Polar Ice sets new minimum

[Gray-Wolf]

O.K.,

the discussion on this years record low levels of ice in the Polar region seem to be spread as thin as the aforementioned ice sheet across the boards so I thought I'd open one thread specifically to discuss how we got where we are and, for those following any 'novel notions' where exactly it is we find ourselves (tipping point or predictable cyclical event).

NASA gave us this in May;

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20070530/

and then we got this from 'Cryosphere today' in August;

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/se....movie.2007.mov (warning...BIG file, long download...but worth the wait!)

so are we galloping up diarrhoea creek without means of propulsion or are we 'OK' and just seeing one of our climates 'normal' moody swings?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that we are seeing a vastly accelerated end to polar ice cover, a good 25yrs ahead of the most 'extreme' of the former predictions of the amount of time we had before we witnessed the polar ice cap's demise over the summer months.

NASA's document would have polar ice melt as a signal that we had arrived at a 'tipping point' in our climate change that would then 'force' further accelerated climatic change in the immediate future breaching other of the climates 'tipping points' (collapse of the Ross Embayment releasing the E.A.I.S. drainage glaciers to accelerate as we have seen on the W.A.I.S.).

I think the past 7 years has illustrated well how climatatic impacts ,Globally, has started to rapidly alter our planet and it's ability to sustain 6 Billion people.

Many times I have used the analogy of a dam failing and the first signs being the cracks weeping water. You know what will follow from the initial observation of a small, almost insignificant, flow of water. This is how I see 'Tipping points' and I think we have all been watching (dumbstruck?) the first 'trickles' of water on the dam face and we may now just be seeing the first of the major collapses leading to a period of rapid and unpredictable climate shift.

What take do you have on it all?

Edited September 1, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Guest Mike W]

I agree with you Gray-Wolf, I think it looks increasingly like we are going to enter runaway global warming phase within the next decade or two. Large amounts of Methane is now escaping more and more quickly into the atmoshere and water vapour levels rising all of which as been accelerated by it's primer, CO2, We could end up doing what the Sun was going to do in the far futere anyway, if we do the Earth could burn out before the Sun gets a chance to do it.

Edited September 1, 2007 by Mike W

[Red Raven]

Its a frightening and depressing prospect but I have the same fears GW has - that is; we are seeing an increasing speed towards rapid climate change that will result in a very different world.

[pottyprof]

Hasn't this happened in the past and is the planet still alive?

The planet has been warmer in the past.

What will happen to the H2O? It isn't just going to disappear into outer space or be destroyed.

It all has to balance out somehow. A world covered by cloud perhaps? Warmer temps must mean more evaporation.

I'm still not convinced.

[Gray-Wolf]

It (a planet without ice) is the 'normal' state for our world but you neglect to mention the 6 billion folk who currently live on a planet that is 'set up' for living without the increased sea levels the 'melt down' will lead to. 1/5 of the planet live within metres of the coast and much of their food is produced in these regions.

If 'Rapid de-glaciation/ice sheet collapse' occurs do you really think we can help these folk?

And if you think it's just deserting 'little brown babies in far away lands' that we have to worry about then consider our own oil terminals/tanker offloading facilities/Rigs. Consider the aquifers which will be inundated with sea water and the folk/industry/agriculture that this will affect (esp. in the SE).

If that doesn't do it for you then think about the ocean current reorganisation that 'flooded' coastlines' would bring (the raising above sea level of the Panama isthmus is thought to have had a great influence on the setting up of our 'Gulf Stream' )so once the isthmus is submerged again ,and Pacific meets Atlantic, what of the Atlantic coast climate?

What about the extra heat 'storage' larger world oceans provide? What about the added 'dark water' to absorb more heat (70% absorption rates) and the extra CO2 to hold it in?

Venus is a cloud covered world ,care for a little 'hol' over there?

Edited September 2, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Devonian]

Hasn't this happened in the past and is the planet still alive?

An ice free summer Arctic you mean? With the continents as they are now? I guess only when we had a massive ghg release in the PETM (and that's really to far back to be comparable?)?

