Carinthians latest Arctic reports

[oldsnowywizard]

My inclination is towards a greater than average ice formation in the Basin this winter.

C

[J10]

I would the suspect the Canadian Archipelago has been tweaked as previous reports were wrong, but does anyone have any definite answers.

[Gray-Wolf]

If you think of the cyclogenisis around the south of Greenland over the past winter you can see why more 'cooling' went on there (East Canada) with the northerly flow of the 'super Icelandic Low' pulling down arctic blasts for months on end. Of course on the S/SW draw you see low ice concentrations (Svalbard etc.).

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Sea-ice extent is the area of an ocean covered by at least 15 percent ice. Declining sea ice in the Arctic is believed by researchers to be caused by higher winter temperatures due to greenhouse warming, said Drobot. Arctic sea ice has been declining since the late 1970s.

Well, lets see how we go on from here. I thought ice extents this winter were back to 'averages' but not so according to this!

GW

Look at the chart provided. One would say warming warming warming. But it is clear to sea that temps were considerably higher in the 30s and 40s so where does greenhouse warming come into melting the ice? Surely there should have been less ice back then...but there was more!!

Here

BFTP

Edited April 26, 2007 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[noggin]

I would be interested to see any answer to that question, Blast.

[Gray-Wolf]

GW

Look at the chart provided. One would say warming warming warming. But it is clear to sea that temps were considerably higher in the 30s and 40s so where does greenhouse warming come into melting the ice? Surely there should have been less ice back then...but there was more!!

Here

BFTP

But that is assuming that 'A' leads instantly to 'B' and it just sin't like that is it?

The 'larger particulent' pollution ,prior to the first world war, was easily 'washed out of the system'by rainfall (ask grandma/great grandma about washing out on washing lines) but during, and post world war one the 'industrialised nations' started to become better at 'complete combustion' (and combustion high up in the troposphere) .Pollution changed and it's effects changed. This time we shrouded the planet in particulates that could both warm (carbon dust) and influence cloud formation (hygroscopic condensation nuclii).

Multi year ice takes a lot of melting in a cool ocean and through a shrouded sun. With the cleansing of our (the industrialised nations) emmisions more and more of the suns energy has been admited to ,and captured by, our climate system. Multi year ice decays and is replaced by single year ice which melts back to the 'multi year' each spring allowing the decay to continue. Meanwhile the ice is attacked from below by ever warmer/deeper penetrating temperate currents.

[parmenides3]

GW

Look at the chart provided. One would say warming warming warming. But it is clear to sea that temps were considerably higher in the 30s and 40s so where does greenhouse warming come into melting the ice? Surely there should have been less ice back then...but there was more!!

Here

BFTP

Hi, Blast; I thought you'd appreciate this: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenlan...heretal2006.pdf

The Greenland record up to date, as it were. You are correct that the 1930s and 1940s were the warmest two decades in the records. If you can find sea ice data for these periods, we can compare them. Please note the 'subtle' differences between the graphs used in this report, from the JGR, and the one from Warwick Hughes' well-known website which you have used.

I would suspect that the Sea surface temperatures were lower at that time, so one reason why there would be less ice loss. I also believe that such changes are attributable to phase changes in the Arctic Oscillation; BTW, it looks like we are in the process of beginning a new phase change now.

This thread is really about sea ice, not about warming, but I am not sure what point you are making: are you saying that the Arctic hasn't warmed in the past 30 years, or that it doesn't matter, because it's warmed before, or that sea-ice loss is not an indicator of climate change?

Perhaps you could post a reply on one of the climate threads, so Carinth can keep us informed about the state of the ice on this one?

Regards,

:)P

[Turnedoutniceagain]

" The researchers at CU-Boulder's Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research also say there is a 57 percent chance the 2007 sea-ice minimum will be lower than the 2006 minimum of 2.27 million square miles, now the second lowest on record. There is a 70 percent chance the 2007 sea-ice minimum will rank within the lowest five years on record, according to Research Associate Sheldon Drobot of CCAR's Arctic Regional Ice Forecasting System group in CU-Boulder's aerospace engineering sciences department.

Sea-ice extent is the area of an ocean covered by at least 15 percent ice. Declining sea ice in the Arctic is believed by researchers to be caused by higher winter temperatures due to greenhouse warming, said Drobot. Arctic sea ice has been declining since the late 1970s.

Researchers pay particular attention to September and March because they generally mark the annual minimum and maximum sea-ice extents respectively, said Drobot. On April 4, researchers from CU-Boulder's National Snow and Ice Data Center reported the maximum extent of this year's March Arctic sea ice, 5.7 million square miles, was the second-lowest maximum on satellite record."

Well, lets see how we go on from here. I thought ice extents this winter were back to 'averages' but not so according to this!

"IF" GW is the culprit here, is it also having an effect in Antarctica ??

Pretty sure I heard a report on Radio 4 last week that ice is on the increase at the S Pole.

*confused*....err yes.

[Gray-Wolf]

"IF" GW is the culprit here, is it also having an effect in Antarctica ??

