FREE TAPATALK APP

lomiller · 13th July 2012, 01:39 PM

It seems like I say this every year but there is a LOT of broken up ice in the arctic. Nearly half the artic is showing as only 50% - 70% ice coverage

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph....color.000.png

I also like their new yearly graph of sea ice area

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...teractive.html

Subduction Zone · 13th July 2012, 11:31 PM

I haven't spent too much time on the JREF lately. I do have to admit that it looks like the experts are right. I guess that is why they are experts (sigh). I used to be a skeptic, and please note not a denier. My early studies leaned towards my specialty and it seemed that other geologists had a valid point when they compared long past temperatures to current ones. I found that they tended to use too many arguments that focused on certain areas rather than on the world as a whole. Now personally, I would sometimes like to see some more warming. Nothing is more disgusting than having to have turn on the heat on July 3rd when the rest of the nation is baking. At least I know I am living in an area where the local effects of AGW will not be too bad

BenBurch · 18th July 2012, 10:46 AM

Mid-July shows us extent still tracking below 2007;

BenBurch · 18th July 2012, 10:48 AM

Arctic sea ice graph website; https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/

lomiller · 24th July 2012, 11:26 AM

Extents are still slightly below 2007, but the gap is narrowing.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
If you compare sea ice are between 2007 and 2012 however there is much more melting this year.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/...&sd=22&sy=2012

Megalodon · 25th July 2012, 01:43 AM

Greenland is also having fun in the sun:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0724131608.htm

Isn't it funny how the word "unprecedented" keeps popping up recently?

Puppycow · 25th July 2012, 04:16 AM

Originally Posted by Megalodon

Greenland is also having fun in the sun:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0724131608.htm

Isn't it funny how the word "unprecedented" keeps popping up recently?

Scary stuff.

icerat · 25th July 2012, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by lomiller

Extents are still slightly below 2007, but the gap is narrowing.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
If you compare sea ice are between 2007 and 2012 however there is much more melting this year.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/...&sd=22&sy=2012

That second one is shocking!

lomiller · 25th July 2012, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by Megalodon

Greenland is also having fun in the sun:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0724131608.htm

Isn't it funny how the word "unprecedented" keeps popping up recently?

I saw that as well. It looks like it could have an impact on this years sea ice, but apparently melts like this occur every 150 years or so. Unless we get a couple of them in quick succession I don’t think we draw many conclusions about climate change. It’s still a remarkable event though.

lomiller · 25th July 2012, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by icerat

That second one is shocking!

Even more so when you consider that the year on the left is 2007 which was itself a shocking record low for arctic sea ice.

BenBurch · 25th July 2012, 07:24 AM

Just a note; Greenland isn't sea ice, though it's glacier outflows are, so lets discuss landed ice in the main AGW thread. Thanks. By avoiding corner-cases I hope to avoid "lawyering" on what is acceptable.

BenBurch · 25th July 2012, 10:10 AM

Looks like extent is at a record low right now, and the slope is still tracking 2007 closely.

lomiller · 25th July 2012, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Looks like extent is at a record low right now, and the slope is still tracking 2007 closely.

Area has been tracking at record lows for a while now

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...teractive.html

BenBurch · 25th July 2012, 02:05 PM

I believe we may end with a record-low volume, extent and area. This isn't looking good at all.

lomiller · 25th July 2012, 04:53 PM

semi-related but also interesting

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0724171312.htm

Apparently they have found tropical and sub-tropical plankton colonizing the Arctic. Apparently they were brought there by a warm water pulse into the arctic. Such pulses may have occurred before so this may not be a unique event but if it has occurred before it seems likely sea ice is why they didn't survive there long.

BenBurch · 30th July 2012, 06:56 PM

Looks like we are tracking 2007 exactly at this time.

Big difference is that in 2007, there was a whole lot more volume of ice to work with. We may see only a few percent of the ice left at the end of this season. Years earlier than even the worst-case predictions.

