Another Arctic cyclone 'may' cause a repeat of 2012 sea ice low

Over at Weather Underground there has been quite a bit of interest in an Arctic Cyclone that might cause a repeat of record low sea ice extent seen in 2012. They say:

As of Tuesday, the deepest cyclone in the Northern Hemisphere wasn’t anywhere near the tropics–it was spinning in the central Arctic Ocean. A surface low located near 83°N, about 500 miles from the North Pole and about 1000 miles north of Barrow, Alaska, deepened to a central pressure of 968 millibars (mb) at 2 am EDT Tuesday morning, August 16. This is on par with the central pressure you might find in a moderately-sized Category 2 hurricane. Such lows are a common feature of Arctic climate, but they rarely gain such intensity in the middle of summer. The only deeper Arctic cyclone on record in August is the Great Arctic Cyclone (GAC) of 2012. According to a 2012 study by Ian Simmonds and Irina Rudeva (University of Melbourne), this low bottomed out at 966 mb on August 6, yielding the lowest pressure analyzed across more than 1600 August cyclones in the Arctic since 1979. The cyclone’s minimum pressure was even lower–963 mb–in the real-time analyses produced by Environment Canada while the storm was raging.

Figure 1. The Arctic cyclone was analyzed with a central pressure of 968 mb at 06Z (2:00 am EDT) Tuesday, August 16, 2016. The central pressure had risen to 971 mb by 12Z (8:00 am EDT). Image credit: tropicaltidbits.com.

Figure 1. The Arctic cyclone was analyzed with a central pressure of 968 mb at 06Z (2:00 am EDT) Tuesday, August 16, 2016. The central pressure had risen to 971 mb by 12Z (8:00 am EDT). Image credit: tropicaltidbits.com.

Here are before and after surface analysis plots:

GAC-fig2-arctic-cyclones-2012-2016

Figure 2. Surface analyses over the Arctic Ocean show the Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012 at its deepest (left, at 06Z August 6, 2012) juxtaposed with the current cyclone (right, as of 00Z Tuesday, August 16, 2016). The initial Image credit: Environment Canada.

WU adds:

The GAC of 2012 churned across the Arctic for ten days while its central pressure was below 1000 mb. The cyclone had major effects on the distribution of regional ice and appears to have played at least some role in that summer’s record depletion of Arctic sea ice.

They are calling it the The Great Arctic Cyclone of 2016: After Four Years, a Summer Sequel.

At this time, it appears the center of the storm has moved away from the north pole, and the central pressure shows around 990 to 1000mb:

Source: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/weather/arcticweather.uk.phphttp://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/weather/arcticweather.uk.php

Source: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/weather/arcticweather.uk.phphttp://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/weather/arcticweather.uk.php

The Nullschool plot:

Source:  earth.nullschool.net

Source: earth.nullschool.net

A number of people who want to see Arctic sea ice disappear (so they can be right about predictions of doom, aka take that deniers!) are hopped up about this storm. That’s typical, but there is a difference between 2012 and 2016, according to these plots of sea ice thickness, the Arctic is in much better shape now that it was then:

 

DMI-ice-CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20120813 DMI-ice-CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20150813 DMI--ice-CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20160814

DMI-ice-CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20160817

Source: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/thk.uk.php

What remains to be seen is what effect this particular Arctic cyclone has had. It may not be as significant as what was seen in 2012, due in part to the increase in observed sea ice thickness. Thicker ice is more resilient to atmospheric effects and wave actions. So far, according to NSIDC there hasn’t been a drop in extent close to 2012 values:

N_stddev_timeseries-17-August-2016

That could change though, as NSIDC runs on a 5 day filter. DMI’s extent product shows a reduction a bit greater than  NSIDC:

DMI-icecover_current_new-17-August-2016

What is for certain is that Arctic Sea ice won’t disappear in 2016, it may not even set a new low record according to NSIDC. It should be noted that storms like this have always been a part of the Arctic, and the storm in 2012 and this one in 2016, aren’t anything but weather events, though I’m sure there are people out there trying to spin it into a climate event while ignoring the oft cited “weather is not climate” maxim.

In the meantime we’ll watch, and report again.

Advertisements

137 thoughts on “Another Arctic cyclone 'may' cause a repeat of 2012 sea ice low

    • Models are always right. Don’t ask for actual measurements; that would be extremely impolite.

