Polar Ice sets new minimum

[Slinky]

I wouldn't, though, go quite so far as Mr N.Utter, one time correspondent on these pages, and his chum Ken-how-Wrongcan-Ibe, whose track record in predicting weather based on the moon really couldn't have been much wider of the mark were he making it up. As for the other planets, they are so far away that their gravitational impact is beyond minescule.

Ha had nearly forgotten about him!!

Quality

Ps- one quote was about the moon sucking the atmosphere out which is why it gets cold on a full moon.........

[Gray-Wolf]

And where abouts in any of this have I said or alluded to the Moon affecting our climate and/or weather. As I pointed out to Magpie and it appears I have to point out to you too, I asked an off the wall question regarding ocean currents in relation to the change in ocean currents affecting the Arctic; no more, no less. When it comes to emergency services, hubby was a copper, got quite a few friends who are coppers, a couple of paramedics, three nurses and a god father who was a long serving fireman until he retired; staffing levels are higher at time of full moon. I've asked why and the replies have varied from people being more accident prone, people getting drunk more easily and apparently more violent. I don't even begin to understand why but there it is.

Perhaps we should ask Roger, he knows more than any of us here.

I've always thought that the weight anomaly, greatest when the moon is highest which is around midnight, gives folk the impression of having more energy/being invigorated. Always a bad thing getting a 'second wind' just as last orders are called!!!!

The fact that most of the old 'Fezzies' are aligned with the full moon may just be practical in that it is easier to travel under moonlight (even when cloudy) that on a moonless night. If we do posses a 'collective subconscious' then these age old traditions of 'gettin' outa yer skull' on a full moon may make the behaviour more inevitable. The number of times, before I was 'Moon Savvy' that I'd staggered out of a place only to be greeted by La Luna grinning down on me did make me pay more attention to the phenomena

Edited September 18, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Chris Knight]

I've always thought that the weight anomaly, greatest when the moon is highest which is around midnight, gives folk the impression of having more energy/being invigorated. Always a bad thing getting a 'second wind' just as last orders are called!!!!

The fact that most of the old 'Fezzies' are aligned with the full moon may just be practical in that it is easier to travel under moonlight (even when cloudy) that on a moonless night. If we do posses a 'collective subconscious' then these age old traditions of 'gettin' outa yer skull' on a full moon may make the behaviour more inevitable. The number of times, before I was 'Moon Savvy' that I'd staggered out of a place only to be greeted by La Luna grinning down on me did make me pay more attention to the phenomena

" 'second wind'...'last orders'" - leading to increased CH4 levels, and we know how that affects us, don't we?

[Gray-Wolf]

" 'second wind'...'last orders'" - leading to increased CH4 levels, and we know how that affects us, don't we?

Tinker!

[pottyprof]

As for the other planets, they are so far away that their gravitational impact is beyond minescule.

But yet still there.....

[Gray-Wolf]

Moving on.........I've spent some time watching the 'Cryosphere Today' movie of the ablation, this year, of the ice pack. The fragmentation of the pack in the bearings sea, prior to it's clockwise rotation,is clearly visible.

We then get the 'record ice extent' reports from Antarctica and reassurances that this is 'normal' over our recent history with D.O. events leading to melting at the north but thickening at the south.

So today I start my yearly trawl around the southern continent courtesy of;

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/2007261/

only to find that, what should have been solid pack fringing the coast and becoming more 'fragmented' as we moved closer to the open waters is , in fact, a vast Mosaic of shattered pack right up to the coast (and my beloved Ross Shelf/embayment). Last year areas of coastal pack remained intact into Jan. so what's going on?

I posted on the 'mechanical erosion...' thread around the 28th of Aug that I thought max. extent had been reached earlier than normal only to then find ice extent rocketing up to the new max. If I'm correct here (and you can check with your own eyes, esp. at the 250m resolution) I was correct at the 28th of Aug and thereafter we have had a similar rapid breakup of the single year ice and it's apparent growth is in fact the spreading out of the fragments.

Call me what you like but I bet by the end of Nov. this year we will have had a rapid dispersal/ablation of the southern pack leaving a very premature bare coast ready for the rapid melt of the continental fringes (and the north facing slopes of the uplands).

Don't take my word for it , check it out....and whilst your at it there are some good images of the open NW Passage!

[Gray-Wolf]

Just in case you can't be bothered here is a 'cropped image' of the middle of the Ross sea ice taken yesterday a.m.

[Gray-Wolf]

And just in case you've missed my rambling on the other threads here's how I propose the disruption happened!

