Carinthians Latest Arctic Reports

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

But what next. The arctic winter wasn't 'warm' TWS indeed even with the record ice minima there was widespread and severe cold. The arctic has been 'icefree' before many times and each time it was climate change where the planet plunged into dangerous cold. I do not see AGW as the cause. We are seeing the complete opposite down under, the PDO has entered cold phase, cols phase perturbation cycle has just begun, the AMO is due to enter cold phase from around 2010 and longcycle solar minima may be upon us. Already even 'warmist' scientists/govt bodies have accepted that there will be no warming for another 10 years.....with all the above pieces falling together which don't happen that often I'd say we may see 'no warming' for much longer. The theory of the icefree arctic is one that concerns me most.

BFTP

[reef]

Cryosphere now has the Arctic ice levels below this point last year and rapidly falling:

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

Whether you agree how accurate it is or not, when comparing like for like we're in a worse position than this time last year. There are certainly a lot of open water areas now appearing in many places. Expect these to cause an acceleration in melting, much like when the first bare ground is revealed from melting snow.

And all this comes despite the cold air being bottled up in the Arctic quite well. Once we get warmer plumes up there, who knows what could happen.

[oldsnowywizard]

the sea ice concentration charts are very bad.. there are very few areas of 99% + concentration.. not suprising really considering the loss last summer..

i have noticed there appears to be a bit of cloud cover and what looks like the polar vortex over the Russian sectors next week.. perhaps with the cloud cover and what would still be snow.. maybe this will help to delay the mass melt a little... i seem to remember that last year there wasnt much in the way of cloud cover up there hence the higher radiation levels.

holes are opening up all over the place though which is worrying..

next month will be the killer... this was when the warm plumes started arriving properly...

[Mr Sleet]

I have to say that Interitus's arguments do sound convincing. We may well have been lulled into a false sense of security by the recovery in ice extent over the winter. But since a much larger percentage of the ice is newly formed, that can easily facilitate the steep declines that Mr Sleet dismisses.

quote]

TWS

If you read my post above properly I say that the rate of decline would need to be steeper than last year to break the record minimum. That is a fact. Whether it will or not is open to guesswork. My punt is that the minimum will be higher than 2007.

Edited May 29, 2008 by Mr Sleet

[Thundery wintry showers]

The point is, due to the much higher percentage of first year ice, it would require conditions in the Arctic to be very favourable- on a par with 1996- for the ice extent to not decline significantly faster than last year. Hence the argument that despite the higher ice concentrations/extent relative to this time last year, the record could still be beaten come September.

It's not impossible that we could have decent ice retention this summer, but the odds don't look great.

It's fine giving a 'punt' that it won't be as low as last year, but you were previously arguing that it was a foregone conclusion, when it clearly isn't, and that was the point that I was challenging.

[Mr Sleet]

The point is, due to the much higher percentage of first year ice, it would require conditions in the Arctic to be very favourable- on a par with 1996- for the ice extent to not decline significantly faster than last year. Hence the argument that despite the higher ice concentrations/extent relative to this time last year, the record could still be beaten come September.

It's not impossible that we could have decent ice retention this summer, but the odds don't look great.

It's fine giving a 'punt' that it won't be as low as last year, but you were previously arguing that it was a foregone conclusion, when it clearly isn't, and that was the point that I was challenging.

Well in my opinion it is a foregone conclusion The first year ice doesn't seem to be melting any faster than the multiyear ice that went up to this point in 2007. Lets wait and see, I will eat my words if it goes below the 2007 minimum.

Edited May 29, 2008 by Mr Sleet

[oldsnowywizard]

looks like some nice cold building up in Greenland in a few days.. gfs has temps lower then -30 for 2m temps... i know i asked this before but does anyone know the record low for June? and could they please post a link so i can find out in future..

positive 850 temps only really flirt with the edges of the artic for the next week or so... so 2m temps should be around 0 or below 0. Current temps across most of the Arctic are around the -4 mark some buoys reporting -7..

SST s are still failry cold around most of the fringes.. (not surpising due to ice melt water) however ncoda site is still showing negative anomolies apart from Barents and N atlantic.