Just perhaps at the peaks of warmth of interglacials maybe? Which tends to suggest to me now is actually rather warm and rather warm very quickly - it's almost as if something has pushed the world in a warm direction very fast isn't it...

The planet has been warmer in the past.

Again, this is to not compare apples with apples.

What will happen to the H2O? It isn't just going to disappear into outer space or be destroyed.

It all has to balance out somehow. A world covered by cloud perhaps? Warmer temps must mean more evaporation.

I'm still not convinced.

Why 'must' it balance out? I'm yet to see any evidence it 'must' balance out - not at least over human time scales.

We chop forest - do they simply regrow to restore the balance? We over fish - do the fish just reappear? No. We can and do disturb the balance of this planet - and by our continuing actions we hold back it's recovery mechanisms. I don't see why the atmosphere should be any different - especially as it's actually a gossamer thin layer.

Edited September 2, 2007 by Devonian

[BARRY]

A WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP FIGHT WINNER TAKES ALL

In the blue corner climate change. in the red corner money & greed

A ten round contest winner takes all.

ROUND 1 the red corner was a clear points winner when oil was discovered

ROUND 2 red corner shades that round as the blues started to spar

ROUND 3 the blues new climatologists trainer inspires a fight back

ROUND 4 O no the reds strike back with a sharp right upper cut to prices

ROUND 5 The crowd demanded more the reds step up the work rate

ROUND 6 The crowd are taken in by the reds sly moves and there's a body blow

ROUND 7 the crowd are completely blinkered it's all over money & greed win

WHATS THIS The blue corner is demanding a re match as the ref took a bung

the reds said in a statement that the ref was a gas guzzler that needed a a bigger

road and that they were only happy to oblige

[Gray-Wolf]

So.........where next?

I think the only reason the remaining 'multi-year ice' is holding fast is the positioning of Greenland/NW Canadian islands/shallows to the south of it. The 'micro climate' flowing off the top of Greenland (and it's 'shadow' ) protects the shallow 'shelf sea' fringing the northern coast of Greenland has held the final remaining 'chunk' of Multiyear ice in place throughout the 90's/00's ablations but this year (as the Cryosphere today movie illustrates) the mass broke free for a number of days and drifted west wards before northerly winds again drove it onto the Greenland shore. If this happens next year (earlier) then the mass may drift far enough west and North to be 'grabbed by any 'circulation' present and moved away from it's stronghold/sanctuary and into relatively warmer (warm enough to do for the rest of the 'multi-year ice') waters where it will begin to melt.

Nearly a 1/4 of the remaining 'ice cover' (some single -year ice must be in this figure but so must more 'multi-year ice) melted over this summer, which was a BIG surprise to one and all! the only reasons being posted seem to be a H.P. over the pole for the period. The C.T. movie does show a clockwise rotation of the single year ice as it fragmented (facing the Bearing straights) but the fact that this was 'single year ice' and did not posses the dynamic strength to withstand the shear (both from swells and 'drift') must have it's role in the rapid ablation.

Where does this leave us over the next 5 years? I think it'll pan out as I have suggested with warming waters 'loosening' the multi-year ice's grip to the northern shore of Greenland and the chunk will float free. Any storm surges will then drive this mass into deeper waters where it will become prey to the wind/swell/ocean warmth. Worse still would be a clockwise drift around to the Eurasian side of things where the warm shallows will destroy it in rapid order. In short, 30 years of remaining polar ice cap? Nuts, 5 years tops.

Edited September 2, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[pottyprof]

Venus is a cloud covered world ,care for a little 'hol' over there?

The atmosphere of Venus is very hot and thick. You would not survive a visit to the surface of the planet - you couldn't breathe the air, you would be crushed on by the enormous weight of the atmosphere, and you would burn up in surface temperatures high enough to melt lead.