From http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ ;

BenBurch · 30th July 2012, 07:04 PM

I really am curious about the PIOMAS number for this month. If we have an anomaly any lower (larger anomaly, lower value) than last month, we absolutely will have record low extent, area, and volume in September.

icerat · 31st July 2012, 03:35 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Looks like we are tracking 2007 exactly at this time.

Big difference is that in 2007, there was a whole lot more volume of ice to work with. We may see only a few percent of the ice left at the end of this season. Years earlier than even the worst-case predictions.

From http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ ;

Neven has also pointed out an even more important big difference - in 2007 weather conditions were conducive to ice melt.

This year (so far) they're not, and yet the data is tracking closely.

If the weather turns, as it most likely will sooner or later, there could be some dramatically fast drops.

a_unique_person · 3rd August 2012, 07:06 PM

Nice animations from Tamino.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/arctic-sea-ice/

GeneMachine · 4th August 2012, 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

I really am curious about the PIOMAS number for this month. If we have an anomaly any lower (larger anomaly, lower value) than last month, we absolutely will have record low extent, area, and volume in September.

Here we go. By the looks of it, July 2012 sets a new low:

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/...july-2012.html

ETA: I find this graph particularly disturbing: http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f...311e6ef970d-pi

Megalodon · 4th August 2012, 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by GeneMachine

ETA: I find this graph particularly disturbing: http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f...311e6ef970d-pi

I raise you this one: average thickness

CapelDodger · 5th August 2012, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

I believe we may end with a record-low volume, extent and area. This isn't looking good at all.

It may just be me, but I'm picking up a sense of unspoken expectation on this year's thread. I also have a feeling there's a certain sense of dread in a different camp.

Neven hits the mark, as usual : most of us recall that unusual weather conditions was that different camp's defence against the 2007 event. Here we are, five years later, and perfectly normal weather leads to the same result (so far). Not much surprise there.

aleCcowaN · 5th August 2012, 05:31 PM

I'd rather say that nothing extraordinary is going to happen this year, though there's a pretty high probability of having a record low in sea ice extent and almost a certainty of having a sea ice volume record low.

If breaking a record is not extraordinary, then the underlying conditions have changed for good. Maybe the "unspoken" part of it is that nobody here need to be convinced about those changes.

The fact is that all the situation has little to do with the melting, but with the inability of the system to create ice during the coldest 180 days of the year. Temperatures above 80°N were this northern winter about 6°C above the normals, while during the same part of 2006-2007 they were just 4°C above. Take those 4 and 6° and the proper physical law and we'd realize how much additional heat is reaching the Arctic during the seasonal night.

Anyway this is not going to be an extraordinary year in Arctic events. We'll have to wait one, two or three years until a combination of factors left just 2 million kilometres of banquise and a circumnavigation of Greenland becomes a reality. By the way, the Northwest Passage is almost open and nobody is making any fuzz.

CapelDodger · 6th August 2012, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Anyway this is not going to be an extraordinary year in Arctic events. We'll have to wait one, two or three years until a combination of factors left just 2 million kilometres of banquise and a circumnavigation of Greenland becomes a reality. By the way, the Northwest Passage is almost open and nobody is making any fuzz.

It's just not extraordinary any more. All the romance has drained away.

A Round-the-World Yacht Race The Short Way is on the cards in the next few years, I reckon. There are surely enough bored rich kids out there to take up the challenge.

Mr Clingford · 7th August 2012, 04:45 AM

The figures for Arctic SIE the last couple of days are either bonkers or wrong.

GeneMachine · 7th August 2012, 04:49 AM

If you look at PIOMAS average thickness, kindly posted by Megalodon above, the figures are bonkers for the last three years. I think we can rule out wrong, unfortunately.

Warmer1 · 7th August 2012, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by Mr Clingford

The figures for Arctic SIE the last couple of days are either bonkers or wrong.

The sea ice extent is tracking just under the 2007 minimums according to NSIDC. What do you see that you think is bonkers?

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

BenBurch · 7th August 2012, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by Warmer1

The sea ice extent is tracking just under the 2007 minimums according to NSIDC. What do you see that you think is bonkers?

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Remember that is a running average. The raw data may show an excursion that would not be reflected here yet.

