Carinthian's Latest Arctic Reports Thread 2

[ribster]

Well, I hate to be the bearer of "bad" tidings, to you snowy lot, but.......

Paul

I don't believe you do!

Still, the beat goes on.......

[parmenides3]

Well, I hate to be the bearer of "bad" tidings, to you snowy lot, but....... It appears from the Cryosphere today site that all the areas to the North of Siberia; East Siberian Sea, Laptev Sea and the Kara Sea have all actually lost ice in the last updates of the graphs. As the Beaufort Sea is still losing ice, as the open polynya is allowing warm water to penetrate further polewards, this means that the overall Northern Hemisphere ice has reduced again, taking it back to the year's minimum and suggesting, contrary to the icy "good news" has been posted on here this week, that ice levels will, at best, bump along near the minimum for a little while longer, or that the year's minimum may not yet have quite been reached.

Is it the cryosphere data that isn't reliable?

Paul

I have noticed that the CT data can be a bit quirky, Paul, mainly because of the way they calculate the day-to-day shifts; three-day periods are generally more likely to be an accurate picture, becuae that's how long it takes the satellites to cover the entire Arctic; the rest of the data is calculated by extrapolation. Also, extreme weather events seems to give the programs some difficulty in working out what's going on, so I would suggest that, whilst the Arctic Basin, East Siberian and Beaufort areas clearly are still in a melting phase, the Kara and Laptev are more likely to be, generally, freezing up, with varibility caused by both the above and the movement of drift ice towards or away from the main pack.

Note also the ice concentrations around the polynya are still around or below 60%. Remembering that the water temp. under the ice is likely to be several degrees warmer than the pack-surface temp., the feedback could continue, even if SATs drop below zero.

:)P

[Dawlish]

I don't believe you do!

Still, the beat goes on.......

........but the ice has got less, ribster, not more. I know you don't want to believe that, but check out the Cryosphere site. Someone posts that it might get colder...cheers all round. Someone posts that it might not....brickbat, first post up. Talk about the data, in hand, don't ignore it, sound disappointed and try to shoot the messenger! It's not my fault the ice has not increased the way you hope it will - honest!

Paul

Edited September 27, 2006 by Dawlish

[parmenides3]

I don't believe you do!

Still, the beat goes on.......

Are you impying schadenfreude on the part of some posters, ribster? Surely not!

P

[ribster]

........but the ice has got less, ribster, not more. I know you don't want to believe that, but check out the Cryosphere site. Someone posts that it might get colder...cheers all round. Someone posts that it might not....brickbat, first post up. Talk about the data, in hand, don't ignore it, sound disappointed and try to shoot the messenger! It's not my fault the ice has not increased the way you hope it will - honest!

Paul

You need to read what carinth and the others actually posted dawlish, not just post along the lines of your own agenda. What they say in their posts is what is going/beginning to happen, the clues are words like 'begining' and 'continue'. You have responded to what was actually posted as usual.

Someone says cold, you say hot. You seem to want to get GW into every thread too. I guess on this occasion I have taken your bait, and you have achieved your aim......

I must exercise greater self discipline!

Are you impying schadenfreude on the part of some posters, ribster? Surely not!

P

Absolutely not!

Same record every autumn/winter...

or in some cases all year!

[parmenides3]

You need to read what carinth and the others actually posted dawlish, not just post along the lines of your own agenda. What they say in their posts is what is going/beginning to happen, the clues are words like 'begining' and 'continue'. You have responded to what was actually posted as usual.

Someone says cold, you say hot. You seem to want to get GW into every thread too. I guess on this occasion I have taken your bait, and you have achieved your aim......

I must exercise greater self discipline!

Absolutely not!

Same record every autumn/winter...

or in some cases all year!

I disagree, ribster. I think you are attributing an intention to Paul which does not exist. And his post isn't about GW, it's about what the stats (seem to) say is happening now.

Extra note; since satellite records began in 1979, the sea ice minimum has never been later than september 24th. Food for thought?

