Carinthian's Latest Arctic Reports Thread

[John Cox]

Perfect, Pm3,

Thanks a million

[parmenides3]

Perfect, Pm3,

Thanks a million

Credit due to Wikipedia. It's just occured to me that you could have done it yourself. Harrumph!

P

[trevw]

thanks for all the info, have been following cryosphere today and various other places for a couple of years now so is interesting to see all the other sources of information and read all the discussion..

in case you've not seen it, nsidc have started up a special news page for last few weeks of the summer melt season..

http://nsidc.org/news/press/2006_seaicemin...seaicenews.html

looking forward to more informative posts over the turn of the season

trevw

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

thanks for all the info, have been following cryosphere today and various other places for a couple of years now so is interesting to see all the other sources of information and read all the discussion..

in case you've not seen it, nsidc have started up a special news page for last few weeks of the summer melt season..

http://nsidc.org/news/press/2006_seaicemin...seaicenews.html

looking forward to more informative posts over the turn of the season

trevw

2006 thus far looks more encouraging.

BFTP

[parmenides3]

thanks for all the info, have been following cryosphere today and various other places for a couple of years now so is interesting to see all the other sources of information and read all the discussion..

in case you've not seen it, nsidc have started up a special news page for last few weeks of the summer melt season..

http://nsidc.org/news/press/2006_seaicemin...seaicenews.html

looking forward to more informative posts over the turn of the season

trevw

Thanks for the link, Trevw. Interesting point here, that NSIDC are discussing sea-ice extent, not cover; I'm not sure why. If you're interested, why don't you chip in more often? You probably know more than me, if you've been studying the Arctic for a couple of years, so your input would be valued. P

[oldsnowywizard]

interesting to see a lot more blues on the climate chart, all beit for only half the year and probably is still taking into consideration the very cold winter temps. also worth noting there seems to be a great big red or dark orange dot in excatly the same location. Our friends to the North east arent doing anything dodgy up there are they?

[parmenides3]

interesting to see a lot more blues on the climate chart, all beit for only half the year and probably is still taking into consideration the very cold winter temps. also worth noting there seems to be a great big red or dark orange dot in excatly the same location. Our friends to the North east arent doing anything dodgy up there are they?

You'll have noticed, though, that the blues - negative anomalies - are over land areas - Siberia and N. Canada, whereas the big orange blob is right in the middle of the ice area.

Both elements should level out, as seasonal variations of anomalies tend to show the greatest extremes in the Spring, at the moment. Also note the comment about flushing out of ice through the Fram Strait - the bit of sea just to the right of Greenland; this would have led to a quicker break-up of the young ice in the Barents Sea during the first part of the year, leading to more rapid temperature rises.

Don't know why BFTP thinks the picture is looking better this year, though, unless he, too, is talking about the blue bits.

P

[oldsnowywizard]

Granted. is there a similar chart to http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...current.365.jpg this for the antarctic? i know this is the arctic thread, but it would be interesting to see a comparison down under.. it looks from the SST maps that there is quite a lot of ice around antartica?

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Don't know why BFTP thinks the picture is looking better this year, though, unless he, too, is talking about the blue bits.

P

[trevw]

Thanks for the link, Trevw. Interesting point here, that NSIDC are discussing sea-ice extent, not cover; I'm not sure why. If you're interested, why don't you chip in more often? You probably know more than me, if you've been studying the Arctic for a couple of years, so your input would be valued. P

Hi PM3,

thanks, though I wouldn't say 'studying' more 'keeping half an eye on' :o as I feel it is one of the most interesting indicators of the extent of any climate change around. I haven't really got into the weather/predictive side of it before at all, definitely find it all fascinating tho and will contribute if I have anything of interest..

also, didn't realise this thread was here.. up until now I've been lurking around the environment change area and occasionally joining in.. and of course avidly following the yearly 'will it snow' rollercoaster

on the extent vs cover question, I wonder how accurately they are using the terms? Various places seem to use phrases like 'extent of cover' - and while cryosphere today talk of 'cover' a quick browse doesn't show up any definition of what they mean by the term as far as I can find.. do they mean area with 100% sea ice coverage? Presumeably the analysis works on some kind of grid system so there must be some form of threshold?

Trevw

[parmenides3]

Granted. is there a similar chart to http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...current.365.jpg this for the antarctic? i know this is the arctic thread, but it would be interesting to see a comparison down under.. it looks from the SST maps that there is quite a lot of ice around antartica?

I haven't really looked for one, tbh, but there are several national and international Antarctic research programmes, such as the BAS, which have websites. The MMAB sea ice analysis page give a daily graphic of the Antarctic, and the NSIDC State of the cryosphere - sea-ice - snapshots, shows the current conditions with anomalies. The graphs show very little variability beyond the expected interannual for Antarctica, with the exception of the Peninsula area, where temps. have warmed 3 times faster than the global average. Tropospheric temps. have also risen much faster than gloval average, but increased precipitation is, as things stand, compensating for this. Because the area has only been observed effectively in the satellite era, there is greater uncertainty about the climate mechanisms than for other parts of the world.