BenBurch · 7th August 2012, 05:52 PM

Northwest passage open;

Fudbucker · 7th August 2012, 11:56 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Northwest passage open;

Amazing. When does the ice start to return?

Pixel42 · 8th August 2012, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

Amazing. When does the ice start to return?

The minimum is usually reached in the 2nd half of September.

Mr Clingford · 8th August 2012, 02:08 AM

Originally Posted by Warmer1

The sea ice extent is tracking just under the 2007 minimums according to NSIDC. What do you see that you think is bonkers?

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

It's easier to see on other ice measures like IJIS. But it's the sheer huge numbers of extent loss over the last 3 or 4 days which total about half a million km2.

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

BenBurch · 8th August 2012, 05:31 AM

Originally Posted by Pixel42

The minimum is usually reached in the 2nd half of September.

I almost has to, of course, as there is no sun at 0 N after the equinox.

BenBurch · 8th August 2012, 05:35 AM

Originally Posted by Mr Clingford

It's easier to see on other ice measures like IJIS. But it's the sheer huge numbers of extent loss over the last 3 or 4 days which total about half a million km2.

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

IIRC, this measures 30% ice area, and NSIDC measures 15% ice area.

lomiller · 8th August 2012, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

IIRC, this measures 30% ice area, and NSIDC measures 15% ice area.

NSIDC had extents tracking below 2007 for the last month while IARC had it tacking above. UIUC has had sea ice area tracking below 2007 for several months, and by a wider margin. With ice so fragmented this year I suppose it’s possible the 15% vs 30% is the difference, but it’s still strange that IARC only recently showed extents dropping below 2007

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...teractive.html

BenBurch · 8th August 2012, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by lomiller

NSIDC had extents tracking below 2007 for the last month while IARC had it tacking above. UIUC has had sea ice area tracking below 2007 for several months, and by a wider margin. With ice so fragmented this year I suppose it’s possible the 15% vs 30% is the difference, but it’s still strange that IARC only recently showed extents dropping below 2007

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...teractive.html

The IARC slope is alarming, actually. There is a storm up there right now, so perhaps it is bunching the ice.

Warmer1 · 8th August 2012, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by Mr Clingford

It's easier to see on other ice measures like IJIS. But it's the sheer huge numbers of extent loss over the last 3 or 4 days which total about half a million km2.

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

Thanks! I wondered what you were looking at. I need to get out more often

Thanks for the explanation Ben.

aleCcowaN · 8th August 2012, 03:22 PM

Look how sea ice concentration evolves during the last week in Beaufort, Chukchi and East Siberian seas. Neven has this image about the storm there. They're reporting to be caused by an exceptional low. I wonder if the storm is causing some temporal glitch in the estimations of sea ice area that might be affecting >30% detection, as OSISAF and others are reporting today a >30% area that is just 150,000 km2 above 2007's record low.

BenBurch · 8th August 2012, 06:06 PM

Wow! The arctic sea ice thread sure is heating up!

(Sorry, I had to.)

lomiller · 8th August 2012, 09:00 PM

more speculation but here is another thought. maybe the difference is in how polynya are treated.

Notice the 2 large polynyas that expanded and join with the open ocean in the last week.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/...&sd=06&sy=2012

13th July 2012, 01:39 PM	#41
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,925	It seems like I say this every year but there is a LOT of broken up ice in the arctic. Nearly half the artic is showing as only 50% - 70% ice coverage http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph....color.000.png I also like their new yearly graph of sea ice area http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...teractive.html
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,925	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

13th July 2012, 11:31 PM	#42
Subduction Zone Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 960	I haven't spent too much time on the JREF lately. I do have to admit that it looks like the experts are right. I guess that is why they are experts (sigh). I used to be a skeptic, and please note not a denier. My early studies leaned towards my specialty and it seemed that other geologists had a valid point when they compared long past temperatures to current ones. I found that they tended to use too many arguments that focused on certain areas rather than on the world as a whole. Now personally, I would sometimes like to see some more warming. Nothing is more disgusting than having to have turn on the heat on July 3rd when the rest of the nation is baking. At least I know I am living in an area where the local effects of AGW will not be too bad
Subduction Zone Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 960	__________________ humber: Quote: If you "feel" 1G for 1sec, how far you travel depends only on your mass.

