Arctic Sea Ice Discussion 2014/2015: The Refreeze

[keithlucky]

Big gain in Arctic ice today 175,000 sq km

Region 194 days ago End Last 193 Last 28 Last 14 Last 7 Last 3 Last 1 Bering Sea 697,324 0 -697,324 0 0 0 0 0 Baltic Sea 15,337 0 -15,337 0 0 0 0 0 Sea of Okhotsk 853,240 0 -853,240 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Sea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chukchi Sea 966,006 335,001 -631,005 52,805 86,108 96,399 42,123 314 Baffin Bay Gulf of St. Lawrence 1,688,530 65,308 -1,623,223 50,872 36,064 12,430 16,039 2,278 Canadian Archipelago 853,214 683,668 -169,547 196,530 292,248 99,709 62,394 2,386 Hudson Bay 1,260,903 29,757 -1,231,146 16,972 28,309 19,382 19,382 2,578 Kara Sea 933,859 141,662 -792,198 52,816 75,915 69,649 24,314 6,854 Barents Sea 645,917 171,904 -474,013 33,741 50,010 33,013 8,234 10,550 Beaufort Sea 1,070,445 752,106 -318,339 18,871 90,446 79,678 58,062 19,931 East Siberian Sea 1,087,137 534,651 -552,486 -559 61,101 53,680 42,064 23,803 Central Arctic 3,221,921 3,172,976 -48,945 179,325 186,389 149,917 62,278 28,512 Greenland Sea 603,416 348,954 -254,461 152,450 91,727 78,556 72,701 37,205 Laptev Sea 897,845 114,502 -783,343 112,707 113,153 108,890 77,396 41,561                   Northern Hemisphere (Total) 14,805,115 6,351,630 -8,453,485 866,802 1,111,471 801,304 484,986 175,973                   NH (Average Loss per Day)     -43,575 30,957 79,391 114,472 161,662 175,973

[Midlands Ice Age]

 

How dare you use the third person that is just plain rude

 

Dont worry JB.

He doesn't realise yet that no effect has been included in the GCM's for handling the changing sun's reduction in in its solar cycles. (After 50 years of increasing cycles).

The next 15-20 years will do the trick.

His claim that it is not a worldwide phenomemum is based on Michael Mann logic. Have no fear.

It will come crumbling down shortly. (Or the heat will be hidden somewhere else). Not many places left now though.......

MIA

PS I liked your response it is rude to talk over somebody.!!!

[knocker]

 

 

Dont worry JB.

He doesn't realise yet that no effect has been included in the GCM's for handling the changing sun's reduction in in its solar cycles. (After 50 years of increasing cycles).

The next 15-20 years will do the trick.

His claim that it is not a worldwide phenomemum is based on Michael Mann logic. Have no fear.

It will come crumbling down shortly. (Or the heat will be hidden somewhere else). Not many places left now though.......

MIA

PS I liked your response it is rude to talk over somebody.!!!

 

I'm quite surprised that you don't know that you don't need GCMs to estimate the effect of the solar minimum. Actually I'm not surprised at all. At least now we know the whereabouts of the hot air...................

 

A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming

Edited October 10, 2014 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

 

 

How dare you use the third person that is just plain rude

 

How dare you butt into an obviously private exchange?

[jonboy]

 

How dare you butt into an obviously private exchange?

 

If it was private then don't use an open forum

 

I'm quite surprised that you don't know that you don't need GCMs to estimate the effect of the solar minimum. Actually I'm not surprised at all. At least now we know the whereabouts of the hot air...................

 

A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming

 

If your relying on skeptical science as your source then is it any wonder you think the way you do regading solar effects on our climate

[knocker]

 

 

If it was private then don't use an open forum

 

 

If your relying on skeptical science as your source then is it any wonder you think the way you do regading solar effects on our climate

 

Perhaps you could elaborate on that as SS publishes many articles from reputable scientists. It is also a rather odd criticism from a skeptic whose thread often contains links to Watts, Goddard, Nova, and most reprehensible of all the odious man and his equally odious site. Morano.

 

If you had bothered to read the link you will have noticed links to a number of peer reviewed papers including some on the solar minimum. I not sure how you know what I think vis a vis my views on solar activity and climate as skeptics on here aren't renowned fpr their perspicasity

 

While I think of it we are all awaiting a reply to the question that BFTV posed.

 

 

In what way do you think solar activity will impact the sea ice? I mean, what's the mechanism tying solar activity and sea ice change? Weather patterns? General cooling? Something else?