No single storm could disrupt the ice in this way, maybe one side of the continent could succumb to storm surges rolling in from the southern oceans but the whole lot???

The 'data' showing rapid ice build post Aug 28th (when I posted I thought we'd 'maxed out in Antarctica) troubled me as the conditions down there didn't look conducive to rapid ice build at all (but what do I know?).

On viewing the images yesterday it became clear to me that, whilst the visual inspection of the pack was still difficult (due to weather and low daylight) over the last 3 weeks monitoring would be done in other 'wavelengths' and so the condition of the pack could be mis-interpreted .We are now entering the southern summer and can finally 'get to see the sea' down there. So what has caused this?

Sea ice thickness (both north and south pole) has been reducing over the past 15yrs. The amount of 'lost' multiyear ice is replaced by single year ice which does not posses the same integrity as the multi-year ice and the multi-year ice itself is thinning from below (sea melt). At some point the integrity of the pack is so low that tidal forces (that big bulge of water being pulled up under the pack) will buckle and shatter the ice above (straight through to the coast/shelf).

Aug 28th was a full moon. Pretty soon after the 3days of full moon (nearly , but not quite a spring tide) the pack rapidly 'grew'

I propose that the tides of that moon shattered the pack, on mass, and it's gentle 'easing apart' is what we have witnessed as 'ice build'.

If I'm barking we'll find out soon! if not, then you heard/saw it here first!

[Roger J Smith]

Please note that in regard to the Moon influencing polar ice or weather patterns, this is probably a subject that has been grossly underestimated and that there would no doubt be some moderate if not large causative links uncovered if the right data were analyzed. I would like to do this myself but I don't have the right ice cover data to begin such an investigation, so for the time being it remains part of my overall research that is not yet begun.

On the other subject, planets influencing weather on earth, I have posted findings in the advanced section based on a very rigorous and complete analysis of the monthly CET and found that Jupiter, Saturn and Mars each show a signature with a somewhat complex pattern, although similar in each case, with amplitudes in the range of 0.3 to 0.4 C degrees.

This is what it is, so to speak, neither a huge signal that would send researchers to their computers, nor something that is so small that you would say, well so what ... just an intermediate case which makes me think that if there are several dozen other factors of similar magnitude, there could be a working system in play, but that remains quite some distance off down the research avenue being pursued here.

But it is no longer a true statement of fact that "nobody has demonstrated any correlation between planetary position and the weather." I have, and it's right here on Net-weather. If you don't want to read it, that's not my fault. If you don't believe it, do the same analysis I did. I have rigorously checked the data for input errors and by comparing various averages in both directions I am pretty sure that I have the 350 years of data accurately input and reduced to anomalies.

It is interesting also that the Jupiter signal is the same in both halves and all three thirds of the data, a sign that the signal is fairly robust. Whether you think it's very large or not, it is there and it keeps happening. Given that there are somewhat larger signals in central North America from a similar analysis, why would it be that farfetched to assume that there could be even larger signals in the subarctic or arctic? I don't have the numbers for that yet, thanks to the complete lack of research funding or helpful assistance over 27 years, I have to work ten hours a day doing other things, so way to go atmospheric sciences community, wait another five to ten and I should be dead and you can stop troubling your minds over this question altogether, unless Blast kicks you in the rear end. Which you should not invite, by the way. Word to the wise.

[jethro]

Thank you Roger, I'd been hoping you would join in here, your knowledge on this subject is far greater than the rest of us I'm sure. I have read quite a lot of your stuff on the forum, I wouldn't say I understand it all but hey, I'm trying. It had led me to wonder if there could be a cosmological connection with the Arctic currents, conventional studies seem very vague on the subject and as far as I'm aware no hard and fast cause has been found so far - not beyond the realms of impossible for planetary influences to be involved to some measure. If you get time, could you please cast your eye over the Decline in Magnetic Field thread, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

[Bobby]

Let me clarify - what I have been saying is that there is no reason to suppose that the planets do not affect our climate. This is a rather different thing from saying that they absolutely do affect our climate. A weak gravitational effect is sufficient to disturb the motions of free-moving atoms and molecules; there are a lot of free moving atoms and molecules in our atmosphere, whose movement determines our weather patterns, and these resulting weather patterns determine our long-term climate. This is a logical sequence of events that, while not a watertight scientific theory, seems physically consistent. My argument is that it is wrong to dismiss these seemingly trivial effects on the basis that they are tiny - tiny they may be, but that does not necessarily make them insignificant.