      • Except of course you can get the observed measurements of pressure and wind speed from the Canadian Met services…

    • Prof
      Off, in around, the UK, as a rule of thumb, good enough for a practical seaman –
      980 mb – gale [Bf 8]
      960 mb – storm
      940 mb – hurricane [Beaufort 12]
      I note that in the coloured weather map, the isobars were at 2 mb intervals.
      That doesn’t indicates that litotes was the overriding object of the wundergrounders.
      Just remarking.
      I am sure they are good/open/honest/all three scientists.
      Auto

  1. Where is the Northwest Passage cruise? Waves and ice flows are a problem. The Titanic manifest would have been a total loss with storm waves.

  2. The Greenhouse Gang (a.k.a. “climate hustlers,” a.k.a. “Envirostalinists,” a.k.a., “Enviroprofiteers,” “warmists,” “cranks” ….. whatever) doesn’t know what to do with this phenomenon (increase of any kind in Arctic cyclone intensity or frequency). Arctic cyclones are supposed to DECREASE (temperature gradient from warmer ocean to colder would be much less “steep”) in Algore’s Fantasy Climate World where the Arctic (“Keep your eyes on the Arctic people.” Troll J. Mitchell. heh) is supposed to warm “dangerously.”
    … Boer’s (1995) finding {is} that the poleward heat and moisture transports do not necessarily decrease in a greenhouse warming scenario {which} points to the complexity inherent in the relationships between latitudinal temperature gradients, poleward energy fluxes, and cyclone activity. …
    Source: Climatology and Interannual Variability of Arctic Cyclone Activity: 1948–2002, Xiangdong Zhang and John E. Walsh, International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska, http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017%3C2300%3ACAIVOA%3E2.0.CO%3B2
    Further, it is a travesty (lol), but, sea surface temperature data indicates that the transition from a colder (1960’s – mid 1970’s) to a warmer Arctic is linked to the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation).
    The CAI {Cyclone Activity Index = frequency, intensity, duration} anomalies exhibit significant low-frequency variation … {a} point of inflection occurs around 1976. … the point of inflection in 1976 also coincides with the phase transition time of the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) from a cold to warm episode, and the low-frequency variation of the CAI anomaly corresponds well to the low-frequency change of the PDO index (Trenberth and Hurrell 1994). …
    Source: Ibid.
    Finally, the bottom line is, when it comes to Arctic cyclone activity and the atmosphere:
    1. It is complex.
    2. We really don’t understand it too well at this time.
    Our results demonstrate that variations of Arctic cyclone activity are spatially and temporally complex. The cyclone variations will change the temporal characteristics of near-surface atmospheric parameters, which are directly relevant to sea ice deformation and upper-ocean currents. These are not well understood
    Source: Ibid.
    ************************************
    Thank you, Anthony for such a refreshingly no-spin cyclone report of the data and nothing but the data on this issue.

  3. Over at Weather Underground….who’s trying desperately to hype anything because of the lack of hurricanes
    A normal person would think volume…..

    • Volume is one difference. Water temperature under-the-ice is another. The differences between the situation in 2012 and this summer’s are profound.
      In 2012 it was sunnier, and the ice had more meltwater pools and was thinner and more “rotten”, and the big gale (the worst since 1979, I believe) did make a huge amount of ice vanish in a mere week.
      This year has seemed cloudier, the ice is thicker and meltwater pools have refrozen and been dusted by snow, but the ice has been cracked and tortured, bashed and battered, and basically pulverized by a meridional pattern that has been more or less continuous. The closest thing to high pressure ruling the Pole was in April, and it involved roaring winds creating bigger-than-normal polynyas on the north coast of Alaska.
      I am only an amateur scientist, but do take notes and do post my observations. As a sort of joke I began referring to the constant low pressure at the Pole as “Ralph,” and then was somewhat intrigued to notice Ralph wouldn’t go away. This latest gale is merely the latest incarnation of Ralph. Where 2012 saw a single gale, 2016 has seen storm after storm.
      My latest notebook is here:
      https://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2016/08/14/arctic-sea-ice-storm-after-storm/
      It looks like Ralph is going to persist another week at least, and at the “Tropical Tidbits” website they have a cool animation of the European model which has Ralph reaching 959 mb next week, which would make it the worst storm evah! (Or since 1979.) The current storm bottomed out at 989, which makes it only 4th worst evah.)
      Do you remember the hubbub last Christmas, about the gale that sucked mild air north and brought a brief (2 hour) thaw to a buoy near the North Pole? (The media got all maudlin about Santa’s workshop needing to close due to lack of ice.) In a sense that was an earlier incarnation of Ralph.
      As much as I love to sit about and contemplate ice melting, (when my wife thinks I should be mowing the lawn,) I really think sea-ice is a secondary issue. The real issue is a changed pattern. The real issue may be the cooling of the “Quiet Sun” encouraging the oceans to “warm” cycles, and then clashing with that warmth.
      In conclusion, the real issue, ladies and gentlemen, is Ralph.