18th July 2012, 10:48 AM	#44
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,492	Arctic sea ice graph website; https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

24th July 2012, 11:26 AM	#45
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,925	Extents are still slightly below 2007, but the gap is narrowing. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ If you compare sea ice are between 2007 and 2012 however there is much more melting this year. http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/...&sd=22&sy=2012
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,925	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

25th July 2012, 01:43 AM	#46
Megalodon Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,553	Greenland is also having fun in the sun: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0724131608.htm Isn't it funny how the word "unprecedented" keeps popping up recently?
Megalodon Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,553	__________________ Stupid is depressing...

25th July 2012, 04:16 AM	#47
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 16,015	Originally Posted by Megalodon Greenland is also having fun in the sun: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0724131608.htm Isn't it funny how the word "unprecedented" keeps popping up recently? Scary stuff.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

25th July 2012, 06:42 AM	#48
icerat Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: sweden Posts: 3,298	Originally Posted by lomiller Extents are still slightly below 2007, but the gap is narrowing. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ If you compare sea ice are between 2007 and 2012 however there is much more melting this year. http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/...&sd=22&sy=2012 That second one is shocking!
	__________________ Benford's law of controversy - Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available On my Ignore List - Joecool NewtonTrino Porkchopjim Tex2 If someone on my ignore list posts something you'd like me to respond to, please let me know.

25th July 2012, 07:09 AM	#49
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,925	Originally Posted by Megalodon Greenland is also having fun in the sun: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0724131608.htm Isn't it funny how the word "unprecedented" keeps popping up recently? I saw that as well. It looks like it could have an impact on this years sea ice, but apparently melts like this occur every 150 years or so. Unless we get a couple of them in quick succession I don’t think we draw many conclusions about climate change. It’s still a remarkable event though.
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,925	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

25th July 2012, 07:18 AM	#50
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,925	Originally Posted by icerat That second one is shocking! Even more so when you consider that the year on the left is 2007 which was itself a shocking record low for arctic sea ice.
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,925	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

25th July 2012, 07:24 AM	#51
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,492	Just a note; Greenland isn't sea ice, though it's glacier outflows are, so lets discuss landed ice in the main AGW thread. Thanks. By avoiding corner-cases I hope to avoid "lawyering" on what is acceptable.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

25th July 2012, 10:10 AM	#52
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,492	Looks like extent is at a record low right now, and the slope is still tracking 2007 closely.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

25th July 2012, 10:41 AM	#53
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,925	Originally Posted by BenBurch Looks like extent is at a record low right now, and the slope is still tracking 2007 closely. Area has been tracking at record lows for a while now http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...teractive.html
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,925	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

25th July 2012, 02:05 PM	#54
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,492	I believe we may end with a record-low volume, extent and area. This isn't looking good at all.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

25th July 2012, 04:53 PM	#55
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,925	semi-related but also interesting http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0724171312.htm Apparently they have found tropical and sub-tropical plankton colonizing the Arctic. Apparently they were brought there by a warm water pulse into the arctic. Such pulses may have occurred before so this may not be a unique event but if it has occurred before it seems likely sea ice is why they didn't survive there long.
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,925	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

30th July 2012, 07:04 PM	#57
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,492	I really am curious about the PIOMAS number for this month. If we have an anomaly any lower (larger anomaly, lower value) than last month, we absolutely will have record low extent, area, and volume in September.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

31st July 2012, 03:35 AM	#58
icerat Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: sweden Posts: 3,298	Originally Posted by BenBurch Looks like we are tracking 2007 exactly at this time. Big difference is that in 2007, there was a whole lot more volume of ice to work with. We may see only a few percent of the ice left at the end of this season. Years earlier than even the worst-case predictions. From http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ ; Neven has also pointed out an even more important big difference - in 2007 weather conditions were conducive to ice melt. This year (so far) they're not, and yet the data is tracking closely. If the weather turns, as it most likely will sooner or later, there could be some dramatically fast drops.
	__________________ Benford's law of controversy - Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available On my Ignore List - Joecool NewtonTrino Porkchopjim Tex2 If someone on my ignore list posts something you'd like me to respond to, please let me know.