There is concern in the Antarctic, though, about the Ross Ice Shelf. Since the collapse of the Larsen Ice Shelf a few years ago, a close watch has been placed on the area, particularly for polynya - water pools in the ice cover, which might signal a potential problems. If the Ross were to collapse (which at the moment is a 25% probability in the next 100, and a 50% in the next 200 years, if GW continues), sea levels would rise rapidly, and, for many coastal dwellers, catastrophically.

Sorry I can't help more.

BFTP: fair point. I'll accept nominally better; perhaps 'slightly less awful' might be my choice of words. P

[parmenides3]

Hi PM3,

thanks, though I wouldn't say 'studying' more 'keeping half an eye on' as I feel it is one of the most interesting indicators of the extent of any climate change around. I haven't really got into the weather/predictive side of it before at all, definitely find it all fascinating tho and will contribute if I have anything of interest..

also, didn't realise this thread was here.. up until now I've been lurking around the environment change area and occasionally joining in.. and of course avidly following the yearly 'will it snow' rollercoaster :o

on the extent vs cover question, I wonder how accurately they are using the terms? Various places seem to use phrases like 'extent of cover' - and while cryosphere today talk of 'cover' a quick browse doesn't show up any definition of what they mean by the term as far as I can find.. do they mean area with 100% sea ice coverage? Presumeably the analysis works on some kind of grid system so there must be some form of threshold?

Trevw

Sorry for the double post - just saw yours, Trevw.

Most of the sea ice pages you'll find - some are linked in these threads - will tell you that Arctic sea-ice levels in particular are a key indicator of climate change, as well as a contributor to sea level rise and a major influence on Northern Hemisphere climate and weather. An extensive summary is included in the Arctic Climate Impacts Assessment, mentioned above. If you have an interest, you should download at least the executive summary (147 pages, pdf), and take time to read it through.

I had the same concern with you about the extent/cover issue, as Cryosphere Today uses both terms in different charts on their main page, so I emailed them and asked. The terms aren't used loosely; it's to do with the records.

Until satellite records started (1979), the only measure of the ice was extent - where the edge was. This record goes back about 100 years or so, is thus important for data comparison and analysis, and is therefore maintained, even though the current measurements are mostly done by satellite, backed up by ground/ship observation.

The term 'cover' is used to refer to the calculated extent, minus the 'pooling' within the ice, which is almost all only observable by satellite. It is a more accurate measure of how much ice there actually is. If you look at the top graphs on CT, you can compare 'cover' with 'extent' historically, and see a similar (downward) trend.

All of the images on the various pages, including CT, are in different colours, showing the models' interpretation of the data in terms of 'thickness', or %age of sea covered. They also all show slightly different images; this is because of the different formulae they use to convert the raw data into calculated ice levels.

At least two of the models - CT and the Danish Met's IWICOS/IOMASA, use extrapolations based on three-day updates - this is the time it takes for the polar orbiting satellites to capture the whole of the Arctic. If there is a 'glitch' in the data, or a sudden (overnight) change in conditions, there will be 'humps' in the graphs which are out of place - but these tend to adjust themselves quickly enough.

On the MMAB NCEP main page, there is a link to how they interpret the data to produce the maps. There is a similar link on the IWICOS/IOMASA page. CT is preparing a scientific paper at the moment, which discusses the various models which are used and the differences and similarities in output. When it's published, one of us will probably post a link on NW.

Hope that covers everything. P

[carinthian]

Carinthian's Arctic ice reports are great. Although I cannot make any contribution to the discussions, I am an avid reader of them.

Long may they continue and many thanks to Carinthian for his time and effort.

Hi Noggin,

Thanks for the post. Glad you enjoy reading the reports. Lots of others interested in the Arctic weather are now adding their contributions to what should be a fascinating winter.

Cheers

C

Hi C,

I am back at work now after 3 weeks hols so I am just catching up on things.

Would you or any other members have a map (link) that outlines the geographical areas that you and others refer to in this topic.

My geography of northern regions is not that great and it would be nice to be able to refrence the areas mentions.

Keep up the good work.

Welcome back John. I have a feeling you are going to enjoy this winter ! I think PM3 has posted you a map ?

C

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

P

Can we explain why the arctic ocean levels have actually lowered?

BFTP

[parmenides3]

P

Can we explain why the arctic ocean levels have actually lowered?

BFTP

There is a discussion of the paper which sets this out on http://www.realcimate.org/index.php/archiv...rctic/more/#314

Basically, the finding is waiting to be peer reviewed; the article offer some ideas as to why, if the finding is accepted, this might be the case. The main point is concern over where the sampling was done & how accurate it can be shown to be. Status: not yet proven.

On the front page of the site is a new article about sea ice which I haven't read yet; when I do, I'll let you know what it says.

Another article from last month deals with problems arising from the models used to calculate sea level rise in relation to ice melt, which you might find useful.