      • Sorry. Typo. The current storm bottomed out at 969 mb, or perhaps 968 mb. (Its not like they have many weather stations on that pulverized ice.)

      • Caleb,
        Reading your post and notebook has been very informative and entertaining………..solid meteorology described with a flamboyant style. You would have made one of the best operational meteorologists…..especially in broadcasting/media.

      • As a side effect of this polar storm currently we are in the middle of a very strong wind storm that started 5 hrs ago ( 119. 24 West 50.03 North see on the null map at 500 mb’s their surface projections are never correct btw) and has ripped of shingles on the roof, broken branches etc. ripped our canopy on our sun shade into shreds (had to cut it off because it threatened the power line to the house), power outages all around and forest fires thankfully under control as of now. Gust up to 80 kms which is really rare around here, water is lifting of the lake surface in waterspouts and down bursts, if it wasn’t for the potential dangers it be nice to watch but alas we’ll be awake to make sure nothing untoward happens to us and our neighbors.

        • Vernon, B.C.? I never guess your conditions were so wild from this morning’s map. 995 mb low over Calgary. That’s what is so good about first-hand reports. Thanks.

  4. The Greenhouse Gang (a.k.a. “climate hu$tler$,” a.k.a. “Envirostalinists,” a.k.a., “Enviroprofiteers,” “warmists,” “cranks” ….. whatever) doesn’t know what to do with this phenomenon (increase of any kind in Arctic cyclone intensity or frequency). Arctic cyclones are supposed to DECREASE (temperature gradient from warmer ocean to colder would be much less “steep”) in Algore’s Fantasy Climate World where the Arctic (“Keep your eyes on the Arctic people.” Troll J. Mitchell. heh) is supposed to warm “dangerously.”
    … Boer’s (1995) finding {is} that the poleward heat and moisture transports do not necessarily decrease in a greenhouse warming scenario {which} points to the complexity inherent in the relationships between latitudinal temperature gradients, poleward energy fluxes, and cyclone activity. …
    Source: Climatology and Interannual Variability of Arctic Cyclone Activity: 1948–2002, Xiangdong Zhang and John E. Walsh, International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska, http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017%3C2300%3ACAIVOA%3E2.0.CO%3B2
    Further, it is a travesty (lol), but, sea surface temperature data indicates that the transition from a colder (1960’s – mid 1970’s) to a warmer Arctic is linked to the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation).
    The CAI {Cyclone Activity Index = frequency, intensity, duration} anomalies exhibit significant low-frequency variation … {a} point of inflection occurs around 1976. … the point of inflection in 1976 also coincides with the phase transition time of the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) from a cold to warm episode, and the low-frequency variation of the CAI anomaly corresponds well to the low-frequency change of the PDO index (Trenberth and Hurrell 1994). …
    Source: Ibid.
    Finally, the bottom line is, when it comes to Arctic cyclone activity and the atmosphere:
    1. It is complex.
    2. We really don’t understand it too well at this time.
    Our results demonstrate that variations of Arctic cyclone activity are spatially and temporally complex. The cyclone variations will change the temporal characteristics of near-surface atmospheric parameters, which are directly relevant to sea ice deformation and upper-ocean currents. These are not well understood
    Source: Ibid.
    ************************************
    Thank you, Anthony for such a refreshingly no-spin cyclone report of the data and nothing but the data on this issue.
    {FYI: Do not spell “hu$tler$” in the normal way or moderati0n comes into play.}

  5. While I think Weather Underground has the best weather website, Jeff Masters just can’t keep himself from blogging about the coming doom every day. I think its a mental disease. If the world was freezing solid and the final blizzard was approaching, he would be writing about it being the warmest blizzard on record.

  6. If I recall correctly the 2012 storm came out of the warm pacific, a warm storm… being in early August the Arctic was above freezing.
    I don’t don’t believe this storm came out of the pacific… It has been hanging out in the high Arctic for days and it has been below freezing 24/7 there the whole time. I follow temp and pressure at DMI daily http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/weather/arcticweather.uk.php

  7. The minimum in 2012 was not caused just by the storm then, but by unusually thin ice as well. This year may not be a record, it may be only the second lowest in the admittedly recent history of satellites. Anyway, my offer is still open to anyone that is convinced the ice is recovering. 3 to one odds, and the minimum area simply has to be greater averaged over 2016 to 2018 than averaged over 2013-2015 for you to win.

      • The annual WUWT contest is based on guessing sea ice extent, not volume. So it’s perfectly logical for seaice1 to propose a bet based on extent.

