whole on this insignificant little spec of dust we call earth in what little spare time I have.  I too am owner operator of a small business as well as father of two very active kiddos and husband to wonderful woman all of which takes up the majority of my daily life.  Like you I enjoy the pursuit of the true understanding to the main drivers behind the current state of the climate in terms of both a short term time series and more long term time series, but in an objective unbiased fashion.  Unfort climate discussions are mired in BS and the avg every day person typically and blindly takes their stance based on either their specific political affiliation and/or based on which side of the debate has the loudest and most force feeding of an idea until you accept it and eat it readily type approach.   Like medicine understanding the weather and climate can fall into 3 basic categories:

  

a) the things we understand and claim to know as facts 

b)The things we almost fully understand, and

c) the things we are still are yet to understand fully. 

 

And also like medicine as we continue the pursuit of the things we almost fully understand and the things we are yet understand, we realize the things we thought we knew for sure were in fact wrong and fall back into the category of we think we understand or are yet to understand. 

 

The "butterfly effect", if you will, or the understanding of the interactions between depths of the oceans, atmosphere, cosmos, and now humans is what really intrigues me. There is a ton of crossover in the general way of thinking and approach to the subject from my professional life and career and my deep passion and hobby that is weather and climate.  Medicine and physiology is very similar in that what happens in one area can have both direct and indirect or major or minor effects on other areas.  A dysfunction of the endocrine system, for example, can not only directly affect other areas of the endocrine system, but also indirectly have either positive or negative effects(depending on ones perspective) on other aspects of the body simply stated.  The analogy I use in an attempt to get a laymen to understand the challenges in medicine is to describe it like an intricate dance.  Lets use the endocrine system as our example once again.  Take a single hormone in the body and the bodies ability to regulate its levels and pretend its a couple on a dance floor doing a waltz.  If the couple does not move in perfect harmony with one another then there is the potential for them to step on each others feet and stumble around the dance floor instead of a smooth coordinated dance.  Now lets throw all the other hormones the body produces on the same dance floor.  Not only do we have to coordinate the movements of a given individual couple; now the challenge is to coordinate the smooth rhythm and timing of many couples on the same dance floor.  If one couple begins to stumble we now run the risk of that couple bumping into another couple, who might bump into another couple, and so on.  Now if we are looking at the dance floor from an objective vantage point what we see are multiple dance partners stumbling around a dance floor.  The questions asked are where did it start?  Did more than one couple stumble at the same time on separate sides of the floor or did one couple start a chain reaction?  Where do we begin to fix it.  Which couple(s) do we get back on track first that will maximize our chances to get everyone back in sync again? 

 

IMHO this basic analogy can apply to weather.  When looking at the complex interplay and both direct and indirect effects between Oceans, atmosphere,  sun, human emissions, and the cosmos like is being done on this forum, its easy to see just how ridiculous it is to think that us silly little humans have it all figured out.  

 

Anyway My apologies for the tangent as this in no way applies to the past, present or future state of the arctic.  Here is where I finally real it back into the topic at hand...😋 I am a mere weather enthusiast, so some of the technical data regarding the Beaufort Gyre project specifically goes beyond my scope of understanding.  That said I will do my best to contribute when or where I can.  I just love getting the wheels of my mind turning thinking about all of it.  Thanks again for a brilliant set of minds on this site. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 3:38 PM, Sroc said:

First off @Midllands Ice Age (UK) and @Bring Back 1962-63 Thank you for such a brilliant objective presentation on the subject.  I will cont to look forward to the updates as they become available.  Somewhere above one of you two briefly mentioned the direction from which the more fragmented ice is moving; however, one thing I did not see specifically mentioned throughout the 3 pages of incredible information is the "Beaufort Gyre".  I have recently been reading about this and that there appears to be a delay in the periodic large scale reversal of the gyre on the order of several years.  I've been following along with the Beaufort Gyre Exploration Project headed by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution which concluded in Sept.(http://www.whoi.edu/website/beaufortgyre/home)   Im wondering what role the Beaufort Gyre's current state and potential large scale reversal has on the big picture.

 

Post snipped to save bandwidth….  (but see my next post)

 

Re Paragraph 1  above...

 

 

I was about to come back this week with more detail on two of the points that you  raise.

(yes it was me who suggested that maybe something has changed in the general arctic with regard to the movement of the ice in the Arctic).