Pretty sure I heard a report on Radio 4 last week that ice is on the increase at the S Pole.

*confused*....err yes.

It's a tricky one isn't it? This time of year the Antarctic ice is increasing (it being mid Autumn) but on the whole I believe ice extent is not growing though the thickness in the central uplands may be increasing.

The southern hemisphere never truely mirrors the northern due to the amount and distribution of land (the Arctic is an ice pack so pretty much at sea level whereas Antarctica is a continental mass with mountainous uplands) and oceans (a lot of water in the southern hemisphere compared with the northern hemisphere)

Some events in the northern hemisphere do have immediate (relatively) effect in the south like the Alaskan storm whose 'surges' shattered the remnants of the ice sheet that calved off Ross in 2002. But other events take time to peculate down (or back north from the south).

With a little rummaging things tend to become a lot clearer as you begin to understand the areas and their unique forcing.

[Turnedoutniceagain]

It's a tricky one isn't it? This time of year the Antarctic ice is increasing (it being mid Autumn) but on the whole I believe ice extent is not growing though the thickness in the central uplands may be increasing.

The southern hemisphere never truely mirrors the northern due to the amount and distribution of land (the Arctic is an ice pack so pretty much at sea level whereas Antarctica is a continental mass with mountainous uplands) and oceans (a lot of water in the southern hemisphere compared with the northern hemisphere)

Some events in the northern hemisphere do have immediate (relatively) effect in the south like the Alaskan storm whose 'surges' shattered the remnants of the ice sheet that calved off Ross in 2002. But other events take time to peculate down (or back north from the south).

With a little rummaging things tend to become a lot clearer as you begin to understand the areas and their unique forcing.

Cheers for that, GW as in Global Warming, not GW as in Gray Wolf - I wasn't blaming you for the World's ills B) B)

[Bobby]

Isn't increasing ice thickness in some parts predicted by the global warming models? Warmer seas = more evaporation = more precipitation = more ice.

[Turnedoutniceagain]

Isn't increasing ice thickness in some parts predicted by the global warming models? Warmer seas = more evaporation = more precipitation = more ice.

Call me Mr Cynical, but each report seems to be tailored to the fund-raising requirements of each individual organisation that has dipped it's snout into the trough marked "Masses of free cash for GW research"

[Bobby]

Call me Mr Cynical, but each report seems to be tailored to the fund-raising requirements of each individual organisation that has dipped it's snout into the trough marked "Masses of free cash for GW research"

You're Mr Cynical. B)

[reef]

"IF" GW is the culprit here, is it also having an effect in Antarctica ??

Pretty sure I heard a report on Radio 4 last week that ice is on the increase at the S Pole.

*confused*....err yes.

The Antarctic is currently slightly above average for the time of year:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...t.365.south.jpg

Looking at past years theres no clear trend, more a case of 'business as usual':

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM....area.south.jpg

The Antarctic is completely different to the rest of the planet though as mentioned above. A true macroclimate.

[carinthian]

Latest Arctic Report as 26/04/07

Soon there will be all day sunlight at the North Pole and Mid -Arctic. The angle of the sun is still low, so expect only a slow warm up over the coming weeks. Ice sheets south of 60N in North America start to break up and melt into open water during May. At last the long wave trough over Hudson Bay is diminishing with a subsequent cut off of Arctic Air Feed. Temperatures should soon start to rise above freezing. Ice in the Greenland Sea had pushed further south this year with ice bergs reported at times into the Iceland Horn. The wind induced currents may have peaked in the middle if April, so we can expect a retreat of the ice sheet in the Denmark Strait. The Arctic Basin continues to pool some very cold air with lower than average temperatures stretching from the Greenland Basin, across Svalbard and Severnaya Zemlya. Overall ice retention in the high Arctic Region continues and even expand, whilst the Lower/Mid Arctic shows below average retention.

Interesting feature this year is the lack of winter ice in the Barent,yet Svalbard and Franz Josef are still recording continuing low temperatures.

C

[Bottesford]

The Antarctic is completely different to the rest of the planet though as mentioned above. A true macroclimate.

I've often heard this. Why does Antarctica have such a cut off climate? Does the Southern Ocean storm belt almost work as a solid barrier maybe. I remember hearing something somewhere that the air around Antarctica doesn't tend to mix with the rest of the planet very much so any pollution there doesn't escape. Also meaning its much cleaner there as pollutants don't reach there too easily. Might be wrong there though...

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Hi, Blast; I thought you'd appreciate this: .

This thread is really about sea ice, not about warming, but I am not sure what point you are making: are you saying that the Arctic hasn't warmed in the past 30 years, or that it doesn't matter, because it's warmed before, or that sea-ice loss is not an indicator of climate change?

Perhaps you could post a reply on one of the climate threads, so Carinth can keep us informed about the state of the ice on this one?

Regards,

:)P

P

Yes thank you for that and certainly fits shal I say 'the visual' viewpoint. I will post in climate thread but answers to questions are 'sort of' and 'no'.