:)P

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I disagree, ribster. I think you are attributing an intention to Paul which does not exist. And his post isn't about GW, it's about what the stats (seem to) say is happening now.

Extra note; since satellite records began in 1979, the sea ice minimum has never been later than september 24th. Food for thought?

:)P

No not really, oceans have never evr warmed more than land or air so it isn't GW or AGW warming the oceans. 1979...well that says it all really.

BFTP

[ScandiHigh]

Still waiting for the latest reports from Svalbard regarding whether Polar ice edge has made any landfall yet. Should know tomorrow.

Carinth

Great report Carinthian.

Re my question last week, I think you were spot on when predicting landfall of sea ice at Svalbard norhtern coastline this week. According to the Cryosphere site it happened during the last five days.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...VE/20060922.jpg

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...VE/20060927.jpg

My impression is that the Norhtern Barent area is ahead of last year, especially to the Northeast of Svalbard, around Franz Josef Land:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...VE/20050927.jpg

Regards

Scandi

[Mr Sleet]

For those who don't know why A-M would like this to be so, check: http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/patterns/arctic_oscillation.html

:)P

Thanks P3. It is intriguing why the AO and NAO suddenly changed to positive in the 70's and 80's. The sudden nature of the change explains warming in great swathes of the N Hemisphere and ice melt in the arctic and which cannot be blamed on GW ;underlining how little we really understand about the atmosphere.

Edited September 28, 2006 by Mr Sleet

[Dawlish]

It's weird. If the Arctic ice was increasing rapidly, I'd be agog to know why and what consequences it might hold, yet someone is prepared to ignore a piece of data which is good science. It's not a question of "getting GW in everywhere", it's a question of looking objectively at the evidence in front of us. Just because someone posts something saying that something is happening does not make it true, if all the facts don't support what they have said.

Just saying "great post", doesn't actually make the content correct. Carinthian brings information from many sources and produces excellent posts, I've always found them interesting, but when those reports are prefaced by "good news from Franz Joseph land" (meaning ice has increased), then perhaps it should start us thinking that the reports may be skewed, just a little, a little to give the impression of advancing ice being more widespread than it actually is.

When the Cryosphere data is saying the direct opposite of that, surely we should take note? It isn't good to just be blind to information that we don't wish to hear. The majority of comment is to bolster the hopes of cold weather and it is not surprising that someone (me in this case) wishes to balance that with what other data is available.

I find it fascinating and puzzling why the Ice in the Arctic has hasn't started it's seasonal increase, overall, yet; why it has reduced with the last few days of Cryosphere reports. It probably won't continue to head downwards and one thing is certian; Arctic ice will begin to increase very soon (certain is a word I seldom use, with respect to meteorology and climatology, but in this case, it really is nailed on, barring an all-life threatening global catastrophe). It will be interesting to see the maximum winter extent of that build up.

To add further to the balance on this, we certainly shouldn't use just the Cryosphere site. The NSIDC has produced an update this morning, saying that "Sea ice extent has remained fairly steady over the last week": (as well as speculation on the formation of the Beafort Sea polynya which backs up what I've been saying, ever since reading P3's link - it's good to learn and change your mind on how things work, when persuaded otherwise by new research, or better data)

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

There are one, or two, places where sea ice is at, or even slightly above the 1979-2000 average. Carinthian is absolutely correct in drawing our attention to Svarlbad and Franz Josef land, but ice cover in Eastern Siberia, the Beafort Sea and the areas North of Canada much more than balances this and shows the extension of the overall trend towards decreasing ice in the Arctic.

GW is not my fault, really(!), but in looking for reasons why Arctic Sea Ice has decreased so much over the last 20 years, with no interruption to the overall downward trend, would you like to speculate on another, more likely, cause, ribster?

Paul

Edited September 28, 2006 by Dawlish

[Anti-Mild]

GW is not my fault, really(!)

No, it's everybodys :lol: !!