P

Edited August 25, 2006 by parmenides3

[The PIT]

There is a discussion of the paper which sets this out on http://www.realcimate.org/index.php/archiv...the-arctic/more

Basically, the finding is waiting to be peer reviewed; the article offer some ideas as to why, if the finding is accepted, this might be the case. The main point is concern over where the sampling was done & how accurate it can be shown to be. Status: not yet proven.

P

Or put in simple terms. If this is bull it will be discarded.

can anyone else shorten it further.

Attempt at humour if anyone gets the hump on.

[parmenides3]

Or put in simple terms. If this is bull it will be discarded.

can anyone else shorten it further.

Attempt at humour if anyone gets the hump on.

Basically. But don't assume that it is, until the review is in! P

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Basically. But don't assume that it is, until the review is in! P

P

Ta, We still await then

BFTP

[Stratos Ferric]

Carinthian's Arctic ice reports are great. Although I cannot make any contribution to the discussions, I am an avid reader of them.

Long may they continue and many thanks to Carinthian for his time and effort.

Hear hear Noggin. Carinthian and the others on here certainly add another useful dimension to the various different debates that go on in the N-W pages, and they are fram from being alone.

With Steve and SB and their teleconnections, Ian B with his pattern matching, Mr Data and his data, TWS's insights into air masses and recent trends, the different technical strengths of various of the forecast team, some of the contributors on the environment threads like Su Ri, and the storm threads, and even those with more eclectic theories and methods like Roger andEITS and the many who chip in here and there it is hard not to be impressed with the collective knowledge, and also with the rate that many on here do learn, both from others but also from their own research.

[carinthian]

The very latest ice analaysis using visual and infra red have now indicated more ice retention in the Russian sectors than this time last year. By the end of this month, much of the Arctic above 80 degree should be ice covered and fragmented ice ( less than 7/10th ) should not be to far of the northern coastal waters of Svalbard. Ice drift forecast indicate the biggest advance to be in the Laptev Sea.

C

Good signs this morning,

First snowfalls of the season in the West Siberian Basin this morning, mainly on the higher ground but a cold circulation has developed in Central Siberia south of the Arctic circle that is fed by some cold air from an early "cold high" that has formed early over Northern Siberia. Ice drift forecasts remain as predicted.

[Polar Continental]

Good signs this morning,

First snowfalls of the season in the West Siberian Basin this morning, mainly on the higher ground but a cold circulation has developed in Central Siberia south of the Arctic circle that is fed by some cold air from an early "cold high" that has formed early over Northern Siberia. Ice drift forecasts remain as predicted.

Hi Carinth, afternoon everyone,

Thanks for that bit of good news there mate, lets hope this is a sign of an early cool down. Going out a few days to the weekend, surface temperatures over Greenland start to take quite a tumble as well, a good deal of –20c and –30c pools beginning to develop. Still looking very Autumnal for us with those cool strong westerly winds.

Paul

[parmenides3]

Afternoon. Paul.

The Wz charts are following their own prediction from earlier in the week, but at the moment, it seems a bit deceptive. Apart from Barrow (-2c overnight), and Svalbard (7C), most of the temps I can find around the Arctic Circle over the last few days have been mild - sometimes warmer than Scotland has been. There isn't any sign of snow on any of the webcams, apart from Ny Alesund, and then only on the tops.

There is no doubt about the cooling of the central Arctic, but many of the coastal stations don't appear to have felt it yet.

P

[Polar Continental]

Afternoon. Paul.

The Wz charts are following their own prediction from earlier in the week, but at the moment, it seems a bit deceptive. Apart from Barrow (-2c overnight), and Svalbard (7C), most of the temps I can find around the Arctic Circle over the last few days have been mild - sometimes warmer than Scotland has been. There isn't any sign of snow on any of the webcams, apart from Ny Alesund, and then only on the tops.

There is no doubt about the cooling of the central Arctic, but many of the coastal stations don't appear to have felt it yet.

P

Hi parmenides,

Yes although the arctic may be some what above average at the moment, i think Greenland temperatures are below normal, Carinth may be able to confirm this. It should only be a short time now though before the real cooling begins over the Arctic, once the sun dips below the horizon up there on the 23rd September, the cold pool will start to rapidly expand.

[parmenides3]

I am sure you are correct. Certainly, the charts for the past 3 years on this date look a lot more benign; the nearest matches I could find were from 2002. What was the Winter like then?

P

A quick look at last year's is all it takes to see the difference. Sorry I couldn't get like-for likes from WZ; don't know how.

Edited August 28, 2006 by parmenides3

[carinthian]

Hi parmenides,

Yes although the arctic may be some what above average at the moment, i think Greenland temperatures are below normal, Carinth may be able to confirm this. It should only be a short time now though before the real cooling begins over the Arctic, once the sun dips below the horizon up there on the 23rd September, the cold pool will start to rapidly expand.

Hi Paul,

Greenland summit and coastal averages are spot on for the late August averages, as is many on the buoy reports in the Arctic Basin above 80 degrees North. What encourages me most is the early development of the North Siberian high cell. Remember last year the big Russian High was pumping a warm SWly flow into this area . It remains important that the Arctic cold pool develops early for our on coming "much colder winter ".

C