The atmosphere of Venus is made up mainly of carbon dioxide, and thick clouds of sulfuric acid completely cover the planet. The atmosphere traps the small amount of energy from the sun that does reach the surface along with the heat the planet itself releases. This greenhouse effect has made the surface and lower atmosphere of Venus one of the hottest places in the solar system! If you were on the surface of the planet, the air above you would be about 90 times heavier than the Earth's atmosphere. This is like what a submarine experiences at 3000 ft below the surface of the Earth's ocean. The atmosphere is composed mainly of carbon dioxide (96%), 3.5% nitrogen, and less than 1% is made up of carbon monoxide, argon, sulfur dioxide, and water vapor.

Why should Venus and not the Earth have a hot and thick atmosphere? Some scientists call it the Goldilocks phenomenon.

Measurements made by probes which travelled through the atmosphere have shown that the atmospheric temperature remains nearly constant through the long dark night. Thus there are neither significant seasons, nor daily temperature changes in the atmosphere.

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/venus/atmosphere.html

There's no way you can compare the two. You can I suppose observe an extreme greenhouse effect.

We chop forest - do they simply regrow to restore the balance? We over fish - do the fish just reappear? No. We can and do disturb the balance of this planet - and by our continuing actions we hold back it's recovery mechanisms. I don't see why the atmosphere should be any different - especially as it's actually a gossamer thin layer.

True

So where's the H2O (in whatever state it wants to be in) going to go? Sea levels are not rising at the rate predicted and cloud cover is not increasing. It has to go somewhere.

[Gray-Wolf]

So where's the H2O (in whatever state it wants to be in) going to go? Sea levels are not rising at the rate predicted and cloud cover is not increasing. It has to go somewhere.

Uhhrm?

Most folk now accept that the majority of our water came from 'off world' in the form of Comet debris/hits and icy asteroids impacting. Very little came from the processes of 'reorganisation of the core/mantle/crust' into densest to lightest. You could say that we have more water on Earth than ever before in geological time in fact so why should we hold parallels from our geological record?

Most importantly for us Hominids you haven't commented on our fate should we see both North and South polar regions becoming 'ice free' (over 120m sea level rise). My feet won't get wet (we're at 200m ASL) but I'm screwed for the rest of my needs....how about you lowlanders below 120m?

[Stratos Ferric]

Uhhrm?

Most folk now accept that the majority of our water came from 'off world' in the form of Comet debris/hits and icy asteroids impacting. Very little came from the processes of 'reorganisation of the core/mantle/crust' into densest to lightest. You could say that we have more water on Earth than ever before in geological time in fact so why should we hold parallels from our geological record?

Most importantly for us Hominids you haven't commented on our fate should we see both North and South polar regions becoming 'ice free' (over 120m sea level rise). My feet won't get wet (we're at 200m ASL) but I'm screwed for the rest of my needs....how about you lowlanders below 120m?

Whilst concurring with your general thesis G-W, I think we're still some way from seeing significant changes in MSL due to [continental] ice-melt. In the same way that nothing much can be read into a relatively cool summer here in the UK re general warming in our local climate, so it would be imprudent to read too much yet into this year's (albeit dramatic) low ice extreme. The trend is clear, but it doesn't mean that an ice-free summer Arctic is anywhere immediately at hand: it may be, but we don't know for sure.

[Filski]

Ok, despite that I accept AGW, I'm skeptical that we'll see multi year ice gone in 5 yrs. 20yrs min. A number of reasons including solar cycles are behind this. I see a leveling of warming occuring for the next 2 decades before accelerating again. This will not do our arguments any favours and much needed changes will not occur to offset what will come afterwards.

[Hairy Celt]

whether it's 5 or 20 years is a moot point because it's too late for anything useful to be done given the current political mind-set. Just look at what those tossers in Vienna are spouting now, you'd think we were still at the beginnings of the problem, not staring at oblivion.