      • Dear Chris,
        seaice1, 2, and other numbers, is in his or her own little world. The WUWT contest is for area. seaice has her or his own little wager going.
        Janice
        (who has seen the trolling of si1, 2, etc. so many times I don’t have any qualms about speaking bluntly to him or her)

      • Janice, he proposed a bet that is directly related to the Arctic sea ice area. When the sea ice was higher in 2013, there were articles on WUWT and elsewhere, highlighting the fact that a recovery was under way. Here is one of several posts on this topic: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/30/the-arctic-sea-ice-spiral-of-death-seems-to-have-reversed/
        seaice1 thinks the downward trend will continue, and is proposing a 3 year average, which seems a fair way to structure it. It’s not “in his own little world”, it is a test of whether those who believe that Arctic ice will recover are willing to place a wager on that.

      • Chris: P.S. I should have said 2 more things:
        1. You made a good point (I just see it as misinformed, v. a v. si1).
        2. si1’s wager is about “sea ice recovery” (which I would logically think would include volume, but for si1’s slippery definition of what ice is being measured, i.e., all of it, or just how far the thinnest measured part extends).
        Thanks for working to keep WUWT a precise and accurate place! 🙂

      • Okay, Chris. I will concede that you understand what seaice1 meant to wager about. I believe that “ice recovery” logically includes volume. Seaice apparently does not. Seaice should be very grateful there is someone here who “gets” him or her. I apparently do not.

      • Janice, it’s your freedom of mind and speech to believe that “ice recovery*” logically includes volume.
        When the bet is ‘minimum area’ then ‘ice volume’ is another bet. Cheers.
        ______________________________________
        * seaice said ‘minimum area’. please don’t let him be misunderstood.

      • Janice, it is fine to propose a separate, second bet based on ice volume. Or to propose one that combines the two. Feel free to give him that directly.

      • Sea ice extent is close to a measurement -counting pixels. Sea ice volume is the output from a model. Given the suspicion of models often expressed on these pages I thought extent would be preferred as a metric.
        The reason for the number is that I originally posted as a guest under “seaice”. When I started posting with a wordpress account that name was already taken, hence seaice1

      • Actually, my understanding of this whole “volume” thing is that – when sea ice minimums failed to continue to decline it was the warmunists that brought up the “but what about volume” argument in order to move the goal posts. Now you’re bringing up the “but what about volume” argument.
        I recognize seaice1 for what he actually is, so it pains me to say this. But he’s right on this one, and you’re not.

    • Dear seaIce1
      The Arctic sea ice was recovering. it is simply being reduced by factors out of the Arctic circle.
      The sea ice is being reduced not by natural events in the Arctic region, but by the large volume of atmosphere that is being transported in from the south. The same winds that caused the large temperature anomalies over winter.
      Further, others have called it a storm, it is a vortex created by the same forces that create Hurricanes further south. It is an Arctic Hurricane or Cyclone, no more no less.

      • How is it recovering?
        It is second lowest in satellite record for area and third lowest for extent and may go lower…
        It is nowhere near pre 2007 levels – for nearly a decade is has not recovered to pre-2007 levels…

    • If its second lowest in satellite record, its also second lowest since 1850 – see historic data research analysed here:
      https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-piecing-together-arctic-sea-ice-history-1850
      ” …the new dataset allows us to answer the three questions we posed at the beginning of this article.
      First, there is no point in the past 150 years where sea ice extent is as small as it has been in recent years. Second, the rate of sea ice retreat in recent years is also unprecedented in the historical record. And, third, the natural fluctuations in sea ice over multiple decades are generally smaller than the year-to-year variability”

      • Pure falsehood, Griff!
        There are no annual actuals for data prior to the satellite era.
        ‘Piecing’, then extrapolating nonsense between is called “What If” wishing.
        A person can build models/spreadsheets that deliver their own confirmation biases, anytime.
        That doesn’t make them so.
        The rate of ice retreat is another alarmist fantasy claim.
        Again, there is no record prior to the satellite era.
        Viewed honestly, the satellite era Arctic ice graph looks like part of a sinusoidal wave. Until a full cycle is fully demonstrated, the graph is only interesting.
        Your natural fluctuations sentence is nonsense. Both the satellite graph and annual trends clearly document that annual and decadal fluctuations are wide.
        Now tell us all about the Antarctic Polar ice Griff?
        CO2 effect should put the ice at both poles in decline, Antarctic is not in ‘decline’.

