Arctic ice

[Devonian]

This thread has turned into the best example of popular tripe I've ever read. If I want to read at this level of crap I will go and buy a copy of the daily mail or the sun.

Christ in a damn sidecar, When will you all learn. Nobody and i repeat NOBODY has a damn clue what is round the corner as regards the artic ice situation, this includes the "experts" as well. Well I agree that debate is healthy, there is far from suficcient evidence to prove persistant warming or cooling OR the potential cause, and now you have sunk to the lows of arguing over a damn pool of sodding melt water. Spare us all purrrrleese.

In your opinion? Or be you the font of all wisdom Perhaps the 'Purrlleesseee' is to not state our opinions as if they are fact? Your opinion might be people don't know but I think people at place like NSIDC DO know what they're talking about - and that's my opinion

[Richie V]

In your opinion? Or be you the font of all wisdom Perhaps the 'Purrlleesseee' is to not state our opinions as if they are fact? Your opinion might be people don't know but I think people at place like NSIDC DO know what they're talking about - and that's my opinion

As I said Dev, debate is healthy

It just gets redicilous when people start squabbling over a damn puddle in the high artic.

[Paul]

Can we haul this back on topic please, if people don't feel this topic is valid, they're not being forced to post in here!

If anyone feels that any posts within this discsusion breach the code of conduct, then please feel free to hit the report button and let us know.

[Filski]

It seems that article has struck a nerve. The replies have tickled my funny bone at least.

It seems a couple of people at least have zero faith in our ability to monitor and project likely conditions at least a short term ahead. Would they dare suggest that if I were to place a cubic metre of ice in Trafalgar Square tomorrow then I could not reasonably assume it would melt. We could have a potent northerly tomorrow of course, but most likely not...

Tell me, do you lot go out dressed for all possible occurences? No? Then you have some faith at least 24hrs ahead. How about 36hrs? 48? 72? At what point exactly do the scientists get it all wrong. The point I'm making is that they do actually get get it right and you believe it. To the point that you understand where the uncertainty starts. I suggest that you either don't or don't want to the uncertainties behind this forecast.

If they turn out to be right you are going to look very very silly.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html

[J10]

This is the first time I have looked at this is a while, I think it is pretty clear that the ice extent this summer will end up far below the normal level, however IMO whether or not it will end up below last years level is very much uncertain. Looking at the latest charts, it appears that there is more surface ice than there was this time last year, but we have not into the main melt season as of yet.

On the one hand, last years melt was severe and caused by weather conditions conducive to melt, but on the other hand, the thickness of the ice is lower than last year, as there is more first year ice.

In a couple of months time we will find out who is correct in terms of the ice situation.

[The PIT]

As I said Dev, debate is healthy B)

It just gets redicilous when people start squabbling over a damn puddle in the high artic.

It's a damn big puddle went right over my Welliess!!!!

Is humour allowed on here ????

[jethro]

Dev & GW: I'm not looking for an alternative solution to man-made effects on the Arctic ice, I'm not looking for a solution which doesn't involve us in any way and I'm certainly not saying "hey folks, it's all caused by underwater volcano's". However, what really bugs me is when reports such as this appear and scientists, of all people instantly say "it's had no effect". It's trite and glib and I expect more from experts. The reality is, they have no idea what impact it may or may not have had and to suggest otherwise is IMO, ridiculous. To go from not even knowing it is happening, to knowing what effect it may or may not have had, in one study, is absurd.

[Filski]

Dev & GW: I'm not looking for an alternative solution to man-made effects on the Arctic ice, I'm not looking for a solution which doesn't involve us in any way and I'm certainly not saying "hey folks, it's all caused by underwater volcano's". However, what really bugs me is when reports such as this appear and scientists, of all people instantly say "it's had no effect". It's trite and glib and I expect more from experts. The reality is, they have no idea what impact it may or may not have had and to suggest otherwise is IMO, ridiculous. To go from not even knowing it is happening, to knowing what effect it may or may not have had, in one study, is absurd.

I'd have to go back and check but I'm pretty sure it said the explosion was in 1999. Maybe if it was 1995 or 2007 it'd be significant? As it is I'm not sure that it rises above the background noise.

[bluecon]

Compare last years melt to this years and it certainly looks like this years melt is slower so far.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/p...=28&sy=2008

[jethro]

Like I said, I'm not looking for an alternative, just want proper science instead of glib, trite, gobbledegook.

Anyway, I pretty sure any impact would take a while to filter through, how long does it take for bottom water to rise to the surface? I wouldn't expect to see Boom! there goes a chunk of ice.

[Gray-Wolf]

Stopped raining now!

[Thundery wintry showers]

Well I think GW's image speaks for itself- read into it what you will!

