Arctic ice

[Iceberg]

The scientists are they dated the the ash and fallout pretty accurately and clearly stated that was the last date it erupted.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

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.

Well its certainly must have some impact becasue allegedly a 0.7c global air temp rise has risen ocean temps by the same amount in the same time period due to AGW gases. Now let's see the maths how that works shall we?

BFTP

[Iceberg]

This is the Arctic ice thread not the maths of GW thread.

The latest high res picture from this morning shows a very worrying trend.

Normal melt pockets as expect around the NW passage and the Canadian side, however above Greenland is a large area of melting in a place not at all expected. A hole cannot appear there it would be, it really can't

Edited July 1, 2008 by Iceberg

[Chris Knight]

Well its certainly must have some impact becasue allegedly a 0.7c global air temp rise has risen ocean temps by the same amount in the same time period due to AGW gases. Now let's see the maths how that works shall we?

BFTP

We know how that works BFTP, cos 70% of the contribution to mean global temperatures comes from sea surface (give or take a few metres) temperature measurements. All of the land surface stations that have urban tendencies are discounted, and all the remaining "rural" temperatures are corrected to fit the 0.7C rise. QED.

[laserguy]

If you see my post talking to the actual scientist, the eruption happened back in 1999, there has not been one since. End of Story.

Neither has there been any 'warming' in the last ten years. End of story! I think a cooling of the world's oceans have been noted since 2004,maybe all that heat made a beeline for the area of the Gakkal Ridge where there just happens to have been (and maybe still is,whatever scientists think they know) considerable volcanic activity. I find it incredible that obvious causes of whatever are so readily thrown out in the all-out pursuit of nailing 'climate change' (what??) to human activity. I have a comical image of a cartoon CO2 molecule cowering in the corner of a room with a spotlight trained on it whilst being ordered to confess to it's sins by a bunch of government paid 'heavies'. Meanwhile all manner of natural phenomena are gliding past the window,ocassionally stopping to peer inside to mock the inocuous and innocent CO2 molecule in the knowledge that he will take the rap for their wicked demeanours.

The situation is so warped and hell-bent on framing CO2 that even record snow and cold are somehow evidence of 'warming'. Can't make this sort of stuff up? Oh yes,plenty of folk can. And don't mention the record ice in the Antarctic,it's not well received in certain circles.

[Iceberg]

Laserguy your post contains so many untruthes its unbelivable, lets try and keep the thread a good one for people to read about the real world and Arctic ice. Maybe if you want to continue it would be better done in a different thread.

[VillagePlank]

We know how that works BFTP, cos 70% of the contribution to mean global temperatures comes from sea surface (give or take a few metres) temperature measurements. All of the land surface stations that have urban tendencies are discounted, and all the remaining "rural" temperatures are corrected to fit the 0.7C rise. QED.

Whilst I shouldn't and I risk a ban - do you know, exactly, how much controversy is contained in this one quote?

[Chris Knight]

Whilst I shouldn't and I risk a ban - do you know, exactly, how much controversy is contained in this one quote?

[Chris Knight]

Neither has there been any 'warming' in the last ten years. End of story! I think a cooling of the world's oceans have been noted since 2004,maybe all that heat made a beeline for the area of the Gakkal Ridge where there just happens to have been (and maybe still is,whatever scientists think they know) considerable volcanic activity. I find it incredible that obvious causes of whatever are so readily thrown out in the all-out pursuit of nailing 'climate change' (what??) to human activity. I have a comical image of a cartoon CO2 molecule cowering in the corner of a room with a spotlight trained on it whilst being ordered to confess to it's sins by a bunch of government paid 'heavies'. Meanwhile all manner of natural phenomena are gliding past the window,ocassionally stopping to peer inside to mock the inocuous and innocent CO2 molecule in the knowledge that he will take the rap for their wicked demeanours.

The situation is so warped and hell-bent on framing CO2 that even record snow and cold are somehow evidence of 'warming'. Can't make this sort of stuff up? Oh yes,plenty of folk can. And don't mention the record ice in the Antarctic,it's not well received in certain circles.