      • Rumor: A 1922 newspaper article warned that climate change was melting Arctic ice and disrupting wildlife……… TRUE
        http://www.snopes.com/politics/science/globalwarming1922.asp
        “Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.”
        I wonder what satellites would have shown in 1922?

      • What do the records of the Japanese, Russian, British and US Navies show?
        What do the Inuits, Eskimos, Athabascans and other pre-Columbian peoples histories say?
        You and others arguing for the theory that trace gases rule climate appear to claim knowledge you don’t have and reject evidence that, at least for other purposes, tests as pretty darn reliable.
        If those Navies’ records indicate there was much more ice before the satellite record I will accept your assertions as well supported. If, as I suspect, they indicate very low ice levels at other times I will believe real data and actual science indicate nothing unprecedented in current levels.
        I hope I am being unfair but your posts lead me to think you have a theological attachment to trace gas effects. Come up with useful data going back your 150 years and I will reevaluate both my opinion on Arctic ice and your motives and knowledge. I too can get too “into” these issues and want not to unfairly judge your motives and opinions.

  8. In 2013 I identified a circa 5 periodicity in Arctic sea ice area variability and used it as a basis for selecting periods over which longer term average changes could be assessed. I had previously found a 5.4 y periodicity by spectral analysis.
    https://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/ct_ice_area_short_anom_nh_2015_final.png
    https://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/on-identifying-inter-decadal-variation-in-nh-sea-ice/
    Troughs of this 5y period occurred in 2007 and 2012, the implication is that there will probably be another this year. However, since the long term trend look like it may have reversed now, I don’t expect this to be lower than 2012.
    Towards the end of this year, when I can run the same analysis again, I think it will produce a positive trend over the 2012-2017 interval.

    • BTW, that graph was already clearly showing a slow down in melting from 2007 to 2012. That is incompatible with the notion of a system dominated by a positive feedback, tipping points and death spirals.
      The death spiral is dead.

      • Yes, Mr. McLeod, that is correct! The mission for which the crew of the USS Abraham Lincoln put up the sign, “Mission Accomplished,” major combat operations in the Iraq conflict, were completed at that time. The U.S. and its allies had prevailed.
        Oh, I forgot. The U.S. military is just a bunch of dummies, cheering mindlessly (see video of speech by George W. Bush), making big posters their stupid captain allowed them to put on on his ship, about things that never happened.
        Here’s the video (just FYI):

        (and in case you didn’t get the memo: chemical weapons, such as those used by Saddam Hussein, are “weapons of mass destruction.”)

      • Janice, thanks for posting that. Great speech. As an overseas vet a long time ago, it brought tears to my eye when W translated “mission accomplished” into “going home”.
        Yes!!!!

      • Dear Mr. Keen,
        You are so very welcome. Thank you for serving to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America! Say, IIRC, you were …. say, I’ll just go find it…. . Ah, ha! Here’s a little blast from the past when a young man was so very proud of his country that he never forgot where he was when…..
        … Meanwhile, back at the Tropic Test Center in Panama … where I was learning the Army version of tropical meteorology and its varied uses, we all took a break to watch [the moon landing] on our barracks’ B&W TV set next to the pool table. Like db, I got a good case of goosebumps too, despite the sticky hot weather. … the US Southern Command and the Panamanian TV station got together and bought up all the undersea cable bandwidth that evening to pipe the show across the Caribbean. If they hadn’t, we would have not seen it until tapes were flown down from Miami the next morning. So, on a warm, still, drippy equatorial evening, this motley crew, dressed in jungle pants and sweaty T-shirts, watched humanity’s high water mark live on a B&W television next to a pool table. … Richard Keen
        (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/01/experience-18-minutes-of-world-history-as-if-you-were-there-landing-on-the-moon/#comment-1294266 )
        Thanks again for doing that for us!
        Glad you are here with all your expertise, too. Boy, there are so MANY science giants at WUWT — this is really a very cool place to be.
        Your grateful American WUWT ally for science truth,
        Janice

      • The ‘Mission Accomplished,” was because the ship he was on was going home, and they were the ones who put up the sign. He never was quoted as saying “Mission Accomplished”.

      • Janice,
        What a memory you have – is the entirely of WUWT stored in your busy synapses? That would be a perfectly good use of a brain, I’d say! Sure was fun to re-read my memories of the moon landing, and I went back to that 2013 WUWT story and delayed bedtime a few hours to read others’ memories.
        And are you sure you’re not a librarian?
        Along with millions upon millions of others, I took the oath that goes, “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
        http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html
        It was kind of fun defending the Constitution by launching weather rockets and balloons and reading rain gauges, all in the spirit of defending freedom with good data. That’s what WUWT is all about 50 years later.
        I’d say we’ve fairly well wiped the foreign enemies of our Constitution, be they fascists, communists, da’esh, and other lesser thugs. Sorry to say, we haven’t done so well with the domestic enemies.
        cheers…

    • …and I hate these blown up graph scales
      The difference is about 1 million km2….
      They have already said that ice free is 1 million km2 or less…
      …so 1 million km2 is obviously not enough to matter
      😉

    • seems to me the last section in blue should have a line drawn from beginning point to end point which would make an X with the already drawn line the trend since 2007 is UP now not down.