Magpie, would you concede that the Moon drives the tides and that other planets all have orbits in relation to those around them? Differing orbits at differing times have different effects, yes? So we are not dealing with speculation here, we are dealing with evidence. If differing orbits have differing effects, why can one of those effects not be that the tidal influence of the Moon also differs?

You see, I'm not denying that the gravity of planets does affect our planet, and indeed they have an effect on our atmosphere too. This is scientific fact. What is far from scientific fact, and what I have a problem with, is that these effects actually influence our climate in any meaningful way. There is no evidence for this. As Stratos Ferric said, the influences are beyond miniscule.

Where do we draw the line on tiny gravitional effects having an affect on our weather and climate? Comets in other galaxies at the other end on the universe have a gravitational effect on our planet and atmosphere. They are pulling on us right now. Do they have a meaningful effect on our climate? At what point do the effects become so weak as to be meaningless?

Edited September 19, 2007 by Magpie

[jethro]

You see, I'm not denying that the gravity of planets does affect our planet, and indeed they have an effect on our atmosphere too. This is scientific fact. What is far from scientific fact, and what I have a problem with, is that these effects actually influence our climate in any meaningful way. There is no evidence for this. As Stratos Ferric said, the influences are beyond miniscule.

Where do we draw the line on tiny gravitional effects having an affect on our weather and climate? Comets in other galaxies at the other end on the universe have a gravitational effect on our planet and atmosphere. They are pulling on us right now. Do they have a meaningful effect on our climate? At what point do the effects become so weak as to be meaningless?

With the greatest of respect to both you Magpie and Stratos, I think Roger is much better placed to inform us on this subject. I too have difficulty with the theory that something so far away could have any effect here but that merely demonstrates my inadequacies, not whether or not it is possible or proven. Science and in particular Physics struggles daily with the unknown, unquantifiable, but lack of research or proof does not rule out possibility; see any dark matter around? Nope neither do I, does that mean it isn't there? I know the reasoning of the simplest explaination often being the best and most likely fit, so why complicate things but I've always wondered how it is possible to decide the simplest solution without first knowing all the other possibles; surely you have to know before discounting or evaluating the simplest?

[Devonian]

You see, I'm not denying that the gravity of planets does affect our planet, and indeed they have an effect on our atmosphere too. This is scientific fact. What is far from scientific fact, and what I have a problem with, is that these effects actually influence our climate in any meaningful way. There is no evidence for this. As Stratos Ferric said, the influences are beyond miniscule.

Where do we draw the line on tiny gravitional effects having an affect on our weather and climate? Comets in other galaxies at the other end on the universe have a gravitational effect on our planet and atmosphere. They are pulling on us right now. Do they have a meaningful effect on our climate? At what point do the effects become so weak as to be meaningless?

I agree, with every word of that.

If you're driving in a car leaning to one side and there is an 20 stone bloke on that side, you don't go blaming the sweet wrappers in the opposite glove pocket for the list. Sure, the sweet wrappers have an effect on the car, but, really, it's just a distraction (clue) to spend time wondering about on their effect on the car rather than that of the 20 stone bloke.

Edited September 19, 2007 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

Considering that this is the "Polar Ice Sets New Minimum" thread, I'm not going to go on pressing this point. Perhaps it is a debate for a separate thread. I will wrap up my comments thus far, though, by saying that there are many massive bodies in our Solar System, not just the Sun and Moon (or Giant Haystacks and Orson Welles (circa A Man For All Seasons)). We know that the Sun and Moon affect our planet in large-scale ways, such as the motion of the tides, but our atmosphere is a far more easily influenced mass.

We have all agreed in the past that Weather is subject to Chaos Theory, though climate is not. If other massive bodies are capable of causing ripples and eddies in the atmosphere then they add to the chaotic nature of our weather. Since climate is "weather averaged over a period of time" then any prolonged atmospheric disturbances will, in time, affect our climate. This is a logical process of reasoning, I think. My point is that perhaps it is something which should be studied in greater detail, and not just swept under the carpet as being irrelevant.

CB

[Bobby]

see any dark matter around? Nope neither do I, does that mean it isn't there? I know the reasoning of the simplest explaination often being the best and most likely fit, so why complicate things but I've always wondered how it is possible to decide the simplest solution without first knowing all the other possibles; surely you have to know before discounting or evaluating the simplest?