[Gray-Wolf]

Well H.C.! I'm glad my glass is full for I'll raise it to your post and 'tak a wee swallee'

S.F., The struggles the planet is having ,when viewed at a 'local' level, to 're-balance' it's heat budget can be misleading. Even in our misery this summer we've been setting meteorological records (for our neck of the woods) but we do need to look at the global picture to remind ourselves where we are headed. The polar ice situation has more to do with the water temp it sits in and the air masses (and their origins) that overpass it. No matter if we ceased to exist tomorrow there is still plenty of warmth in the oceans (if we trust the Argo data) to be 're-distributed' polewards and continue with the trend. No matter what thin skin this winter places over the pole it is the remaining multiyear ice that is key. When you start producing figures that show the (polar) reversal in trends (and not bits and bats of regional variation due to the remnant 'multiyear' drifting, as is did this year towards Svalbard/Iceland/NE Greenland) and an move to consolidation of 'single year ice' (on a polar scale) by it's remaining intact over a summer then I'll sit up and take note. All in all H.C. is spot on and there's nowt we can do about things but sit and watch. Have a peep at ice mins from the late 70's early 80's and figure for yourself how much of the multiyear ice has gone and tell me again that things are as easily reversed.

Filski, it's only 1/4 of the time you're willing to wait to see the demise so maybe you could humour me for 5 years and then 'Nah,Nah' me in 2012......unless you see a dramatic final push over the next few years with the fragmentation of the final 'raft' of Multiyear and it's rapid demise.

Edited September 2, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Stratos Ferric]

Well H.C.! I'm glad my glass is full for I'll raise it to your post and 'tak a wee swallee'

S.F., The struggles the planet is having ,when viewed at a 'local' level, to 're-balance' it's heat budget can be misleading. Even in our misery this summer we've been setting meteorological records (for our neck of the woods) but we do need to look at the global picture to remind ourselves where we are headed. The polar ice situation has more to do with the water temp it sits in and the air masses (and their origins) that overpass it. No matter if we ceased to exist tomorrow there is still plenty of warmth in the oceans (if we trust the Argo data) to be 're-distributed' polewards and continue with the trend. No matter what thin skin this winter places over the pole it is the remaining multiyear ice that is key. When you start producing figures that show the (polar) reversal in trends (and not bits and bats of regional variation due to the remnant 'multiyear' drifting, as is did this year towards Svalbard/Iceland/NE Greenland) and an move to consolidation of 'single year ice' (on a polar scale) by it's remaining intact over a summer then I'll sit up and take note. All in all H.C. is spot on and there's nowt we can do about things but sit and watch. Have a peep at ice mins from the late 70's early 80's and figure for yourself how much of the multiyear ice has gone and tell me again that things are as easily reversed.

...

G-W, I'm not disputing any of the long-term prognosis. The fact is that viewed 2D the picture is far worse then when viewed 3D. Marginal ice is to a large extent ephemeral, and in any case is far thinner than the continental mass on Greenland. Losing all sea ice for the reasons you cite is possible in the next 10-15 years; losing the total ice mass will take a lot longer.

[Filski]

G-W, It's not a case of waiting to say 'I told you so'. I'm as pessimistic as you at the end of it all. I beleive the oceans contain far greater inertia to buffer provide the required changes in the arctic for complete freeing of multi-year ice than you give credit for. Once set in motion however... and they are in mortion, I don't argue that. They are just not up to speed yet.

On and off for the last 6yrs I've done a fair whack of reading into the indian ocean dipole with various effects of monsoon patterns, droughts in africa and also the southern ocean and the various climate and biological projected changes. It started with trying to find a long paddock indicator for winter seasons but I realised that there were more important implications. I've been watching for reports on changes in salinity, fish stocks, etc. These will signal the all important cracks to me and I've been waiting 6yrs already with little change yet. 5yrs from now I expect some change but certainly not to the extent you express.

Here is a couple of the factors that I think will link to provide a buffer for at least 20yrs.

1. Solar cycle 24 will offset any albedo changes from increased melting, leading to a plateau (for a time) in rate of change of annual sea ice cover. Within a couple of years we should stop seeing records being broken.

2. Ocean temperature transport at depths have lag effects ranging from a couple of years to several decades to feedback changes at the surface.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Filski!