      • I agree, Bill Taylor. Perhaps, Greg has a good reason for his downward sloping blue line. I would like to know what it is (I’m not a scientist AT ALL, so I have no idea what his reason might be — i.e., I am, by asking that, not at ALL trying to imply that there is likely no good reason Greg could cite).

  9. Weather Underground? Nay lad thas off the beat!
    Caleb has been scrutinising it for days
    Polarcane!

  10. I would expect that the exact location of the low and the duration will determine whether there is a significant to sea ice.

  11. The DMI Arctic temp dataset shows 2016 fell below 0C about 2 weeks earlier than normal and was just on the cusp of hitting -2C (the point sea ice starts to freezes) before this Arctic Cyclone hit.
    This Arctic cyclone is removing huge quantities of stored energy from Arctic waters, so when it ends, the Arctic ice recovery should be quite spectacular this fall and winter, especially because we’re in a record-breaking cold La Niña cycle.
    There still seems to be remenants of “The Blob” in the North Pacific, but when the cold La Niña cycle runs its course, it should be gone for good.
    The PDO started its 30-year cool cycle from 2008, which is at least partially responsible for the increase in Arctic Ice thickness. The AMO is also quickly approaching the start of its 30-year cool cycle, which will also add to Arctic ice recovery.
    By 2018, the La Niña cooling effects should cause the “Hiatus” to return, showing 22 years of flat global temperature trends, and the September Arctic Ice Minimum should be close to 2 million KM^2 above the 2012 record low…
    By 2021, global temp trends should show 25 years of flat/falling global temp trends, Arctic sea ice should start tracking within 2 standard deviations of the Arctic Ice mean for most of the year, the Arctic minimum should be about 3 million KM^2 above the 2012 sea ice record low, solar activity will be the weakest since the 1790 Dalton Minimum, both the AMO and PDO will be in their respective 30-year cool cycles, the Northern Hemisphere should have experienced some of the coldest winters in 50 years, a falling global trend line should appear from 1996 and, most importantly, the disparity between CAGW global temp projections vs. reality should exceed well over 3 standard deviations…
    The CAGW hypothesis is already on life support and by 2021 it’ll be dead.

    • You cant kill millennialism in any of it’s forms. Believers will do what they have been doing – extending the prophecies of Doom ever-forwards to keep their hopes alive. Facts rarely take precedence over Faith.

      • According to the most recent Gallop poll, 57% of Americans don’t think CAGW is a serious threat.
        The global temp “hiatus” will likely return by mid-2018 marking 22 years without a global warming trend.
        Even the most aggressively ignorant millennial is going to seriously start to question the efficacy of CAGW, when they read about or witness brutally severe winters occurring in the Northern Hemisphere, Arctic ice recovering, global temp trends failing, etc….
        People are suffering from CAGW fatigue. Leftists overplayed their hand and will suffer greatly for their folly…

    • And if none of those things happen you will accept AGW? You seem to have explained how it is impossible for warming to continue over the next few years “naturally”, so if it does warm, if ice shrinks, then it must be CO2, right?

      • Show facts seaice1!
        • Demonstrate, clearly with proofs that there is a direct relationship between atmospheric CO2% and • temperatures!
        • Every hour.
        • Every day.
        • Universally, at all global positions.
        • Not someone’s misplaced concept of an anomaly.
        • Not at a few global regions.
        • Not after a clearly defined period of oceanic and atmospheric warmth buildup that has existed for as long as man has recorded Pacific coast weather.
        • Not at heavily adjusted selected urban weather stations.
        • Not with massively imagined derivations of temperature outside of reliable ocean buoy/station test parameters.
        • – – Especially after converting alleged ocean temperatures to work energy measurements, joules, in an attempt to mask the lack of signal and attempts to increase the appearance of temperature.

      • Seaice1- My predictions are meaningless..
        The only way CAGW can be confirmed now is for global warming trends to increase from basically 0.0C/decade for the past 20 years, to 0.5Cdecade starting from tomorrow and continue unabated for the next 10 years or until reality starts matching CAGW projections in a statistically significant manner.
        The ONLY way to confirm a hypothesis is for hypothetical predictions to match reality. If they diverge from projections by more than 2 standard deviations for a statically significant duration, then the hypothesis is dead.
        CAGW has already exceeded the criteria required for disconfirmation, and it only gets worse from here for the reasons stated earlier.