[SIG100]

i know i asked this before but does anyone know the record low for June?

The June record low is -35,7 °C.

[Gray-Wolf]

Well in my opinion it is a foregone conclusion The first year ice doesn't seem to be melting any faster than the multiyear ice that went up to this point in 2007. Lets wait and see, I will eat my words if it goes below the 2007 minimum.

The amount of 'multiyear ' taken by last years melt means far less 'hard work' to do this time around....just a 50cm 'skin'.......as was said above all this talk of 'record lows' and 'unseasonable cold' hasn't reached the ice's ears.....

[trevw]

Well in my opinion it is a foregone conclusion The first year ice doesn't seem to be melting any faster than the multiyear ice that went up to this point in 2007. Lets wait and see, I will eat my words if it goes below the 2007 minimum.

but the rate of decline is currently steeper than last years both on CT and nsidc..

[Iceberg]

The more higher res AMSR is still showing arctic ice in pretty dire colours.

What we have is the complete collapse of sea ice in block 1, this is very thin and is just waiting some June warmth to open up some big gaps. In Block 2 we have the thicker first year ice caused by the colder winter temps. I don't really think this will hang around though(it certainly hasn't in recent years).

Block 3 shows the effect of some warmer plumes so far this season.

I've also drawn where I think the lce minimum will be this summer, down from last year by approx 1.5m with a clear north pole.

Not a very good situation.

[jethro]

I'm typing this with some trepidation....please no one leap on me, it's a genuine question and not an attempt to be provocative or designed to stir up an AGW/not AGW debate.

Say for arguments sake the Arctic does become ice free in the summer months, aside from wildlife problems, what difference would it actually make? Does anyone know what the impact upon climate, if any would be? Would it drastically affect weather patterns? If so, where? Globally? Locally?

[Thundery wintry showers]

I have to come clean and admit three things:

1. I don't know.

2. I don't want to know.

3. Chances are I will, however, know the answer within a decade or two if things keep going at this rate...

Sea levels may rise significantly if the Greenland ice sheet melts (though I'm not sure if it will be enough to cause serious concern) as the Greenland ice sheet is land based rather than ocean based (melting of ocean-based ice has minimal effect on sea levels)

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm typing this with some trepidation....please no one leap on me, it's a genuine question and not an attempt to be provocative or designed to stir up an AGW/not AGW debate.

Say for arguments sake the Arctic does become ice free in the summer months, aside from wildlife problems, what difference would it actually make? Does anyone know what the impact upon climate, if any would be? Would it drastically affect weather patterns? If so, where? Globally? Locally?

May 23, 2008

Researchers predict ice-free North Pole this year

Has melt reached tipping point where retreat cannot be halted?

JANE GEORGE

Here's the good news: this summer's Arctic ice melt means an early start to the Hudson Bay shipping season. Forecasts show Coast Guard icebreakers will no longer be necessary for shipping to Churchill after July 16.

This figure shows probable ice conditions in Hudson Bay in July. The dark area in the centre indicates below-normal ice conditions. Ice experts predict the shipping season in Hudson Bay may open two weeks earlier than normal this year.

(COURTESY OF THE NATIONAL SNOW AND ICE DATA CENTER)

That's 15 days earlier than the average ice-free shipping date of July 31, which means re-supply barges should able to reach communities in Nunavut's Kivalliq and Kitikmeot regions that much earlier.

But the down side to the retreat of the Arctic's thin ice cover is a 50-50 chance that the North Pole will become ice-free this September - for the first time in more than 100,000 years.

"The North Pole is where there's supposed to be ice," said environmental scientist Mark Serreze in a recent telephone interview from the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado.

Scientists like Serreze say the weakness of the ice that's melting is responsible for the retreat of Arctic sea ice.

As old ice melts, a development linked to rising water and air temperatures, the new, thin ice that forms in its place in the winter tends to melt much more rapidly in the spring and summer.

During the month of April, scientists determined that the Arctic's increasingly flimsy sea ice cover shrank by 6,000 square kilometres every day.