AM

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Paul

It is fair to bring information regarding all aspects of sea ice cover/extent etc and potential major impact may be experienced...what that will be ..I don't know but have my suspicions :lol: The movement of oceanic waters explains to me the reason behind it as the arctic is still colder than in the late 30s into 40s, the sea ice was greater back then and the speed of warm up has not been quicker this time round either. As a point of interest it will be interesting to see if more 'record' snowfall events are recorded as in vast areas like within Siberia etc this approaching winter.

BFTP

[Mr Sleet]

It's weird. If the Arctic ice was increasing rapidly, I'd be agog to know why and what consequences it might hold, yet someone is prepared to ignore a piece of data which is good science. It's not a question of "getting GW in everywhere", it's a question of looking objectively at the evidence in front of us. Just because someone posts something saying that something is happening does not make it true, if all the facts don't support what they have said.

Just saying "great post", doesn't actually make the content correct. Carinthian brings information from many sources and produces excellent posts, I've always found them interesting, but when those reports are prefaced by "good news from Franz Joseph land" (meaning ice has increased), then perhaps it should start us thinking that the reports may be skewed, just a little, a little to give the impression of advancing ice being more widespread than it actually is.

When the Cryosphere data is saying the direct opposite of that, surely we should take note? It isn't good to just be blind to information that we don't wish to hear. The majority of comment is to bolster the hopes of cold weather and it is not surprising that someone (me in this case) wishes to balance that with what other data is available.

I find it fascinating and puzzling why the Ice in the Arctic has hasn't started it's seasonal increase, overall, yet; why it has reduced with the last few days of Cryosphere reports. It probably won't continue to head downwards and one thing is certian; Arctic ice will begin to increase very soon (certain is a word I seldom use, with respect to meteorology and climatology, but in this case, it really is nailed on, barring an all-life threatening global catastrophe). It will be interesting to see the maximum winter extent of that build up.

To add further to the balance on this, we certainly shouldn't use just the Cryosphere site. The NSIDC has produced an update this morning, saying that "Sea ice extent has remained fairly steady over the last week": (as well as speculation on the formation of the Beafort Sea polynya which backs up what I've been saying, ever since reading P3's link - it's good to learn and change your mind on how things work, when persuaded otherwise by new research, or better data)

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

There are one, or two, places where sea ice is at, or even slightly above the 1979-2000 average. Carinthian is absolutely correct in drawing our attention to Svarlbad and Franz Josef land, but ice cover in Eastern Siberia, the Beafort Sea and the areas North of Canada much more than balances this and shows the extension of the overall trend towards decreasing ice in the Arctic.

GW is not my fault, really(!), but in looking for reasons why Arctic Sea Ice has decreased so much over the last 20 years, with no interruption to the overall downward trend, would you like to speculate on another, more likely, cause, ribster?

Paul

Great post.

How about the positive AO and NAO since the 70's and 80's respectively, transporting warmth up there. Prior to the 70's , the AO swung regularly negative to positive, since the 70's it has mostly been positive. The same has been true of the NAO since the mid 80's.

In my opinion, this is not a GW phenomenon since the changes have been very sudden in nature.

Edited September 28, 2006 by Mr Sleet

[Dawlish]

Great post.

How about the positive AO and NAO since the 70's and 80's respectively, transporting warmth up there. Prior to the 70's , the AO swung regularly negative to positive, since the 70's it has mostly been positive. The same has been true of the NAO since the mid 80's.

Could be Mr. S; wouldn't dismiss it, but there's the massive chicken and egg there about whether the NAO drives the synoptics and the warmth, or whether the synoptics and the warmth is driving the NAO.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Could be Mr. S; wouldn't dismiss it, but there's the massive chicken and egg there about whether the NAO drives the synoptics and the warmth, or whether the synoptics and the warmth is driving the NAO.

I think the NAO is driven and then in turn drives the Atlantic behaviour as there are bigger and more important drivers IMO. Mr S you bring up valid observation and possibly valid explanation.

BFTP

[Dawlish]

Great post.

In my opinion, this is not a GW phenomenon since the changes have been very sudden in nature.