Edited October 10, 2014 by knocker

[Interitus]

 

 

Why must we see another high transit year what are your climatic reasons for this? Anybody reading your post would think we haded gained some 1500km3 of ice which makes an increase in volume of 3200km3 since the low point of 2012 which is remarkable given your comments

I stand by my comment I believe this is a start of a trend and it is solar driven as we enter the downward slope to a very deep solar minimum

 

The gain is impressive but maybe it is a return to a longer trend in equilibrium and the 2012 low point is what was remarkable.

[jonboy]

 

Perhaps you could elaborate on that as SS publishes many articles from reputable scientists. It is also a rather odd criticism from a skeptic whose thread often contains links to Watts, Goddard, Nova, and most reprehensible of all the odious man and his equally odious site. Morano.

 

If you had bothered to read the link you will have noticed links to a number of peer reviewed papers including some on the solar minimum. I not sure how you know what I think vis a vis my views on solar activity and climate as skeptics on here aren't renowned fpr their perspicasity

 

While I think of it we are all awaiting a reply to the question that BFTV posed.

When GW is willing to answer the question I asked prior to BFTV post then I will respond. But as always you guys would rather respond by asking questions to divert away from the original point. Sorry but not playing

[knocker]

 

When GW is willing to answer the question I asked prior to BFTV post then I will respond. But as always you guys would rather respond by asking questions to divert away from the original point. Sorry but not playing

 

You guys would rather respond by asking questions is a rather interesting response.  You say, without any qualification, "If your relying on skeptical science as your source then is it any wonder you think the way you do regarding solar effects on our climate", and expect people to say, jonboy said it so it must be a dodgy site. You have a very high opinion of yourself.

[BornFromTheVoid]

 

When GW is willing to answer the question I asked prior to BFTV post then I will respond. But as always you guys would rather respond by asking questions to divert away from the original point. Sorry but not playing

 

What I asked had little to do with GW. Why do you need him to answer a question before you respond to mine?

 

Was your original point not "As we start to enter the down side of this solar cycle lets hope this is the start of a trend of year on year growth." ?

Seems my earlier question, about how solar activity will impact sea ice, is very close to your original point.

[oldsnowywizard]

What is going on in here? I see the children have returned trying to nit pick and point score.. how about you all behave yourself or you will have to go to bed without dinner.

Mods I think you can wipe out half the comments on here including this one. Can we please get on to topic . Thanks

[Gray-Wolf]

 

 

Why must we see another high transit year what are your climatic reasons for this? Anybody reading your post would think we haded gained some 1500km3 of ice which makes an increase in volume of 3200km3 since the low point of 2012 which is remarkable given your comments

I stand by my comment I believe this is a start of a trend and it is solar driven as we enter the downward slope to a very deep solar minimum

 

Ok, just so you will answer BFTV's question I'll answer ( though I thought it blatantly obvious?) .

 

Unless I am mistaken the Arctic is still seeing 'natural drivers' in its year to year behaviour. As such it is merely a matter of time ( as it is with the 'perfect melt storm' synoptics) before we see 'nature' bring about synoptics that include the type of high transport we saw decimate ( well, far more than 'decimate' as a lot more than 1/10th of the volume flowed out of Fram over that period in the 80's) the pack in the 80's.

 

Before you enlighten BFTV could you explain any flaws in my thinking that I might ruminate over your take on things please?

Edited October 11, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[stewfox]

Ok, just so you will answer BFTV's question I'll answer ( though I thought it blatantly obvious?) .

 

Unless I am mistaken the Arctic is still seeing 'natural drivers' in its year to year behaviour. As such it is merely a matter of time ( as it is with the 'perfect melt storm' synoptics) before we see 'nature' bring about synoptics that include the type of high transport we saw decimate ( well, far more than 'decimate' as a lot more than 1/10th of the volume flowed out of Fram over that period in the 80's) the pack in the 80's.

 

Before you enlighten BFTV could you explain any flaws in my thinking that I might ruminate over your take on things please?

 

I think we have already seen it doesn't take a thousand years for the arctic to recover as some folk have suggested in previous years

 

Lets see where we are with volume winters end then worry about  perfect melt storm and perfect transport synoptics in the summer. 

[Gray-Wolf]

I think we have already seen it doesn't take a thousand years for the arctic to recover as some folk have suggested in previous years

 

Lets see where we are with volume winters end then worry about  perfect melt storm and perfect transport synoptics in the summer. 

 

?

 

I've not come across such claims about recovery stew?

 

Personally I think it fair to expect a similar time frame for recovery as it took to destroy ice levels?

[stewfox]

?

 

I've not come across such claims about recovery stew?

 

Personally I think it fair to expect a similar time frame for recovery as it took to destroy ice levels?

 

Got ya   Could it be ?