If this ice continues to melt at the same rate as in 2007, scientists predict that only 2.22 million sq km of ice - less than the size of Nunavut - will remain in the Arctic Ocean this September. This would be much less than the record low of 4.28 million sq km set in 2007.

A major concern is whether the Arctic ice melt has reached a "tipping point," where even tough measures to curb global warming won't stop its final retreat.

After this tipping point is reached, the Arctic Ocean is expected to settle into an ice-free state every summer.

Tipping points were the hot topic at last week's Arctic Forum conference in Washington, D.C., where scientists looked at the potential consequences of these "points of no return" on the environment and people.

The impact of tipping points may explain why the Norse in Greenland died out during the 1400s.

The Norse settlers were unable to deal with several changes occurring at the same time, suggested researcher Tom McGovern in his talk, "Well adapted but still extinct: Norse Greenland in new perspective."

Today's sea ice loss is expected to deliver many environmental changes, which will compound other social, economic and political stresses in the circumpolar world.

New scientific information about Arctic sea ice loss played into last week's decision by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to list polar bears as "threatened."

Scientists expect that as sea ice thins, melts and retreats, open water will allow even more heat to enter the Arctic Ocean. This warmer ocean will in turn heat the land and melt glaciers where they flow into the water.

As Greenland's ice sheet melts, sea levels may rise, threatening many coastal, low-lying communities.

The stream of icebergs, recently seen off Newfoundland and Labrador, originate from glaciers in Greenland. Scientists suspect these icebergs reflect the breakdown of the island's huge ice sheet, which is occurring many times faster than scientists believed possible.

Over the short term, an ice-free Arctic Ocean will open up new possibilities, including easier access to natural resources and new transportation routes.

The Northern sea route, the shipping lane from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean along the Siberian coast, is expected to open up this summer, and the Northwest Passage through Nunavut waters is also likely to be navigable by August.

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

Well it looks as though the Canadians are in two minds as to whether it's a good or bad thing! I ,of course, know it to be a dire thing if only as an indicator as to the rest of the planets responses to our tinkering!!

As we become ever more accustomed to our weather running backwards (from east to west instead of west to east) then we may imagine the evaporation/precipitation changes from the once 'ice sealed' areas and the impact of such rains on the cathrites locked in the permafrost the rains will melt.......not good, not good at all......

Edited June 1, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np.html

The above are web cams at the north pole so we will be able to see for ourselves if the pole melts this year.

The NSIDC team have also left ocean buoys atop of the ice up there in preparation for the melt (shows a bit of confidence in the probability of a polar melt this year!).

The more open (dark) water exposed the more the heating of the ocean up there and the slower the refreeze in autumn.......tipping point anyone?

Edited June 1, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

Thanks for that GW; trouble is that reads like so much stuff floating around about climate change, full of ifs, buts and maybes.

Leaving Greenland and it's glaciers out of the equation, because really that's all about sea level rise and that doesn't have an impact upon weather. What, if any impact would an ice free Arctic have on weather systems?

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks for that GW; trouble is that reads like so much stuff floating around about climate change, full of ifs, buts and maybes.

Leaving Greenland and it's glaciers out of the equation, because really that's all about sea level rise and that doesn't have an impact upon weather. What, if any impact would an ice free Arctic have on weather systems?

So you think that amount of extra free water will not impact upon our weather?

Again, for those listening, evaporation direct from an ice surface is hard, not so from open water. The team doing arctic year research last year got rained on at the north pole...... The impacts of open water currents across the pole brings the prospect of many differing weather impacts into areas unaccustomed to such things. The main worry has to be the massive release of the super greenhouse gasses from the permafrosts fringing the, until recently frozen, coastlines. The recent research papers on the part Cathrite releases played on melting 'snowball earth'

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80528140255.htm

should point us in the direction of an ice free polar region would bring. You can rub out all of the current predictions/timescales for change and re-write a rapid climate shift version and all the impacts that brings to our day to day continuance.............