 

First of all can I say what a fantastic mine of information is contained within the  link you provided. It details not only the Beaufort Gyre details but the research being carried out in the Arctic over the last 30 - 40 years. It also provides a history of man's attempts to  'conquer'. and understand the Polar environment, and it contains many scientific references.  It certainly would benefit the portal if it is not there already.

 

My post supplying my reply to your query will again be based upon the DMI thickness charts...  

 

If I can display todays data....

FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20181123.png

It may be necessary to 'zoom in' a bit on the area just to the North of Central Greenland.

 

There you can find a small bit of 'green' ice.

 

It is a small patch of thinner ice. Why is it of interest?

 

Well it has been around this area for the last several months. It has shown no sign of moving into Fram whilst the ice to the west  of it tends to move towards Beaufort (and the gyre) .

 

I have  already noticed and reported that Fram had virtually closed down since the SST in February.

 

Rather than showing all the reports can I ask that you access the DMI site and move back through the data using the 30 (or 1 day) buttons.

 

It is clear that the only ice moving into Fram this year has been that which  originated around Svalbard, and as we all know that is not in plentiful supply at the moment.

 

Other years, with large export via Fram, show the ice movement anticlockwise from Beaufort  along the North Greenland coast, (with only a small amount joining from Svalbard)  and then out through Fram. 

 

This process is described in the link that SROC supplied as being measured by the AOO (Arctic Ocean Oscillation) index. 

 

Can I recommend that people read the section entitled Arctic Ocean Oscillation Index  in the Results section.  

 

The two movements are described as being caused by the Anticyclonic Circulation Regime (ACCR) and the Cyclonic Circulation Regime (CCR).

 

It seems as though we have been in a ACCR dominated flow for a few years (1997?).

 

I will copy in the  Introduction section see the end of my post, but it is all worth reading.

 

Could it be that there is little more ice that can now be exported via FRAM under this clearly ACCR event? Whereas during CCR (with an anticlockwise momentum) events we can expect the movement of  the ice in the Beaufort Gyre to be passed across and into Fram.

 

Conversely,   during ACCR events the ice is 'at risk' of being melted out by any warm waters coming into the Bering Straits area.  This year the sea temperatures in Bering have been falling quite quickly

 

index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2413.0;a

 

 

and the latest report shows this - (from ASIF)

 

index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2413.0;a

 

 

So quite a rapid temperature drop in the Chukchi and Bering area of about 2 - 3C.

 

So we appear, potentially, to be in a 'good' situation at the moment as regards ice export, but will it last? 

 

I will close this post now and leave you with the reference to the Beaufort Analysis (from the linked report), and I will open a further post on the subject of subterranean activities in  the Arctic Ocean.....

 

 

Quote 

 

    icon_print.gif  Print icon_save.gif  PDF  Change text to small (default) Change text to medium Change text to large
spacer.gif
results_bgcirculation1_146893_thumbnail_

Enlarge Image

 

Figure 1 Illustration of the AOO index definition and physical meaning. Annual simulated sea surface heights (cm, contour interval is 10 cm) and ice drift (blue arrows) under CCR (left) and ACCR (right) wind forcing. Red dotted isolines depict SLP (hPa, contour interval is 2 hPa). The red arrows in the yellow box show how gradients of sea surface heights (AOO indices) are calculated: differences between sea surface heights in the center (A) and periphery of the closed circulation (B) are divided by the distance between chosen sea surface height isolines. Note that AOO index is non-dimensional. Anticyclonic circulation has positive sea surface height gradients (AOO indices) while cyclonic circulation has negative gradients (AOO indices).

 


results_bgcirculation2_146841_thumbnail_

Enlarge Image

Figure 2 Simulated annual sea surface heights (black contour lines, cm) and wind-forced ice drift component (blue arrows) after 1993. The sea surface height contour interval is 5 cm. The value of the AOO index is shown in the top right corner of all panels. Annual sea surface heights and wind-forced ice drift patterns for 1946–1993 are shown in Proshutinsky and Johnson [1997].


results_bgcirculation3_146913_thumbnail_

Enlarge Image

 

Figure 3 AOO index and circulation regimes. Panels (a) and (b) show typical annual distributions of SLP and surface winds for cyclonic and anticyclonic atmospheric circulation regimes, respectively; red arrows show prevailing cyclone tracks, summarized from panel (c).