BFTP

[Thundery wintry showers]

I've often heard this. Why does Antarctica have such a cut off climate? Does the Southern Ocean storm belt almost work as a solid barrier maybe. I remember hearing something somewhere that the air around Antarctica doesn't tend to mix with the rest of the planet very much so any pollution there doesn't escape. Also meaning its much cleaner there as pollutants don't reach there too easily. Might be wrong there though...

It's because of the atmospheric circulation- the Roaring Forties consists of uninterrupted westerly winds that circulate at 30-50 degrees south of the equator, with omnipresent low pressure around Antarctica. The Antarctic thus ends up in the middle of a slack area of low pressure with stagnant air, while the influences of the westerlies are kept away.

Even when New Zealand was getting snow last June, the southerly winds responsible were generally originating only from around the tip of Antarctica, with the interior remaining within the low-pressure belt.

[oldsnowywizard]

an update on things uptop...

overall sea ice levels. look like roughly equal to this time last year..

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...current.365.jpg

arctic basin - http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...m.region.1.html

still above the mean...

bearing sea - http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...m.region.2.html

all over the place this winter but still above the mean

baffin/new foundland - http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...m.region.4.html

this area is doing very well compared to last year and looks like its even at mean levels!

greenland sea- http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...m.region.5.html

up on last year still, below mean levels

barents sea - http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...m.region.6.html

up on last year but way below the mean.

kara sea - http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...m.region.7.html

same as last year, below the mean

laptev sea- http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...m.region.8.html

just down on last year, down on the mean, but looks to be rising

east siberian - http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...m.region.9.html

same as last year, slightly above the mean

chuckchi sea - http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM....region.10.html

slightly down on last year, slightly below the mean

beaufort sea - http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM....region.11.html

down on last year, below the mean and seems to be on a downward trend

canadian archipelago - http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM....region.12.html

up on last year, above the mean

hudson bay - http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM....region.13.html

up on last year, below the mean, on the increase.

and down under

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...t.365.south.jpg

up on last year, up on the mean

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Interesting report, thanks oldsnowywizard :blink:

Definitely interesting the cold that shows in the increase in sea ice around Antarctica perhaps also is reflected in the Northern Hemisphere, despite the high sea temps.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20070430_StroeveGRL.html

Brickfielder posted this on my Ice erosion thread but thought it may raise a few eyebrows here!

Edited May 2, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

an update on things uptop...

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...t.365.south.jpg

up on last year, up on the mean

As I've been trying to show Antarctica has been cooling for 40 years and the ice is thickening on the continent. Although this graph doesn't signify that of course but it does look like it will be well up on last year.

BFTP

[Stratos Ferric]

As I've been trying to show Antarctica has been cooling for 40 years and the ice is thickening on the continent. Although this graph doesn't signify that of course but it does look like it will be well up on last year.

BFTP

It's just a shame for us all that the Arctic is losing cover faster than Antarctica is gaining it. The net polar anomaly is comfortably down.

Not sure the 365 day surface temperature anomaly supports your view that Antarctica is cooling. The poles generally are running with a fairly consistent medium term anomaly up at around 5C. Antarctica does seem to flux somewhat between warm and cold c.f. norm, but the Arctic runs consistently warm, with positive anomalies in winter often well above 10C.

I've often heard this. Why does Antarctica have such a cut off climate? Does the Southern Ocean storm belt almost work as a solid barrier maybe. I remember hearing something somewhere that the air around Antarctica doesn't tend to mix with the rest of the planet very much so any pollution there doesn't escape. Also meaning its much cleaner there as pollutants don't reach there too easily. Might be wrong there though...

The climate right through the southern hemisphere tends to be less variable within each regime. The main difference is the absence in high latitudes of continental surfaces. Ocean currents and the atmosphere therefore flow more consistently. In the NH the Great Divide, the North Amercian continent generally, Eurasia and the huge range of uplifted surface at the southern edge of the Eurasian plate all conspire to produce constant disruptions to the atmospheric flow. It is the introduction of the variables caused by these surfaces that produces a much more laterally turbulent flow in the NH, and therefore provides a more disrupted polar front in this hemisphere.

[noggin]

IF (that's a big if!) the ice in the Arctic is shrinking and the ice in Antarctica is growing, could this be as a result of Milankovitch cycles? It would make complete sense to me. Especially as I have read of many unusual snowy events "down under". Plus a warmer Northern hemisphere.

It just seems to "fit".

[Stratos Ferric]

IF (that's a big if!) the ice in the Arctic is shrinking and the ice in Antarctica is growing, could this be as a result of Milankovitch cycles? It would make complete sense to me. Especially as I have read of many unusual snowy events "down under". Plus a warmer Northern hemisphere.

It just seems to "fit".

Aah, but the Antarctic ice isn't growing. It's still comfortably down on the medium term baseline, as the Arctic ice is. It is slightly up year on year, but as with our discussions on here elsewhere about temperature variation, these things are dynamic, they fluctuate either side of trend.

The other factor in all of this which cryosphere now doesn't pick up, is ice volume. I suspect that we are losing volume disproportionately over and above surface area.