Well, I can't see the wind either, or radio waves, but we know they are there because we can detect things in other ways than using our eyes. There's a lot to suggest dark matter exists, in fact physics says it must exist. Besides, saying that just because you can't detect something doesn't mean that it isn't there is bizzare logic. I can't see fairies, but by the "because we can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist" arugment, there is a chance they may exist? Yes, there may indeed be fairies in my room right now, but until there is something to suggest that there are, why even entertain the possibility? Not being able to detect something is not proof that it exists. Surely not being able to detect something only suggest it doesn't exist.

We have all agreed in the past that Weather is subject to Chaos Theory, though climate is not. If other massive bodies are capable of causing ripples and eddies in the atmosphere then they add to the chaotic nature of our weather. Since climate is "weather averaged over a period of time" then any prolonged atmospheric disturbances will, in time, affect our climate. This is a logical process of reasoning, I think. My point is that perhaps it is something which should be studied in greater detail, and not just swept under the carpet as being irrelevant.

While all that is technically 100% correct, it still isn't meaningful. Everything in the universe affects our planet, from the planets to a bit of dust in a distant galaxy, but is this really relevant to climate science? I think not. Ok, the moving orbits of the planets do have varying affects on our atmosphere, but it's still not significant enough or meaningful.

Yes, we are getting very off topic now indeedy.

[jethro]

Completely unconnected I'm afraid....

Graywolf: you often make references to Lovelock, don't know if you are aware of this guy but thought you and possibly a few others may find it interesting; I was lucky enough to go there earlier in the year, fascinating place.

http://www.alexgrey.com

[pottyprof]

I thought I'd lost this link. This shows that other planets can directly affect the earth in one way or another. While a microwave burst may not be enough to have any dramatic effect, it does show possibilities about other planets influences on the earth.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/20...radiostorms.htm

[Gray-Wolf]

Well C-Bob ,to tie things back into polar ice min (and supposed Antarctic max.) we can use the effects of the moon, and it's influence on the ocean in the form of tides and there impacts upon oceanic current flow.

Over my long and sleepless night last night I had either a revelation or delusion concerning the state of the southern sea ice as I looked at the MODIS images for the first time this season to find it well fragmented (in a way that was not apparent this time last year) around the whole (as far as the weather conditions allowed a peek) of the continent.

This set me thinking as to what mechanism could affect the whole of the sea ice in that way and why it should happen now. It then occurred to me that a 'thinning pack', as our records show for both the north and south polar sea ice, must become ever more brittle and at risk of disruption/fragmentation from storm swells pushing in from the deep oceans (and fringes?). This ,of course, wouldn't account for the whole of the sea ice being in a very similar state of fragmentation (size of 'chunks', size of cracks) as each storm swell would affect local areas of Antarctica at differing times allowing for some areas to 'heal' whilst newer areas would appear fragmented. I then noted that we had a full moon on Aug 28th, and pretty near a spring tide to accompany it and wondered whether a combination of a thinner, more brittle ice pack and the timing of the 'high tide' could have led to this disruption.

We all know that fragmented ice, presenting a greater surface area, ablates faster than contiguous pack and so I now wonder how long before we see a very rapid decline in the southern oceans ice cover this southern spring/early summer (in a similar way to the rapid decline of the Northern ice this spring summer). This in turn ,so we are led to believe, would have a large impact on our climate.

So ,in this set of circumstances, we may be able to prove a very large link between the moon and eventually our climate as it responds to the new set of polar conditions.

I intend to approach Robert Grumbine of the U.S. antarctic team down at Mcmurdo (as I did earlier this year regarding my Ross embayment 'crack') The last time we spoke he advised me that his speciality was sea ice and it's processes so I'll be able to check both how sound my thinking on this is and also if I am actually seeing what I believe I'm seeing in the southern ocean currently.

Edited September 19, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[pottyprof]

Yes, we are getting very off topic now indeedy.

Not really magpie as the tread title is 'Polar Ice sets new minimum, Open discussion on causes and projections'

This is one of the best threads for a while on this section of the forum as we are all thinking and are not going round in circles. We are discussing the ice melt and looking for causes. Discussing possibilities of external forces is not beyond the realms of this thread as long as it relates back to why the ice is melting.

[Gray-Wolf]

Not really magpie as the tread title is 'Polar Ice sets new minimum, Open discussion on causes and projections'

This is one of the best threads for a while on this section of the forum as we are all thinking and are not going round in circles. We are discussing the ice melt and looking for causes. Discussing possibilities of external forces is not beyond the realms of this thread as long as it relates back to why the ice is melting.