      • My predictions are meaningless.. Refreshing honesty. I am not sure how to take that. Are you seriously saying that all that about ice growing was meaningless? Or re you hedging your bets? If your predictions come to pass you can claim foresight, if not, they didn’t men anything anyway.

    • Yes, but people are also using Canadian weather service data of actual wind speeds and pressures….

      • Pure distraction Griff.
        I provided links to actual current weather.
        Where is the actual Canadian weather service data map, that is not from the Canadian model?

    • Oh come on Atheok – this is a cyclone – it is severe weather by anyone’s standards – and you are claiming what? It isn’t really an exceptional weather event?

      • Griff! You actually hit the nail on the head.
        It is normal weather.
        And when you look at the low pressure cyclone on the actual weather map, it is not a massive deep weather event.
        Ho hum, Griff!
        Go tell your bedtime fantasies elsewhere.

      • Wim Röst :

        “Data are based on analysis data from the global operational weather forecasting model at ECMWFs.
        The model analysis can be considered to be a 0-hours forecast, and is the best estimate of the current state of the atmospheric system and it is based on available observations and the model physics”

        In spite of people’s firm convictions that their CAGW deities are omnipotent:
        Models are not actual observations!
        When in doubt, look outside at the sky! Or in this case, check a satellite.
        There is a low pressure cyclone over England.
        There is another low pressure cyclone over Siberia.
        There is a general low pressure system over part of the Arctic. There is not a tight cyclonic formation indicating steep pressure gradients.
        Arcticane? Polarcane? Candycane? Not any of these choices.
        Just another typical low pressure system.
        The current satellite image of the Arctic:
        http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/nexsat-bin/nexsat.cgi?BASIN=CONUS&SUB_BASIN=focus_regions&AGE=Latest&CCA=Arctic-x-x&SSC=x-x-x&PRODUCT=ir&SUB_PRODUCT=multisat&PAGETYPE=static&DISPLAY=single&SIZE=Thumb&PATH=Arctic-x-x/x-x-x/ir/multisat&CURRENT=20160819.1500.multi-sat.ir.x.global.x.jpg&

      • ATheoK August 19, 2016 at 12:12 pm
        “Data are based on analysis data from the global operational weather forecasting model at ECMWFs.
        The model analysis can be considered to be a 0-hours forecast, and is the best estimate of the current state of the atmospheric system and it is based on available observations and the model physics”
        Of course I read the above before I’ve send you the link and I know how to interprete the images. You don’t need to tell me so. Your PICTURES don’t show pressure. You can see clouds and you can give an interpretation of those clouds in regard to pressure. Very safe! Very reliable! Much better!!!!!!!

  12. ‘The kind of ice-breaker we don’t need’ – Yes. No.
    Nothing wrong with ice-breakers.
    Anyway – Nature / Weather has more tricks up its sleeve and there ‘… are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.’
    ______________________________________
    So satellite readings are OK again.

  13. It’s just another projection of climate based on current weather patterns. Come back in a decade and see how things have changed.

  14. Obama should pin another famous executive order, between the 8th and the 9th hole of his vacation, declaring HillyBilly the winner of the 2016 Presidential contest based on his most expert and highly regarded perfect model projection and forgo the bother and expense of public elections.
    Ha ha

  15. Well duh, where else and how else is the return of the Laurentian Ice Shield redux going to happen? All that ice has to be advected moisture transported in from an unfrozen ocean across a bitterly cold land mass then deposited as snow.
    And I can’t think of a more efficient advection machine than a low pressure cyclone pulling dry air across an exposed ocean surface to harvest the Carnot Cycle fuel. Furthermore, the tropopause at the poles is much lower than in the tropics where tropical cyclones must push their heat transfer towers through very long pipes that can easily be sheared by unfavorable winds. Those pipes in the arctic can be much lower (shorter) allowing the Carnot cycle to work at a lower efficency than a TC.

  16. Round 1 of this August arctic cyclone has pushed the ice around and caused some damage but not nearly so much as the 2012 August cyclone.
    However, Round 2 is coming soon and it remains to be seen how strong it will be and how much impact it will have. The fact that these are later in August (than in 2012) will also reduce aftermath losses as we are getting close to refreeze time, at least on the surface (some bottom melt will continue into Sept). Churning out excess energy by these storms just before refreeze could make for ideal ice recovery conditions in September onward. Will be interesting to watch.