(c) Greenland Sea cyclone trajectories for 1949–2002 (this is fig. 2 from Sortenberg and Walsh [2008]).White dots indicate the start of each cyclone trajectory and the white and grey lines show two different paths identified by cluster analysis and well supporting SLP distributions corresponding to circulation regimes shown in (a) and (b), respectively. This means that annual SLP distribution patterns express statistics of cyclone counts—prevailing cyclone trajectories.

(d) 1946–2013 mean wind-forced simulated sea surface height (SSH) distribution.

(e) First EOF mode (48% of the variance) of the annual sea surface height pattern.

(f ) AOO indices. The thick black line depicts the 5-year-running-mean time series of the AOO index derived manually following the approach of Proshutinsky & Johnson [1997] and definition provided above. Positive (blue bars) AOO indices correspond to years with ACCRs and negative (red) bars show cyclonic regimes. Coefficients of the annual first EOF mode of the simulated wind-driven sea surface heights as the 5-year running mean are shown as the blue solid line. GSA years are shown as shaded boxes.

(g) Spectra of the AOO calculated from the timeseries of the detrended annual AOO index from 1946 to 2013 using the Tukey window with band width 0.279 rad yr−1. The vertical blue bar denotes the 95% confidence interval of the peak with corresponding frequency ω =0.551 rad yr−1 (11.4 years).

 

End quote


 

 

 

  Needs for an Arctic Ocean Index

There has long been motivation to find the basic mechanisms that cause the observed changes in the Arctic atmosphere-ice-ocean system (e.g. Bradley & Miller,1972; Budyko,1977; van Loon & Rogers, 1978; Jones et al., 1986; Wadhams, 1994; Dickson, 1999;  Vinnikov et al., 1999;  Hakkinen and Geiger, 2000) at decadal and shorter time scales.  Climate indices, such as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO; e.g.Walker, 1924;  Hurrell et al., 2003), the Arctic Ocean Oscillation (AOO; e.g.  Proshutinsky & Johnson, 1997; Proshutinsky et al., 1999, 2002; Dukhovskoy et al., 2004) and the Arctic Oscillation (AO; Thompson and Wallace, 1998) have been constructed to characterize complex climate processes and explain past variability. However, attempts to predict the NAO and AO cycles were not successful (e.g. Wunsch, 1999; Stephenson et al., 2000; Dickson et al. 2000).

Compared to the NAO and AO, the AOO index, defined on the basis of a wind-driven simulated sea-surface height field across the Arctic (Proshutinsly and Johnson, 1997) is a more Arctic-centric index. The index is a measure of the intensity and sense (clockwise/anticyclonic or counterclockwise/cyclonic) of the Arctic Ocean wind-driven circulation. Below, we explain the mechanisms regulating changes in the Arctic circulation regimes and environmental parameters at decadal time scales using this index.  Over the period 1948-1996 the AOO has been shown to be the most appropriate index to capture variability in key Arctic environmental parameters (Proshutinsky et al., 1999; Polyakov et al., 1999; Overland, 2009).

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 3:38 PM, Sroc said:

First off @Midllands Ice Age (UK) and @Bring Back 1962-63 

 

Also on a separate topic, but not sure where to post it, Its been claimed that approx. 80% of the worlds volcanoes are located deep beneath the surface of the world oceans; many if not most of which are, simply stated, unexplored and poorly researched.  I'm wondering if there is somewhere within 33&rains threads, and/or somewhere else, links to information/research into the roles(if any) of total magma output/volcanic activity occurring beneath the oceans surface and how or if they perhaps contribute to the overall large scale ocean currents (deep sea or surface) and perhaps consequently the SSTA patterns over time?  ie: oscillations such as the AMO on the Atlantic side; PDO and perhaps even some influences on overall ENSO cycle frequencies and/or intensities in the Pac, and perhaps the IO dipole SSTA configurations to name a few?  It appears that at least from some of my research into the topic, that the sun and sun spot cycles etc may play an important role on earthquake activity, and consequently changes in the movement of the earths liquid core. 

 

Snipped to save bandwidth 

 

With regard to the above topic of subterranean activity it has recently been identified that at least 2 volcanos appear to be active in the Barents Sea region.

 

The following Google earth graph indicates 2 areas with very abnormally high temperatures and also large amounts of CO2 and CH4 being discharged. Could the  following have anything to do with polar ocean  warming via both the ocean temperatures and AGW effect.?

It looks as if warm water is 'boiling/bubbling' to the surface in 2 locations around Svalbard.