I'm not going to predict the impact of the 'active' period of cycle 24! We have no idea of the effects of increased 'buffeting on the fragmented 'Ozone' of the planet nor whether the weakening and wandering magnetic pole will have broader implications to our magnetosphere should we take major, consecutive impacts (we've nearly had our magnetosphere 'flipped' during the active phase of the last solar cycle, within 7 degrees of the 'point of no return').

So far as the 'albedo' is concerned. In the past it was reckoned to be over 85% over snow cover but the addition of 'soot' has reduced that somewhat (latest studies from both Greenland and Antarctica show elevated levels of 'soot/particulate contamination' to snow surfaces so the albedo is reduced. Coupled with the 'dark water' absorption rates (70% or over) we can see what kind of 'turnaround' would be needed just to keep things as they are today.

Both the 'freshening' of bottom waters in both polar regions and the deep water 'warming' that Argo is reporting from it's Atlantic studies would seem to suggest that the playing field has been somewhat 'altered ' since we last were at this juncture.

Since I joined the board we've had intermittent discussions as to whether we should 'scrap the book' of past experience due to the 'alterations' we have caused within the global climate systems and the lack of meaningful parallels on which to base our future climate predictions. I ,of course, think we are at this point and moreover, as we continue to accelerate our impacts upon the planet (China and India's recently 'developmental spurt' and their continuance into the near future) this will only deepen. Of course all the old external influences will occur but how will the manifest in this 'new world order'?

Personally I think our climate forcing is one of the most significant external forcings presently at work on the planet and only a full Magnetic polar reversal would rival it for impact 'on the ground'.

I often use the 'failing dam analogy' to explain my views on rapid climate change but maybe I should use the old 'steamroller' analogy. Takes a lot to get it moving ,but once you've got it moving it takes an awful lot to slow it down.

So far as 'cyclical deep ocean forcings' ,again I feel our impacts are far stronger than these forcings and though they may slow (or augment) the changes they cannot halt/reverse it.

Once the pole is dark water alone over summer it will take sooo much to reverse it back to it's 'old' ice pack state. Antarctic has either 'led the dance' in the past or been a number of decades behind northern changes. This time around the Southern changes seem almost synchronous with Northern changes (if a little less severe) and this ,I believe, is a new phenomena for our climate system and further hints at a 'global effect' rather than a 'regional effect' driving the changes. Any failure 'down south' that impact global sea levels would help 'float' other areas of shelf ice in Antarctica effectively breaking it from it's contact with the sea bed and leaving it at the beck of wind (increased circumpolar winds),current (deeper penetration of some currents into polar regions) and wave ( the smashing of the remnant of the B15 berg calved off Ross in 2002 by 'storm waves' that had their origins in the Arctic).

Again , having kids and partner I wish for none of the above (all my posts) to occur but am extremely concerned that this is exactly what I am witnessing happen.

[The PIT]

We're doomed Doomed I tell you.

[Devonian]

We're doomed Doomed I tell you.

Erm, care to address the data and the discussion rather than just post pathetic and cynical little jibes?

[pottyprof]

Erm, care to address the data and the discussion rather than just post pathetic and cynical little jibes?

The good doctor advises a few chill pills. This should help your condition Dev.

As for PIT's comment, considering what a lot of scientists believe, then you have to agree with his point and does address the data......

[Devonian]

The good doctor advises a few chill pills. This should help your condition Dev.

As for PIT's comment, considering what a lot of scientists believe, then you have to agree with his point and does address the data......

Mine are the symptoms, a good doctor treats not the symptoms but the cause of the symptoms

As to The Pit I simply fail to see where he addressed what's being debated in an otherwise excellent thread. I can't think of a scientist who has said were doomed let alone a 'lot' of them.

Edited September 3, 2007 by Devonian

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Well here we go

Antarctic Sea Ice Increases over Past Two Decades

By SPACE.com Staff

posted: 03:20 pm ET

22 August 2002

In a surprising departure from other findings that point to a warming planet, a NASA researcher has found that the amount of ice in the Antarctic increased from 1979 to 1999, as measured by satellites.