3rd August 2012, 07:06 PM	#59
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,463	Nice animations from Tamino. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/arctic-sea-ice/
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

4th August 2012, 01:01 AM	#60
GeneMachine Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Bavaria Posts: 332	Originally Posted by BenBurch I really am curious about the PIOMAS number for this month. If we have an anomaly any lower (larger anomaly, lower value) than last month, we absolutely will have record low extent, area, and volume in September. Here we go. By the looks of it, July 2012 sets a new low: http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/...july-2012.html ETA: I find this graph particularly disturbing: http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f...311e6ef970d-pi
	Last edited by GeneMachine; 4th August 2012 at 01:03 AM.

4th August 2012, 06:56 AM	#61
Megalodon Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,553	Originally Posted by GeneMachine ETA: I find this graph particularly disturbing: http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f...311e6ef970d-pi I raise you this one: average thickness
Megalodon Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,553	__________________ Stupid is depressing...

5th August 2012, 04:27 PM	#62
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 16,760	Originally Posted by BenBurch I believe we may end with a record-low volume, extent and area. This isn't looking good at all. It may just be me, but I'm picking up a sense of unspoken expectation on this year's thread. I also have a feeling there's a certain sense of dread in a different camp. Neven hits the mark, as usual : most of us recall that unusual weather conditions was that different camp's defence against the 2007 event. Here we are, five years later, and perfectly normal weather leads to the same result (so far). Not much surprise there.
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

5th August 2012, 05:31 PM	#63
aleCcowaN imperfecto del subjuntivo Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina Posts: 1,742	I'd rather say that nothing extraordinary is going to happen this year, though there's a pretty high probability of having a record low in sea ice extent and almost a certainty of having a sea ice volume record low. If breaking a record is not extraordinary, then the underlying conditions have changed for good. Maybe the "unspoken" part of it is that nobody here need to be convinced about those changes. The fact is that all the situation has little to do with the melting, but with the inability of the system to create ice during the coldest 180 days of the year. Temperatures above 80°N were this northern winter about 6°C above the normals, while during the same part of 2006-2007 they were just 4°C above. Take those 4 and 6° and the proper physical law and we'd realize how much additional heat is reaching the Arctic during the seasonal night. Anyway this is not going to be an extraordinary year in Arctic events. We'll have to wait one, two or three years until a combination of factors left just 2 million kilometres of banquise and a circumnavigation of Greenland becomes a reality. By the way, the Northwest Passage is almost open and nobody is making any fuzz.
	__________________ si razona el caballO ¡se acabó la equitacióN! - césaR brutO *[English student. Plees, forgibb my misteakes!]* -Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. "Ego sum cucurbita magna" -Guyus Qualunque

6th August 2012, 05:37 PM	#64
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 16,760	Originally Posted by aleCcowaN Anyway this is not going to be an extraordinary year in Arctic events. We'll have to wait one, two or three years until a combination of factors left just 2 million kilometres of banquise and a circumnavigation of Greenland becomes a reality. By the way, the Northwest Passage is almost open and nobody is making any fuzz. It's just not extraordinary any more. All the romance has drained away. A Round-the-World Yacht Race The Short Way is on the cards in the next few years, I reckon. There are surely enough bored rich kids out there to take up the challenge.
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

7th August 2012, 04:45 AM	#65
Mr Clingford Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: UK Posts: 1,691	The figures for Arctic SIE the last couple of days are either bonkers or wrong.
	__________________ God is my copilot. But we crashed into a mountain and I had to eat him.

7th August 2012, 04:49 AM	#66
GeneMachine Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Bavaria Posts: 332	If you look at PIOMAS average thickness, kindly posted by Megalodon above, the figures are bonkers for the last three years. I think we can rule out wrong, unfortunately.