Not to mention that the carbon is portrayed as being black (graphite and coke, rather than diamond), with two huge white (oxygen) eyes. Talk about stereotypes...

[jethro]

This is the Arctic ice thread not the maths of GW thread.

The latest high res picture from this morning shows a very worrying trend.

Normal melt pockets as expect around the NW passage and the Canadian side, however above Greenland is a large area of melting in a place not at all expected. A hole cannot appear there it would be, it really can't

You mean the one which has opened up at the end of the Gakkel Ridge After the last couple of days, wouldn't that be ironic...

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewImage.do?i...55&aid=2496

[Gray-Wolf]

Isn't the area over the ridge that which has been holding onto pack and not entering into circulation over summer? Didn't perennial ice from there block the eastern passage last year? As far as I understood the ice facing Bering (and the influx of the Pacific from there since the ice dam melted?) which has suffered the greatest losses recently (after the Siberian coastal melt). Ho Hum, What the hey.

[jethro]

Isn't Siberia at the other end of the Gakkel Ridge?

http://www.world-maps.co.uk/continent-map-...ctic-circle.htm

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewImage.do?i...55&aid=2496

[Devonian]

Well its certainly must have some impact becasue allegedly a 0.7c global air temp rise has risen ocean temps by the same amount in the same time period due to AGW gases. Now let's see the maths how that works shall we?

BFTP

The maths of AGW? Here.

The maths of how ghg's warm the oceans? Here.

The maths of how the oceans are warming? Here.

nd my question?

[jethro]

Do you have the Maths for how much heat/energy is coming from the ridge Dev? We can't use data from other ridges, the scientists involved said the eruptions were incomparable with other ridges and of a magnitude not seen before.

[Chris Knight]

From Carinthians Arctic Reports:

I think if you take a look at this we are now 'clean through' the ice sheet. The far bank of what, 4 days ago, was a puddle is showing ice down to depth of about 1 to 1.5m and dark water below.

Scrabble as you may to show 1st July north pole melt as similar you won't.

I didn't have to scrabble very far GW !

[Thundery wintry showers]

Seems the recently discovered and much discussed (on here) spurt of volcanic activity 'up there' started in 1999 according to NOAA - just at the time the ice started to decline precipitously. See the link there,anyone? Note the comments after this article. Much sense spoken here.

I thought it started to decline especially since around 2002 with an acceleration in the last few years.

Re the melting north of Greenland, there's been an area of anomalous warmth there for a while, so it makes sense.

Edited July 2, 2008 by Thundery wintry showers

[Chris Knight]

I thought it started to decline especially since around 2002 with an acceleration in the last few years.

Re the melting north of Greenland, there's been an area of anomalous warmth there for a while, so it makes sense.

NOAA seem to think there was a big drop in...

...1999

from here

or downloadable as pdf here

probably explained at the time by the effect of 1998 El Niño, which is reasonable, I guess.

Edited July 2, 2008 by Chris Knight

[bluecon]

Melt looks far behind last year.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/p...=01&sy=2008

[Thundery wintry showers]

Well, I don't know if they've found something earlier surveys haven't, but the "1999" drop corresponds strongly to a 1995 drop that I've seen in every other reconstruction.

[SnowBear]

Melt looks far behind last year.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/p...=01&sy=2008

Pity we cant do an animation with various years overlayed. It does seem that this years melt is less than last years, especially around the Pacific gap area and other areas. Still some way to go this year for the results though.

[SnowBear]

Done a little digging around on the melt waters we see on those webcam images.

Seems it is not unusual and is due to yearly snow melt rather than packed ice melt. Apparently this is the reason why a permanent station has not been able to be established at the North Pole.