Talking of ice melting I've just posted a suite of image links to the MODIS Sats on the 'current Antarctic conditions' thread showing how fragmented the supposed 'Record Antarctic ice extent' is. Well worth a look to see how dire things are already!

EDIT: I've E-Mailed Robert Grumbine of the U.S. Antarctic survey team (his speciality is sea ice and it's processes) so I guess he'll put me straight....unless he's very busy at the moment!

Edited September 19, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Chris Knight]

For those interested in planetary/solar effects try this paper:

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-046...69-42-9-933.pdf

Volume 42, Issue 9 (May 1985)

Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences Article: pp. 933–940 5K)

Combined Effects of Earth Orbit Perturbations and Solar Activity on Terrestrial Insolation. Part I: Sample Days and Annual Mean Values

Ye.P. Borisenkov^a, A.V. Tsvetkov^a, and John A. Eddy^b

a. Main Geophysical Observatory, Leningrad, USSR

b. High Altitude Observatory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO 80307

ABSTRACT We combine calculated effects of short- and long-period orbital perturbations with modeled effects of recorded sunspot and facular activity to examine patterns of terrestrial insolation at selected latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere for the period 1874–1981. Here we consider systematic insulation effects at times of equinox and solstice and as annual means over the 108-year period. Solar activity is the more dominant term; it modulates global insolation at the period of the solar activity cycle with a maximum depletion, in years of maximum sunspot area, of about 0.1%. At high latitudes, where their effect is greatest, long-period orbital perturbations have driven annual mean insolation downward at a rate of about 0.05%/century. At middle and low latitudes this orbitally-induced, Milankovitch trend in annual mean insulation is positive and about 100 times smaller. Nutation of Earth's rotational axis induced by the gravitational pull of the moon adds a distinct modulation of 18.6-year period that significantly influences insolation at polar latitudes. Orbital perturbations by Jupiter and the inner planets add weaker modulation at shorter periods. The influence of orbital effects is to product secular trends in combined insolation patterns that vary in amplitude, phase, and sign with latitude and time of year.

Manuscript received September 27, 1984, in final form January 7, 1985

Interestingly, over the cool period of the mid 20th century, the solar insolation index the authors calculate (fig 7) is much lower over 2-3 solar sunspot cycles between the mid1930s - mid1960s, compared with the rest of the 20th century, and it might be interesting to see the analysis carried forwards to the present.

here's another interesting page:

http://home.earthlink.net/~mrob/pub/planets.html

Edited September 19, 2007 by Chris Knight

[pottyprof]

For those who want to read about Milankovitch cycles in plain English...

http://sparce.evac.ou.edu/q_and_a/the_posi..._of_the_sun.htm

[shuggee]

So.... Have we hit minimum yet?

[Admiral_Bobski]

So.... Have we hit minimum yet?

No, but I think I've hit rock bottom. Does that count?

CB

[Chris Knight]

For those who want to read about Milankovitch cycles in plain English...

http://sparce.evac.ou.edu/q_and_a/the_posi..._of_the_sun.htm

Not so plain, but the Milankovich cycles are explanations of effect on climate of long-term variations of eccentricity of orbit, axial tilt variation and precession. As such they do not cover the effects due to the activity of the sun over these long periods, which is probably unlikely to be obtained beyond the historical record of solar observation with any degree of certainty. This work was done in the 1930s by an astronomer, interested in the possibility that Ice Ages could have some basis in the variable irradiation at various latitudes from the sun over time due to the above phenomena.

The paper in my post above covers much smaller time scales, with influences due to planets and the moon as well as the position in orbit around the sun when these influences are most pronounced, which Jethro raised an interest in, and what the effects of these short-term combined perturbations on the Earth's orbit and tilt mean in terms of solar irradiance at various latitudes, when coupled with the solar observation records over recent history. Bear in mind that this work was done in the early eighties, when there was little evidence of global warming. Borisenkov is still an eminent professor of climate research at the University of Leningrad.

The effects at the polar regions are particularly influenced, which is the subject of this thread.

The planetary influences on the orbit of the earth, once we had atomic clocks to compare our time with that of our sidereal year, were found to be strong enough to have to correct our clocks by leap seconds in addition to the quadrennial leap year adjustment of the date, on an irregular basis, either on 30 June or 31 Dec at one second to midnight.

Taken together with the intensity of the sunspot cycle there indeed seems to be some association with the planetary and lunar influences on the short term (tens of years) warming and cooling periods seen in the 20th century.

Edited September 20, 2007 by Chris Knight