  17. What smells
    Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaa[pruned the middle few thousand redundant a’s and h’s] aahaaaaaaa.
    Think.
    [“Think” ??? Yes, Think Seriously before you display your ability to reason in public. .mod]

    • Mods?
      My apologies for adding burden to your difficulties; but is this sort of nonsensical ad hominems helping any discussions?
      [Thank you. .mod]

      • Actually, I would like to thank you mods!
        Your timely assistance and delicate moderation make this place one of, if not the most, hospitable discussion centers in any medium!
        Thank you for stepping in. Your appreciative audience, participant, student!
        ATheoK

  18. festering on her countrymen doomsday book.
    feudalistic deploeyer.
    Catholic girl.
    [Left as evidence. The mods are not sure exactly what this is evidence of, but it is undeniably evidence of something. .mod]

  19. ekelhaft. Cromwell knew. Catholic doomsday + British Winchester.
    thesis + antithesis == synthesis.
    ekelhaft.

  20. You do know the DMI thickness chart is modelled, don’t you?
    and that this, modelled from same data shows a quite different picture?
    https://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictnnowcast.gif
    The DMI thickness chart shows ice where there isn’t any…
    and of course there’s the concentration – ice extent charts show areas with over 15% ice – well there’s a lot of thinly spread out ice out there…
    Take a look at these charts:
    http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/
    and this will update you on how that storm is melting the ice:
    http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2016/08/2016-arctic-cyclone-update-2.html#more
    Area second lowest, extent 3rd lowest – and more storms to come.
    Really, the evidence shows we are near another record – the ice is clearly NOT ‘recovering’ or in good shape.
    Taking one modelled thickness chart – the only chart which shows a good picture of the ice – is misrepresentation…

    • watch ice road truckers some time, i suggest that because a thickness chart indeed could show large areas of ICE where the “surface” shows none because to top inch or so has melted but at this time is already refreezing…..which also shows that surface area coverage charts do NOT show what is mere inches below that surface……..ice road truckers shows this often inches of water on top of 3 ft thick ice.

  21. I am sure the Masters of disasters will attempt to rewrite history as if we never had any sea ice export from storms before. WU is one of the most oppressive sites there is with respect to censorship of differing opinions. In particular Meff Jasters blog. Try and post anything aside from alarmist borg propaganda there and see for yourself. They know what’s best for you, so you don’t have to think for yourself anymore!
    Pfffft !

  22. Follow up on my comment no record low this year. Aug 2012 and the warm arctic summer had something to do with it no matter how we may want to spin the record low. It didnt come out of nowhere as it was way way below all summer. In any case the temps in Aug of 12 http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_monthly.php This year http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_t2m_anom.png
    The ice was well under this year and there was no sudden drop because of a storm in 2012
    https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
    we are safe

    • Please scroll to August of 2012 on link 1 I am sorry about that, The exact map did not come up

    • so second lowest is no problem at all?
      when for nearly a decade we haven’t got back to pre-2007 levels?

      • How much of that was excess loss above what would normally melt in 15 days in August? I noticed weeks ago the Barrow point coastline was free of ice. This week there are large ice flows along the shoreline.

  23. The 2012 minimum was an artifact of the measuring system, with vast expanses of 15% slush counted as open sea. A few weeks later, all that slush turned back to ice. Not all was aboveboard either: there was a region of solid ice just north of Wrangel Island, about as large as that island, which mysteriously disappeared off the ice maps in mid-August and re-appeared 6 weeks later. It was an inconvenient truth.

  24. I must have missed something in basic weather class; The reason for the anticlockwise circulation around a low (in the Northern hemisphere and looking down from above) is Coriolis force caused by lighter air rising and air coming in from the sides being unable to keep going in a straight line due to the rotation of the earth. But at the N pole the earth’s rotation is very small or zero thus there can be no Coriolis force. Yet we still have a polar low.

    • Coriolis force is greatest at the poles! Consider a handful of air 100 miles south of the north pole, it’s about 100 miles from the axis on a circle some 600+ miles in circumference, and hence is moving about 25 mph to go around the pole every day. (Actually it goes about 361 degrees, since the Earth moves 1 degree around the sun every day.)
      If that handful of air moves toward the pole or away, it will need a fair amount of acceleration to keep it apparently moving in a straight line. Or, it will curve a lot.
      On the equator, a handful of air will be about 4,000 miles from the axis whether it’s moved 100 miles in any direction. While it’s moving at 1,000 mph, the difference with a point 100 miles away is nearly 0. No Coriolis Effect there!

Comments are closed.