Difficulty of Summertime Observations at the North Pole

To appreciate the value of these data and images we should bear in mind that the proverbial "inaccessibility of the frozen Arctic Ocean" due to cold and darkness applies to the mild summer even more than to the cold and dark winter. During the long and mild days of summer melt snow and ice, the surface becomes littered with ponds and potholes, and the transportation of people and equipment is limited to the most difficult and expensive modes, i.e. helicopters and ice-breaking ships. It is for these reasons that all-year manned drifting ice stations, and hence summertime data, have been at a premium in the history of US arctic research. While the Soviet Union maintained 30 such stations between 1952 and 1991, the US scientists were able to acquire only four sets of summer data, two from the International Geophysical Year 1957 and 1958, one year from the Arctic Ice Dynamics Joint Experiment in 1975, and one year from SHEBA in 1998.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_untersteiner2.html

Why are there pools of water at the North Pole in summertime? The water is meltwater from the snow melting in Summer temperatures that are above freezing. The pools of water are called melt ponds, and are observed at both web cam locations

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

I guess what we need to figure out is how much of a change there is to what we are observing even though the images may appear alarming, is this perfectly normal for a North Pole Summer?

Edited July 2, 2008 by SnowBear

[Chris Knight]

Apparently this is the reason why a permanent station has not been able to be established at the North Pole.

I think that a permanent station would be impossible due to ice drift:

[Thundery wintry showers]

I guess what we need to figure out is how much of a change there is to what we are observing even though the images may appear alarming, is this perfectly normal for a North Pole Summer?

On the basis of current evidence, my guess is that the occurrence is perfectly "normal" but that it's occurring rather earlier in the season than would traditionally be expected.

The melt north of Greenland associated with a pool of temperatures about 5C above normal is pretty alarming. If that ice holds up then we probably won't beat last year's record, as the Asian ice is holding much stronger than last year and it would take a big turnaround to get it as bad as last year. However, if we do see some disappearance of that previously permanent ice north of Greenland we could see records tumble.

[bluecon]

There has been some warm weather in the Canadian Arctic but also some below normal.

No real prolonged extreme temps.

This gives temps and normal temps for most stations.

http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/forecast/ca...ex_e.html?id=NU

[SnowBear]

I noticed in one of the articles that they have found rocks directly from the mantle at Gakkel Ridge. In the article jethro posted, if you hit the "back" button, it takes you back to the main article here..

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=2496

On that page they say...

Along the Gakkel Ridge, we not only sampled more hydrothermal deposits, we also detected abundant active hydrothermal venting in a region where current theory predicted their absence. The discovery offers the potential to find vent sites with unique fauna that have evolved in isolation from those in other oceans.

These discoveries have now led to the realization that instead of two great classes of ocean ridges—slow and fast—there is a third category, ultraslow, which may make up as much as one-third of the global ocean ridge system. These ultraslow ridges—so unlike the more explored and better known Atlantic and Pacific Ocean ridges—represent a new frontier.

I think there could be more to this than we first thought. If the mantle in that area becomes more active, does it necessarily mean it has to be conventional volcanism such as lava flows and eruptions? Could it mean the temperature of the rocks over a large area just become hotter and heat is released into the ocean above. A bit like a large black heat heater instead of a small infra-red one. Our current understanding may give a faulty view of how much energy and heat is released as this is heat directly from the mantle, not the via the crust as normal. They do say in their piece above that "abundant active hydrothermal venting in a region where current theory predicted their absence" and that a completely new type of ocean ridge has had to be classified to account for the Gakkel Ridge.

When you look at the image from that page..

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewImage.do?i...55&aid=2496

The Gakkel ridge and associated area is huge, if all the deepest area is mantle rock, we could be looking at a potentially large influence on the deep ocean temperatures.

The whole of the Arctic sea area is under immense stresses and strains due to the spinning of the Earth, the land masses surrounding it jostle against each other, trying to pull away from the pole to the equator due to centrifugal forces and tearing the area around the ridge, unlike the Antarctic which is fairly balanced with its land mass pretty much equally covering it.

It is interesting how the warmer area to the North of Greenland seems to coincide with the ridge, but how would this effect the warmer air temperature above it?

Perhaps this isn't the whole cause for the recent years of polar ice melt, but it could be having a larger effect than first thought for sure. Its defining exactly how much its influencing it which is the problem.

Seems to be lots to learn about this area and I look forward to the new research that will hopefully come forward soon. Its intriguing, and shows how little we do know about parts of our planet and its systems and ways.

Edited July 2, 2008 by SnowBear