7th August 2012, 05:31 PM	#67
Warmer1 Thinker Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Queasyville Catatonic State USA Posts: 219	Originally Posted by Mr Clingford The figures for Arctic SIE the last couple of days are either bonkers or wrong. The sea ice extent is tracking just under the 2007 minimums according to NSIDC. What do you see that you think is bonkers? http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

7th August 2012, 05:45 PM	#68
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,492	Originally Posted by Warmer1 The sea ice extent is tracking just under the 2007 minimums according to NSIDC. What do you see that you think is bonkers? http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ Remember that is a running average. The raw data may show an excursion that would not be reflected here yet.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

7th August 2012, 11:56 PM	#70
Fudbucker Muse Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 587	Originally Posted by BenBurch Northwest passage open; Amazing. When does the ice start to return?
Fudbucker Muse Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 587

8th August 2012, 12:10 AM	#71
Pixel42 Schrödinger's cat Join Date: May 2004 Location: Wiltshire, UK Posts: 4,458	Originally Posted by Fudbucker Amazing. When does the ice start to return? The minimum is usually reached in the 2nd half of September.
	__________________ "The correct scientific response to anything that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause". David Attenborough.

8th August 2012, 02:08 AM	#72
Mr Clingford Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: UK Posts: 1,691	Originally Posted by Warmer1 The sea ice extent is tracking just under the 2007 minimums according to NSIDC. What do you see that you think is bonkers? http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ It's easier to see on other ice measures like IJIS. But it's the sheer huge numbers of extent loss over the last 3 or 4 days which total about half a million km2. http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
	__________________ God is my copilot. But we crashed into a mountain and I had to eat him.

8th August 2012, 05:31 AM	#73
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,492	Originally Posted by Pixel42 The minimum is usually reached in the 2nd half of September. I almost has to, of course, as there is no sun at 0 N after the equinox.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

8th August 2012, 05:35 AM	#74
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,492	Originally Posted by Mr Clingford It's easier to see on other ice measures like IJIS. But it's the sheer huge numbers of extent loss over the last 3 or 4 days which total about half a million km2. http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm IIRC, this measures 30% ice area, and NSIDC measures 15% ice area.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

8th August 2012, 09:36 AM	#75
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,925	Originally Posted by BenBurch IIRC, this measures 30% ice area, and NSIDC measures 15% ice area. NSIDC had extents tracking below 2007 for the last month while IARC had it tacking above. UIUC has had sea ice area tracking below 2007 for several months, and by a wider margin. With ice so fragmented this year I suppose it’s possible the 15% vs 30% is the difference, but it’s still strange that IARC only recently showed extents dropping below 2007 http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...teractive.html
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,925	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

8th August 2012, 10:15 AM	#76
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,492	Originally Posted by lomiller NSIDC had extents tracking below 2007 for the last month while IARC had it tacking above. UIUC has had sea ice area tracking below 2007 for several months, and by a wider margin. With ice so fragmented this year I suppose it’s possible the 15% vs 30% is the difference, but it’s still strange that IARC only recently showed extents dropping below 2007 http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...teractive.html The IARC slope is alarming, actually. There is a storm up there right now, so perhaps it is bunching the ice.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

8th August 2012, 10:34 AM	#77
Warmer1 Thinker Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Queasyville Catatonic State USA Posts: 219	Originally Posted by Mr Clingford It's easier to see on other ice measures like IJIS. But it's the sheer huge numbers of extent loss over the last 3 or 4 days which total about half a million km2. http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm Thanks! I wondered what you were looking at. I need to get out more often Thanks for the explanation Ben.

8th August 2012, 03:22 PM	#78
aleCcowaN imperfecto del subjuntivo Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina Posts: 1,742	Look how sea ice concentration evolves during the last week in Beaufort, Chukchi and East Siberian seas. Neven has this image about the storm there. They're reporting to be caused by an exceptional low. I wonder if the storm is causing some temporal glitch in the estimations of sea ice area that might be affecting >30% detection, as OSISAF and others are reporting today a >30% area that is just 150,000 km2 above 2007's record low.
	__________________ si razona el caballO ¡se acabó la equitacióN! - césaR brutO *[English student. Plees, forgibb my misteakes!]* -Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. "Ego sum cucurbita magna" -Guyus Qualunque