As for the ice melt, I think JACKONE's post is spot on. If you look closely at the 2007 vs 2008 ice coverage maps, you'll see that 2008 does indeed have more coverage than this time last year, but that much of the ice is thinner- those reds indicate grave danger of the ice melting shortly.

Recent maps have shown 2008 being slightly better off than 2007 but the gap narrowing. Ironically it may well widen a little over the coming week, as the week around 1 July 2007 featured particularly extreme rates of melt, probably associated with a plume of 10-15C 850hPa air moving up into north Asia. While we do have warmer pools of air set to move into the Arctic in the near future they are nothing like as warm as that one.

All the same, from the various articles I've seen, the evidence suggests:

Conditions similar to last year (warm & sunny) = last year's ice minimum comfortably beaten

Conditions similar to long-term average = last year's ice minimum approached, probably narrowly beaten

Cool cloudy conditions = still anomalously low extent but slight recovery on last year's.

That goes back to my earlier point about probabilities. This discussion isn't entirely useless because although we can't state with certainty what will happen, we can talk about the probabilities, and the more time that passes, the more of a clear picture we get as to what these probabilities are.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

We are the reason and ,as things go, for the year on year the impact on the northern ice.

In your opinion GW, please stop putting non facts in there.

Jethro that is a good article and I would be very very surprised if this Gakkel ridge volcanic hot bed was not affecting the melt. The air temp isn't 'warm' enough to have caused the melt, the ice is melting from below so what that has to do with manmade AGW I have no idea whatsoever. Clearly it isn't affecting down under...mind you they as yet haven't got a Gakkel Ridge B)

BFTP

[Devonian]

Dev & GW: I'm not looking for an alternative solution to man-made effects on the Arctic ice, I'm not looking for a solution which doesn't involve us in any way and I'm certainly not saying "hey folks, it's all caused by underwater volcano's". However, what really bugs me is when reports such as this appear and scientists, of all people instantly say "it's had no effect". It's trite and glib and I expect more from experts. The reality is, they have no idea what impact it may or may not have had and to suggest otherwise is IMO, ridiculous. To go from not even knowing it is happening, to knowing what effect it may or may not have had, in one study, is absurd.

Jethro,

As I've said I'm not mathematician but, I've seen calculations done and to me they don't indicate or suggest they simply prove that the heat from these volcanoes (or any volcano) have a negligible effect on ocean temps. The amount of energy need to warm a body of water so vast as an ocean is simply massive, the amount of energy a volcano emits (even all the worlds volcanoes) dwarfed by it. Even if the figures are magnitudes of order out the would still be little effect (off the top of my head: The Sun 350 w/m2, internal heat of the Earth .75milliw/m2 (or was it .075mw/m2?)). No, such ocean warming quantities of energy only come from the Sun - either directly or indirectly.

Now, that's not to dismiss anything, not take the side of AGWers or AGW sceptics but to take the side of maths.

Again, I'm quite happy to see alternative calculations, but I am as certain as I can ever be that they will show what they showed when last I looked.

Edit: my mistake .061w/m2 according to this, though finding a direct source is difficult.

Edited June 29, 2008 by Devonian

[Iceberg]

Good point Dev, also the water at the bottom of the Arctic ocean goes along the bottom to the equator it does not go up.! (At least in any study I have ever read or seen mentioned.

[Bobby]

I agree, I don't have the hard data but even if these volcanoes were absolutely colossal I cannot see them having any sort of noticeable affect.

[Gray-Wolf]

Nice day up at the pole today!

You can see the growth of the meltwater pool in the foreground but also the 'soft' saggy surface snow all around......we are all familiar with that type of snow recently!!!

Edited June 29, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

I think many on here, and those scientists who declared "it would have no impact" are perhaps jumping the gun a little when it comes to this latest volcanic information.

The ridge is approximately 12 kilometres wide and 1,800 kilometres long, of which they have surveyed 30 kilometres - an exploratory survey. They say "Explosive volatile discharge has clearly been a widespread, and ongoing, process," so not a one off event. "Blown the tops off dozens of submarine volcanoes", so not just one isolated explosion. It also goes on to say "probably blasted one, maybe even two, kilometres up into the water," so not oozing out along the ocean floor where it can go along the bottom to the equator.

I fail to see how they can say: "The scale and magnitude of the explosive activity that we're seeing here dwarfs anything we've seen on other mid-ocean ridges," says Sohn, who studies ridges around the world. The volume of gas and lava that appears to have blasted out of the Gakkel volcanoes is "much, much higher" than that seen at other ridges" and then go on to say with authority that they "know" it hasn't contributed to warming.

They've never seen anything like it anywhere else in the world, but they know all they need to know to rule some things out?

"I had the impression this whole central volcano area was oozing warm fluid," says Henrietta Edmonds of the University of Texas, who was on the expedition tracking the plumes of warm waters rising from the spreading ridge.