This will prevent ice forming in these areas.

Examine the following Earth map showing ocean waves/currents and temperatures in the region.

Look at locations  77.95N and 5.48E for a 'mad' surface temperature of 19.4C, or even 75.89N and 31.04E where it reaches 10.1C.

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp/orthographic=15.54,74.18,1604/loc=31.038,75.888

In addition over on the ASIF thread they have been following a patch of revolving ice on the edge of the ice as it approaches the NE coast of Svalbard for a couple of years. 

What we do not know is whether these  features are  relatively recent, or whether they have been active for some while and can hence be discounted.

Anyone know if the Google Earth has an 'archive' facility along with the Subterranean options?

 

Without doubt there are many underwater areas with magma and movement of the earth's crust beneath.

We know that there is a ridge running up through the Barents and up into the Arctic, it being the extension of the Icelandic mid Atlantic ridge.. It could well be that the 'weak solar' does have an effect, but there are people who know much more than I, and the above Google Map shows how 'neatly' the large volcano sits between the Atlantic jet current passing around Norway and the return current passing down the east coast of Greenland.

It clearly is an area where more research needs to be carried out.

I will perform and report a weekly review into the weekly current ice situation....  tomorrow.

MIA(UK)

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick update of the ice changes over the last week.

 

The Arctic sea ice has expanded throughout the last week, and is now (according to JAXA) in the 13th of the 14th during the period since 2004 in the satellite era.

 

The rapid ice growth has continued, mainly in the Hudson Bay and closely associated regions, whereas the regrowth elsewhere has been unremarkable, after the sudden bursts of growth in the ESS and Laptev 2 weeks ago, with Kara then following on behind.

 

The regrowth in Kara is now almost complete, and the attention will turn to the peripheral regions of Barents, Bering, Greenland, Baffin and the East Siberian Sea (ESS) for the next phase of growth.

 

I supply the latest JAXA data as to represent the current status -  (from ASIF)

 

index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2223.0;a

 

 

and for the ongoing charts  -

 

 index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2223.0;a

 

The question that must be asked as whether or not we can continue with the ongoing melt rate over the next 4 weeks.

 

There are still signs that the Arctic is still cooling both inside the Arctic circle and outside (above 67 degrees) as measured by the DMI and Climate Reanalyser charts - 

 

meanT_2018.png

 

 

Forecast Image

 

 

 

I must admit that I expect the rate to fall somewhat so that we end up somewhere in the 6th - 8th positions unless conditions change.

This will then hide the most remarkable recovery we have seen in Arctic Ice.

 

Could it be that the fact that the ice refused to refreeze for so long at the start of the season, enabled more heat to escape and hence result in a quicker refreeze?.

 

MIA(UK)

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As promised I will peform a weekly review of the Arctic Ice...

 

Net weekly gain about 100K KM2, around 300K Km2 below the 2010 average for this period.

 

The last week has seen a reduction in the extreme cold over North America.

 

This has affected  the rapid ice gains being registered in this area. Hudson has actually lost  (-4K KM2) and Baffin(+20K Km2) has only recovered in the last couple of days. The  Atlantic front ice has also been pushed backwards and forwards and ended up with little change.

 

Small gains were recorded in Kara, Beaufort and the ESS as they filled.

 

Chukchi registered gains of around (+100K Km2) as the thicker ice from the Beaufort gyre extended eastwards into the region, although this pushed the ice already forming in Siberian side out of the way again.

 

The first signs of ice formation in the SOO, Bering  and Barents was observed during the week, around average in most cases for the date, and Baltic and  Labrador Str, started to form, Ice also has just shown around the NW tip of Iceland.

 

Temperatures were higher earlier on in the week, with DMI first of all rising, but falling again in the last 2 days.

 

meanT_2018.png

 

So it looks as if (as expected) the ice has fallen from the extreme levels of last week, but  it is now in a reasonable position, and I expect some consolidation next week towards a respectable 6th to 8th position.

 

 

The latest from Jaxa shows the fall from last week -

 

index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2223.0;a

 

 

and demonstrated by the years graphs -

 

 

index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2223.0;attach=112131;image

 

So 2018 currently in 9th (down from 13th last week), but is still above the 6-8th range expected.

 

This next week looks to be the defining week for the 2018 season. Another 'low' week will see any notions of an ice recovery, a good week will still leave the option open. 

 

 

 

 

MIA(UK)

 

 

  • 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

×