Many recent findings have detailed the decline of the ice cap in the Arctic, at the top of the world. These new results from the Southern Hemisphere imply that global climate change involves regional variations.

Changes in ice cover are important not only because they indicate temperature changes that have occurred; the changes can effect future temperatures. With more ice, more solar radiation is reflected away from Earth. The ice also insulates oceans from the atmosphere. Less ice has the opposite effects.

In the new study, published in the Annals of Glaciology, Claire Parkinson of NASAs Goddard Space Flight Center analyzed the length of the sea ice season throughout the Southern Ocean to obtain trends in sea ice coverage. On average, the area where sea ice seasons have lengthened by at least one day per year is roughly twice as large as the area where sea ice seasons have shortened by at least one day per year.

"You can see with this dataset that what is happening in the Antarctic is not what would be expected from a straightforward global warming scenario, but a much more complicated set of events," Parkinson said.

And this year reports to be a further 7% up on the average. Note this is sea ice, the continental ice is thickening too. My concern is the wandering magnetic pole, the approach of a solar minima with reduced magnetic field protection from the sun and the 'heavy' bottom of the planet. Want to talk disaster? Magnetic Pole reversal.

I don't advocate that personally but just like I do not advocate iminent collapse or meltdown.

BFTP

Edited September 3, 2007 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Gray-Wolf]

Just shows you how 'open wording' can conjure up many images B.F.T.P.!

Lots of the 'Sea ice' down there is in fact 'Shelf' ice and we need to be careful that the two are not being confused here. Shelf ice is built up predominantly from Glacier 'snouts' emptying into a 'basin' as they flow off both the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (W.A.I.S.)and the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (E.A.I.S.) so any 'growth' of these features would suggest an acceleration of the contributing Glaciers pushing more ice out into the 'shelf region'.

The increase in speed of the 'circumpolar wind' has led to less 'storms' entering into the polar Region and so less fragmentation of the pack occurs as it is developing over the southern winter.

Both these phenomena show that there has been a 'change' to the 'normal order' of things but does not necessarily show overall cooling.

The NASA (2205) images of snow melt up the mountains fringing the Ross Embayment (the first time this has been noted) and the increased hydrological activity below the continental ice sheets (streams and lakes) would also point to 'changes' occurring on the southern continent that did not involve 'cooling'.

I get the impression from some of the scientists down there that they expect this southern summer to be as 'informative' as to recent changes as the past 7 have been and again it would seem as though they are a little wrong footed by some of the changes occurring there. One of the major Ice lakes is thought to be at maximum capacity and they half expect it to 'burst it's banks' and flow out seaward (into the Ross sea) this season. They are concerned both by the erosive potential of the 'flow' on the glaciers it undercuts but also the impact on the integrity of the ice sheet that overlays it.

Another one to watch this year to see who's ideas fit the evidence most accurately!

[Iceberg]

Need to see the detail of the Antarctic report for ice gain, my understanding is that sea ice when plotted has gone up by around 1% or 2% with regards to variance this is nothing.

IF the ice has gone up, then the mostly likely cause is a stronger South Polar Jet (SPJ) in part forced by the increase of the ozone hole.

The south pole is very complicated and more ice as GW explained is often worse than less.

The problem with Arctic ice is many fold, much warmer waters, ice thicnkess has declined by 75% and a much reduced area. A 5 year probability is a real possibility.

As to sun cycles etc, the latest 5 year Model of the meto points to slower temp growth followed by rapid growth for the last 2 years I believe. Probably enough to realise peoples 5 year thoughts.

[Gray-Wolf]

As to sun cycles etc, the latest 5 year Model of the meto points to slower temp growth followed by rapid growth for the last 2 years I believe. Probably enough to realise peoples 5 year thoughts.

With the yanks accepting there own part in aiding the record temps over there last summer (due to GHG production) you can see why things may well but on the rapid increase again!

Our 'forcing ' of global temps is set amidst the planets own cyclicall patterns and whereas some phenomena may be swamped by our 'forcing' others will just be modified.