tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367053740188758246.post2960405296297708609..comments2023-06-21T00:39:34.443-07:00Comments on Dosbat: PIOMAS May Volume LossChris Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16843133350978717556noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367053740188758246.post-345582487680774942016-06-16T11:13:55.106-07:002016-06-16T11:13:55.106-07:00Intuitively, by late summer most or all of the thi...Intuitively, by late summer most or all of the thin FYI should have melted. But in the PIOMAS model there may well be a gradual topping up of the thin ice by thicker ice having thinned over the season. What is in the model is a thickness distribution within each box and the physics works on all thicknesses.<br /><br />The Central Arctic shows a general drop in concentration/compactness by late summer this seems to be (from MODIS) due to the gaps between floes opening up as open water. So yes I think concentration/compactness is very informative.Chris Reynoldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16843133350978717556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367053740188758246.post-5222559859590819522016-06-13T03:49:11.745-07:002016-06-13T03:49:11.745-07:00Ah, I hadn't considered the contribution of in...Ah, I hadn't considered the contribution of interstitial thin ice in the central pack. Under some conditions (perhaps melt ponding over FYI, especially while melt ponds around the periphery are draining) it might account for a relatively large share of volume loss. Conversely, it could be a lesser contributor late in the season when bottom melt under the thicker floes predominates. Would changes in concentration provide a clue as to the relative effect?icemannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367053740188758246.post-53911107840877229102016-06-12T10:35:38.860-07:002016-06-12T10:35:38.860-07:00Thanks Iceman,
That's a very useful observati...Thanks Iceman,<br /><br />That's a very useful observation. I had wondered if it could be the Atlantic side. Now I look at the animation you refer to I see it's probably both, but I think much is from the Beaufort side.<br /><br />That said: I need to caution that in Gice those thinner amounts also co-exist with thicker ice within the centre of the pack (FYI between floes). Due to the size of the Central Arctic loss of volume of thinner ice within the bulk of the pack may be a significant factor.Chris Reynoldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16843133350978717556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367053740188758246.post-72551734339218770192016-06-12T07:07:39.756-07:002016-06-12T07:07:39.756-07:00Your last graph is not what I would have guessed f...Your last graph is not what I would have guessed from a first glance at Wipneus' animation for May (post #942 in the PIOMAS thread of ASIF; http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,119.900.html). My eye was drawn by the salient band of thinning that PIOMAS models in the white area north of Ellesmere. Taking your analysis into account, a closer scrutiny of the animation shows that much of the anomalous volume loss occurred near the Beaufort boundary of the Central Arctic.icemannoreply@blogger.com