[BornFromTheVoid]

 

 

Yes BFTV  refreeze well under way

Region 202 days ago End Last 201 Last 28 Last 14 Last 7 Last 3 Last 1 Chukchi Sea 966,006 401,082 -564,924 160,889 135,947 58,550 21,139 -2,531 Bering Sea 697,324 813 -696,510 813 813 813 813 0 Baltic Sea 15,337 0 -15,337 0 0 0 0 0 Sea of Okhotsk 853,240 0 -853,240 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Sea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Greenland Sea 603,416 394,133 -209,283 178,383 93,072 48,030 -6,252 210 Baffin Bay Gulf of St. Lawrence 1,688,530 69,086 -1,619,444 50,825 19,626 3,522 -5,545 1,042 Hudson Bay 1,260,903 30,471 -1,230,432 28,748 20,096 -4,933 -11,260 3,206 Beaufort Sea 1,070,445 834,187 -236,258 173,176 146,616 73,928 31,334 8,585 Canadian Archipelago 853,214 731,010 -122,204 392,935 139,177 43,590 41,651 10,315 Central Arctic 3,221,921 3,188,655 -33,266 206,663 127,358 10,325 -22,374 16,022 East Siberian Sea 1,087,137 591,126 -496,011 129,341 108,074 66,744 45,702 26,520 Barents Sea 645,917 266,906 -379,011 138,934 125,906 96,206 39,650 31,871 Laptev Sea 897,845 365,434 -532,411 364,438 343,578 204,047 140,164 47,323 Kara Sea 933,859 454,119 -479,741 390,964 373,625 293,748 194,384 56,004                   Northern Hemisphere (Total) 14,805,115 7,328,164 -7,476,951 2,216,110 1,633,889 894,571 469,406 198,565                   NH (Average Loss per Day)     -37,015 79,147 116,706 127,796 156,469 198,565

 

 

Hi Keith. Could you provide a link for where you get that data? I should be able to format it so it's easier to understand.

[keithlucky]

 

 

 

 

Hi Keith. Could you provide a link for where you get that data? I should be able to format it so it's easier to understand.

 

ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/ancillary/MASIE_regions_polygon_vertices.xls

Edited October 20, 2014 by keithlucky

[keithlucky]

Arctic ice growing back strongly according to DMI same levels of sea ice at this time of year as 2005 just below 2006 levels http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

[BornFromTheVoid]

Download pdf http://ccs.infospace.com/ClickHandler.ashx?ld=20141020&app=1&c=viview&s=viview&rc=viview&dc=&euip=81.103.58.52&pvaid=5fbcf0cf50c24899aa2846b923afb6f2&dt=Desktop&fct.uid=ccf166e3033c4fe6a6b7704547691be8&en=mLNJlemm0KVJE6tx83iRbAHMVaHtXwNwpKjLs3T34lfHttmChNn0g0nL3ZSa8eBz&du=nsidc.org%2fdata%2fmasie%2findex.html&ru=http%3a%2f%2fnsidc.org%2fdata%2fmasie%2findex.html&ap=1&coi=771&cop=main-title&npp=1&p=0&pp=0&ep=1&mid=9&hash=FB7B3717BFB0A34940F17712882DB352

 

There's no PDF there?

[keithlucky]

There's no PDF there?

Index of ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/

[BornFromTheVoid]

Index of ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/

 

It's not the same as the data you posted though? I'm looking for the table showing the 1 day loss, 7 day loss and whatnot. I can work it out myself, but thought if somebody else had already done, I could just use their data.

 

Anyway, with the NSIDC extent (based on NASA team algorithm) today saw the largest single day extent increase since 2001, and the 3rd largest of any year on record, at +326k.

[keithlucky]

It's not the same as the data you posted though? I'm looking for the table showing the 1 day loss, 7 day loss and whatnot. I can work it out myself, but thought if somebody else had already done, I could just use their data.

 

Anyway, with the NSIDC extent (based on NASA team algorithm) today saw the largest single day extent increase since 2001, and the 3rd largest of any year on record, at +326k.

Takes a while LoL easier to use http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/

[oldsnowywizard]

Anyway, with the NSIDC extent (based on NASA team algorithm) today saw the largest single day extent increase since 2001, and the 3rd largest of any year on record, at +326k.

Laptev and East Siberia set to cover in the next two days... thats going to be a large increase when she goes... 

[joggs]

Seems to be coming along nicely the re-freeze.Lets hope this winter provides great conditions in the arctic for ice to flourish.

[stewfox]

Seems to be coming along nicely the re-freeze.Lets hope this winter provides great conditions in the arctic for ice to flourish.

 

In need at the current rate we will soon be up with the 2000s averages before month end remarkable recovery.

 

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