[oldsnowywizard]

its the perma frost melt that worries me the most... so much methane and other far more dangerous gases than CO2 will be released into the atmosphere.. the question is will there be another tipping point back the other way? with all these extra gases around will there be more of a barrier to sunlight pentrating our atmosphere and will we all freeze? i dont know..

as usual i have a sneaky feeling that it will be too late by the time humans actually realise that something needs to be done.. thats what you get when money, power and greed rules the way.

anyway lets see what happens this month.. june last year was the beginning of the warm plume season... at the moment there is a nice cold pool up there with -15 850 temps and widespread below 0 2mtemps.. so hopefully a small delay... at least in the first week of June no sign of any significant warm plumes...

[Gray-Wolf]

As Jethro's post shows folk can be a little myopic about the changes up there. They feel it is just melting ice and poses no threats to us all. In reality the ice melt is just the tip of the iceberg (phnar, phnar) and is only useful as an indicator of the other , more dramatic, climatic/ecological impacts we are witnessing.

We, as a species, will always hanker after security to offset our death anxiety and so any 'good news' story tends to be clung to like an old, well worn, security blanket. Though I doubt Cathrite releases lead to global cooling I fear that ,in reality, there are no good news stories with any validity to them, to cling to.

Last year we were regaled with how safe Polar bears were (as their protection went up before the U.S. Govt.) Since they were offered protection we are treated to just how endangered they are. I have to wonder who and how the 'good news stories' get to be aired (not just FOX surely)?.

The Canadian press, via their coastguards, seem to be of the opinion (from their NSIDC advisor's) that not only will this years melt exceed last years but the pole has a 50/50 chance of becoming ice free this year (hence my links to the cams up there).

The remaining largest multiyear chunk (to the north of Greenland) is in great jeopardy of total failure this year with all of the consequences it's removal means for the Greenland ice sheet and it's failure.

This is not a drill........this is for real guys.

Ho Hum.

Edited June 1, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

As Jethro's post shows folk can be a little myopic about the changes up there. They feel it is just melting ice and poses no threats to us all. In reality the ice melt is just the tip of the iceberg (phnar, phnar) and is only useful as an indicator of the other , more dramatic, climatic/ecological impacts we are witnessing.

We, as a species, will always hanker after security to offset our death anxiety and so any 'good news' story tends to be clung to like an old, well worn, security blanket. Though I doubt Cathrite releases lead to global cooling I fear that ,in reality, there are no good news stories with any validity to them, to cling to.

Last year we were regaled with how safe Polar bears were (as their protection went up before the U.S. Govt.) Since they were offered protection we are treated to just how endangered they are. I have to wonder who and how the 'good news stories' get to be aired (not just FOX surely)?.

The Canadian press, via their coastguards, seem to be of the opinion (from their NSIDC advisor's) that not only will this years melt exceed last years but the pole has a 50/50 chance of becoming ice free this year (hence my links to the cams up there).

The remaining largest multiyear chunk (to the north of Greenland) is in great jeopardy of total failure this year with all of the consequences it's removal means for the Greenland ice sheet and it's failure.

This is not a drill........this is for real guys.

Ho Hum.

Don't believe there's anything myopic in asking questions GW.

I thank you for your responses but am disappointed that despite initially asking for this not to turn into the usual AGW/anti AGW malarky, you seem unable to respond accordingly.

I am aware of the differences in evaporation between a frozen, hard surface and a watery one however I am not aware or knowledgeable of how this translates into weather systems. What the affects will be on precipitation, whether or not that will be contained within the Arctic.

My question was a direct one, your response of "The impacts of open water currents across the pole brings the prospect of many differing weather impacts into areas unaccustomed to such things." covers a broad spectrum of ifs, buts and maybes but doesn't however give any information or details of what those changes may be.

You may consider as a species "we will always hanker after security to offset our death anxiety"; I on the other hand am looking for more detailed information of how our climate may change in an ice free Arctic world. How this will impact my working life when planning the future of the listed, historical landscapes and sites of special scientific interest I am employed to look after.

Does anyone else know how this will impact upon weather systems, particularly those affecting this country?