Dpends how long sudden is. We've got a 2 year thing being a trend which is being used to suggest UK cold ahead, on another thread, yet here is a 50 year (ish) trend that you are describing as "sudden". Take a look at the graph on this link and see if you can really describe the loss of Arctic ice as "sudden":

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...ent.updated.jpg

I mean, OK, sudden, as in geologically sudden, yes; but I don't think the trend shown on this Cryosphere graph shows a temporary change in synoptics, really, do you?

Paul

Paul

It is fair to bring information regarding all aspects of sea ice cover/extent etc and potential major impact may be experienced...what that will be ..I don't know but have my suspicions :lol: The movement of oceanic waters explains to me the reason behind it as the arctic is still colder than in the late 30s into 40s, the sea ice was greater back then and the speed of warm up has not been quicker this time round either. As a point of interest it will be interesting to see if more 'record' snowfall events are recorded as in vast areas like within Siberia etc this approaching winter.

BFTP

Agreed and that is a hard one to counter as it is just so difficult to factor in CO2. As you know I'm not fully convinced by AGW, but if CO2 really is playing the lead role in GW - and it is running a strong favourite for that role, in my book - then Arctic summer ice will have been replaced by a big swimming pool in 50 years.

Paul

Edited September 28, 2006 by Dawlish

[ribster]

GW is not my fault, really(!), but in looking for reasons why Arctic Sea Ice has decreased so much over the last 20 years, with no interruption to the overall downward trend, would you like to speculate on another, more likely, cause, ribster?

Paul

A good post indeed (there I said it!)

I don't have the technical expertise to speculate I'm afraid. However, while I cannot deny that there has been a warming trend, helped in part by man. I believe that (rightly or wrongly) that it is all part of the natural cycle of things, and mother nature will do her thing - I expect it will be a very different picture in 20 years.

Sorry I can't back any of that up, just my opinion.

Cheers, rib.

[Dawlish]

A good post indeed (there I said it!)

I don't have the technical expertise to speculate I'm afraid. However, while I cannot deny that there has been a warming trend, helped in part by man. I believe that (rightly or wrongly) that it is all part of the natural cycle of things, and mother nature will do her thing - I expect it will be a very different picture in 20 years.

Sorry I can't back any of that up, just my opinion.

Cheers, rib.

That's OK ribster, I never have any difficulty with expression of opinion, when it is qualified like that :lol: There is no way of truly verifying your opinion, one way, or the other, so therefore, it is not at all false, it is valid.

Paul

[Mr Sleet]

Dpends how long sudden is. We've got a 2 year think being a trend which is being used to prophesy UK cold ahead, on another thread, yet here is a 50 year (ish) trend that you are describing as "sudden". Take a look at the graph on this link and see if you can really describe the loss of Arctic ice as "sudden":

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...ent.updated.jpg

I mean, OK, sudden, as in geologically sudden, yes; ut that trend does not suggest a temporary change in synoptics.

Paul

I mean that the change in the AO and NAO has been extremely sudden, after many decades of positive and negative swings roughly cancelling each other out, there has been an abrupt change to positivity from 1974.In my opinion way too abrupt to blame GW, although it does get the blame for everything these days.

You can't beat a persistent Aleutian or Icelandic low for warming the Arctic up.

Edited September 28, 2006 by Mr Sleet

[Anti-Mild]

I mean that the change in the AO and NAO has been extremely sudden, after many decades of positive and negative swings roughly cancelling each other out, there has been an abrupt change to positivity from 1974.In my opinion way too abrupt to blame GW, although it does get the blame for everything these days.

You can't beat a persistent Aleutian or Icelandic low for warming the Arctic up.

I seem to remember that (pre-AGW) the NAO goes in cycles of predominantly +ve then -ve phases with the current +ve phase forecast to switch in 2007. If I find the link I'll post it.

AM

[Mr Sleet]

I seem to remember that (pre-AGW) the NAO goes in cycles of predominantly +ve then -ve phases with the current +ve phase forecast to switch in 2007. If I find the link I'll post it.

AM

I've included graphs now in my original post so that you can see that something happened to it in 1974 ish !