That's 12 kilometres x 1,800 kilometres of potential oozing of warm fluid rising, plus explosions of a magnitude never before witnessed, blasting 1 - 2 kilometres above the sea floor for an unknown period of time. But it's not contributing to warming????

[Devonian]

I think many on here, and those scientists who declared "it would have no impact" are perhaps jumping the gun a little when it comes to this latest volcanic information.

The ridge is approximately 12 kilometres wide and 1,800 kilometres long, of which they have surveyed 30 kilometres - an exploratory survey. They say "Explosive volatile discharge has clearly been a widespread, and ongoing, process," so not a one off event. "Blown the tops off dozens of submarine volcanoes", so not just one isolated explosion. It also goes on to say "probably blasted one, maybe even two, kilometres up into the water," so not oozing out along the ocean floor where it can go along the bottom to the equator.

I fail to see how they can say: "The scale and magnitude of the explosive activity that we're seeing here dwarfs anything we've seen on other mid-ocean ridges," says Sohn, who studies ridges around the world. The volume of gas and lava that appears to have blasted out of the Gakkel volcanoes is "much, much higher" than that seen at other ridges" and then go on to say with authority that they "know" it hasn't contributed to warming.

They've never seen anything like it anywhere else in the world, but they know all they need to know to rule some things out?

"I had the impression this whole central volcano area was oozing warm fluid," says Henrietta Edmonds of the University of Texas, who was on the expedition tracking the plumes of warm waters rising from the spreading ridge.

That's 12 kilometres x 1,800 kilometres of potential oozing of warm fluid rising, plus explosions of a magnitude never before witnessed, blasting 1 - 2 kilometres above the sea floor for an unknown period of time. But it's not contributing to warming????

Again, lets see the maths .

Simply saying it is contributing really isn't enough, if it is it should be easy to show it to be so - by maths.

[jethro]

Again, lets see the maths .

Simply saying it is contributing really isn't enough, if it is it should be easy to show it to be so - by maths.

And simply saying IT ISN'T contributing really isn't enough.

That's my point. Scientists of all people, instantly dismissing something which they have no previous knowledge of, nor experience of, saying after just one exploratory survey where they discovered this, that they know all they need to know to be able to make a judgement. They don't.

What we do know is the ice is melting; we also know the majority of the melting is driven by warmer oceans temps. We have assumed the warmer oceans are as a result of warmer air temperatures; assumption is not science.

This is a new discovery, as such it should be studied scientifically according to scientific rules, not dismissed on assumption or deemed to be adequately understood.

We've looked at 30 kilometres of something which is 12 x 1,800 kilometres in size and we KNOW it isn't making a contribution. Baloney. We know no such thing.

[laserguy]

"I had the impression this whole central volcano area was oozing warm fluid," says Henrietta Edmonds of the University of Texas, who was on the expedition tracking the plumes of warm waters rising from the spreading ridge.

That's 12 kilometres x 1,800 kilometres of potential oozing of warm fluid rising, plus explosions of a magnitude never before witnessed, blasting 1 - 2 kilometres above the sea floor for an unknown period of time. But it's not contributing to warming????

No no Jethro,you've got it all wrong! How can the explosive release of obviously enormous but unknown volumes of superheated matter directly at the most effective point for heat transfer,and it's 1-2km upwards journey possibly have less of an effect than a minute rise of air temperature at the surface where heat transfer would be as nought in comparison? Funny how the exact opposite is happening at the 'other end' of the world. Don't expect Panorama to let everyone know about that,though.

[Chris Knight]

I think many on here, and those scientists who declared "it would have no impact" are perhaps jumping the gun a little when it comes to this latest volcanic information.

The ridge is approximately 12 kilometres wide and 1,800 kilometres long, of which they have surveyed 30 kilometres - an exploratory survey. They say "Explosive volatile discharge has clearly been a widespread, and ongoing, process," so not a one off event. "Blown the tops off dozens of submarine volcanoes", so not just one isolated explosion. It also goes on to say "probably blasted one, maybe even two, kilometres up into the water," so not oozing out along the ocean floor where it can go along the bottom to the equator.

I fail to see how they can say: "The scale and magnitude of the explosive activity that we're seeing here dwarfs anything we've seen on other mid-ocean ridges," says Sohn, who studies ridges around the world. The volume of gas and lava that appears to have blasted out of the Gakkel volcanoes is "much, much higher" than that seen at other ridges" and then go on to say with authority that they "know" it hasn't contributed to warming.

They've never seen anything like it anywhere else in the world, but they know all they need to know to rule some things out?

"I had the impression this whole central volcano area was oozing warm fluid," says Henrietta Edmonds of the University of Texas, who was on the expedition tracking the plumes of warm waters rising from the spreading ridge.