Pre - AGW ? Behave yourself :lol:

Edited September 28, 2006 by Mr Sleet

[Dawlish]

I seem to remember that (pre-AGW) the NAO goes in cycles of predominantly +ve then -ve phases with the current +ve phase forecast to switch in 2007. If I find the link I'll post it.

AM

......But the present ice-loss in the Arctic started 50 years ago ( by the trend on the Cryosphere site). That cuts across any ve/-ve NAO, or AO shifts. Whatever the state of the AO/NAO. the Arctic has continued to lose ice. The latest Arctic Ice reports (just to keep us on thread!) show this quite clearly.

Paul

PS Easy with the "AGW", guys. This is Global Warming (just GW) we are talking about. I'd always make that distinction. Whatever the cause, the world is warming, I think we would all agree on that.

Edited September 28, 2006 by Dawlish

[Mr Sleet]

......But the present ice-loss in the Arctic started 50 years ago ( by the trend on the Cryosphere site). That cuts across any ve/-ve NAO, or AO shifts. Whatever the state of the AO/NAO. the Arctic has continued to lose ice. The latest Arctic Ice reports (just to keep us on thread!) show this quite clearly.

Paul

PS Easy with the "AGW", guys. This is Global Warming (just GW) we are talking about. I'd always make that distinction. Whatever the cause, the world is warming, I think we would all agree on that.

Not according to this

http://adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/app/filerepo...%20trends%20%22 ( page :lol: looks like the trend started in the 1970's.

Anyway I thought you were a satellite man , in which case anything before 1978 is dodgy anyway.

Incidentally, the arctic was much warmer than it is now in the recent past :

Edited September 28, 2006 by Mr Sleet

[Dawlish]

Not according to this

http://adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/app/filerepo...%20trends%20%22 ( page :lol: looks like the trend started in the 1970's.

Anyway I thought you were a satellite man , in which case anything before 1978 is dodgy anyway.

Incidentally, the arctic was much warmer than it is now in the recent past :

Gawd, even from that much clearer graph (and thank you, I honestly don't like the thumbnails on the cryosphere site, at all) it started in the early 1960s and not the 70s and if you follow the rather obvious pink line towards the origin, the trend has surely been been for a great deal of warming, albeit non-linear (and with a chaotic system, localised things never, ever, are), since 1880? I'm not sure that was the best graph to choose to illustrate your point, Mr. S!

OK I'll concede a >40 year warming trend, rather than a 50 year warming trend, which still cuts across both -ve and +ve AO and NAO periods. Doesn't that call into question the relationship between these pressure changes and medium-term ice advances and declines? Does it really matter what phase the telecommunications are in as regards Arctic Ice decline?

Is there really a relationship at all, or is there a much more powerful, forcing cause, underlying them both?

Paul

PS - nearly missed this one! Satellite man! There's not a site I've come across that doesn't put satellite measurements of ice cover before any other way of measuring the totality of Acrtic ice. Surely now, that has to be accepted, when NOAA, NSIDC and so many other organisations sya that satellite measurement is their foremost method of gathering data? That isn't to say, at the risk of repeating myself again, that there is no need, any more, for local observation of ice conditions, but that is used to check and refine satellite collection of data, not to be used instead of it. Anyone, with any interest in Arctic conditions must accept that, now, mustn't they?

Edited September 28, 2006 by Dawlish

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Not according to this

http://adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/app/filerepo...%20trends%20%22 ( page :lol: looks like the trend started in the 1970's.

Anyway I thought you were a satellite man , in which case anything before 1978 is dodgy anyway.

Incidentally, the arctic was much warmer than it is now in the recent past :

I must learn to post graphs. That illustrates perfectly the arctic temp difference and its 'warmer' phase and it does illustrate warming since 1880 overall. The initial warming is of great interest because it is pre AGW CO2 effect and the cooling occurred during AGW CO2 effect. It also negates the apparent unprecedented speed of warming going on currently. All I say is it is very very interesting and what I've related to when mentiong the 'non existent' cold pools available to us

BFTP

Edited September 28, 2006 by BLAST FROM THE PAST