That's 12 kilometres x 1,800 kilometres of potential oozing of warm fluid rising, plus explosions of a magnitude never before witnessed, blasting 1 - 2 kilometres above the sea floor for an unknown period of time. But it's not contributing to warming????

I would speculate that a warm plume of highly saline, nutrient enriched bottom water does not even have to warm the less briny surface water to assist melting. There is scope to alter deep currents, potentiate mixing between deep and surface waters by convection, increasing salinity, thus depressing freezing point, volcanic minerals and gases causing fertilization of the ecosystem, leading to algal blooms, which darken the ice, etc.

Yet another known unknown.

[Devonian]

And simply saying IT ISN'T contributing really isn't enough.

Nor did I say that....

I said that the figures I've seen show to me that, unless geologists (not AGWers not sceptics - geologists) have this so wrong they're a joke, the amount of heat coming out of the Earth is simply tiny compared to that that comes from the Sun.

I don't see why it's unreasonable for me to ask for the maths of your argument? Lets see how much energy is needed to warm a column of water say 100m wide and a mile deep 10C at it's base and .5C at the top. Answer? A huge amount. But, again, that's my opinion and all I ask for is some evidence ( not a assertion) that I'm wrong.

That's my point. Scientists of all people, instantly dismissing something which they have no previous knowledge of, nor experience of, saying after just one exploratory survey where they discovered this, that they know all they need to know to be able to make a judgement. They don't.

What we do know is the ice is melting; we also know the majority of the melting is driven by warmer oceans temps. We have assumed the warmer oceans are as a result of warmer air temperatures; assumption is not science.

This is a new discovery, as such it should be studied scientifically according to scientific rules, not dismissed on assumption or deemed to be adequately understood.

We've looked at 30 kilometres of something which is 12 x 1,800 kilometres in size and we KNOW it isn't making a contribution. Baloney. We know no such thing.

Again, lets see some figures. Simply saying 'baloney' on the basis of a kind of 'but there must be some contribution' isn't good enough - not for a sceptic like me who's seen a damn good mathematical refutation of the argument that volcanoes are warming he oceans more than to a tiny extent. Again, lets see the figures.

I would speculate that a warm plume of highly saline, nutrient enriched bottom water does not even have to warm the less briny surface water to assist melting. There is scope to alter deep currents, potentiate mixing between deep and surface waters by convection, increasing salinity, thus depressing freezing point, volcanic minerals and gases causing fertilization of the ecosystem, leading to algal blooms, which darken the ice, etc.

Yet another known unknown.

But, it's no more than speculation without some concrete evidence,and, as I keep saying, it should be easy to show using maths. I'm not going to do the maths - well, I might if I get sick of asking - it's not my speculation.

Edited June 29, 2008 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

Nor did I say that....

I said that the figures I've seen show to me that, unless geologists (not AGWers not sceptics - geologists) have this so wrong they're a joke, the amount of heat coming out of the Earth is simply tiny compared to that that comes from the Sun.

I don't see why it's unreasonable for me to ask for the maths of your argument? Lets see how much energy is needed to warm a column of water say 100m wide and a mile deep 10C at it's base and .5C at the top. Answer? A huge amount. But, again, that's my opinion and all I ask for is some evidence ( not a assertion) that I'm wrong.

Again, lets see some figures. Simply saying 'baloney' on the basis of a kind of 'but there must be some contribution' isn't good enough - not for a sceptic like me who's seen a damn good mathematical refutation of the argument that volcanoes are warming he oceans more than to a tiny extent. Again, lets see the figures.

But, it's no more than speculation without some concrete evidence,and, as I keep saying, it should be easy to show using maths. I'm not going to do the maths - well, I might if I get sick of asking - it's not my speculation.

The flaw in your reasoning is that the quoted figure of 0.061W/m2 is averaged over the whole globe. The volcanic activity to which Jethro refers is a localised phenomenon - you can have an apparently tiny global average despite a significant warm plume in a localised area simply by having no activity over a significant majority of the globe.

Does a "cool" average mean that the hotspot isn't hot, or that it doesn't have an effect on the local (polar) environment? This is precisely the reason why "Global Averages" can be deceptive...

CB

[Devonian]

The flaw in your reasoning is that the quoted figure of 0.061W/m2 is averaged over the whole globe. The volcanic activity to which Jethro refers is a localised phenomenon - you can have an apparently tiny global average despite a significant warm plume in a localised area simply by having no activity over a significant majority of the globe.

Does a "cool" average mean that the hotspot isn't hot, or that it doesn't have an effect on the local (polar) environment? This is precisely the reason why "Global Averages" can be deceptive...

CB

Fine, again (nth time) lets see some figures.

I don't think these volcanoes are significant - but I am open to some evidence, rather than speculation and assertion, that contradicts that view.