Arctic ice

[bluecon]

What if we all keep our freezer doors open every other tuesday?

Your food will thaw every other Tuesday.

[Roger J Smith]

Sorry to be contrarian, but I am not seeing much evidence of a lot more ice this season than in 2007 at this point. Most of the unusual melt last year started in mid-August and hit its peak in the autumn. I am seeing various signs of a possible repeat of this phenomenon in 2008. There has already been a fairly substantial clearance of ice west of Banks Island and north of Alaska. I have to wonder if the ice in place over last year's open water region is very thick after just one season of re-freeze. Also I am seeing some anomalous warmth in the high arctic the past few days (14 C at Mould Bay in far northwest Canada is a very mild reading for that location).

Now, here's the real twist that does not show up in this thread. Open water in the Arctic Ocean has been identified as a signal for glaciation in the past. So this is not necessarily a sign of global warming but of course perhaps the circumstances are different this time around.

I have come to the conclusion that we are possibly in for a wild ride with major surprises ahead (for everyone, I am not taking sides here). I am also not that sure that AGW has anything to do with this. Natural variability has always been a large and unpredictable factor with the possibility always there for major changes over short time intervals.

Now the external forcing for glaciation any time soon is not really in place, only one of three Milankovitch cycles are currently heading towards the cold side of the spectrum (obliquity is decreasing, in plain English, the tilt of our axis is decreasing towards 22 deg within 3 to 5 thousand years). The other two factors are actually reducing in amplitude and becoming non-factors for the foreseeable future. So those who say, well we're in the late stages of an inter-glacial, a new glacial period could begin soon, are missing the detail that the next glacial period may not measure up to the four main ice age periods in recent geological times. Some were already predicting in the 1970s that the next one would be a partial or reduced glacial scenario, and then you have the 200-400 years of possible greenhouse warming to factor in, although here again, we can't be that sure that all of this warming (even if the AGW science is valid) will not run into feedback issues that bring about circulation changes, cooling of some regions, etc. It is all likely to be very complicated and not just a runaway warming under any circumstances.

However in the much shorter term, I would not be too surprised if last year's open water phenomenon in parts of the Arctic Ocean returned by late August. If this becomes an annual event for a while, we may start to develop a whole new arctic climatology and it may not be a meltdown scenario at all. We must remember, a mild October in the high arctic is like the coldest month you've ever had in the UK and then some, and a mild November up there would be like a cold January in Norway or Sweden. So everything is relative, add open water for some part of that cold period, and you can see that milder could easily mean snowier. And in fact this may be how glacial periods get their start because they probably spread out from land-based glaciers in high latitudes as well as descending mountain glaciers that spread out over lower terrain.

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks for that Roger! I'm glad someone is doing other than look at lines (I mean ,we are watching the polar melt.....so why not watch it???)

For those who wish to see the state of play try

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/2008193/

click on an image and away you go. If you go down to the 250m resolution you can see a lot of detail including all the meltwater pools across the pole itself and how close the fragmentation is to the geographical pole now.

On the early morning Terra images you'll overfly Greenland. Check out the west coast both for the extent of the melt (and glacial retreat) but also the meltwater pools on the upland ice......helps you spot meltwater pools when you overfly the pole.

As you say Roger a lot of ice gone from the Alaskan/Canadian sectors already.

[doctormog]

Sorry to be contrarian, but I am not seeing much evidence of a lot more ice this season than in 2007 at this point. Most of the unusual melt last year started in mid-August and hit its peak in the autumn. I am seeing various signs of a possible repeat of this phenomenon in 2008. There has already been a fairly substantial clearance of ice west of Banks Island and north of Alaska.

To be equally contrarian the ice extent is currently greater than last year and the evidence is apparent from several sources. Where the ice is not more extensive is in your neck of the woods (comparatively speaking - OK it's a big wood!) i.e. to the N/NNW of BC (by way of Yukon/NWT), namely the Beaufort Sea area.

Here's the overall picture compared (like with like) for the same day last year:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/de...deetmp.6614.png

For Alaska all the way round to N Russia the picture is a significantly more healthy one than at the same time last year.

Yes that could all change with increased melting in coming weeks, but even if last year's unprecedented anamolous rate of melting were to be repeated the ice extent would exceed last year's minimum this year. It will take something extraordinary to reach a lower minimum extent compared with last year. It's possible given events last year but I wouldn't bet on it.

Thanks for that Roger! I'm glad someone is doing other than look at lines (I mean ,we are watching the polar melt.....so why not watch it???)

For those who wish to see the state of play try

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/2008193/

click on an image and away you go. If you go down to the 250m resolution you can see a lot of detail including all the meltwater pools across the pole itself and how close the fragmentation is to the geographical pole now.

On the early morning Terra images you'll overfly Greenland. Check out the west coast both for the extent of the melt (and glacial retreat) but also the meltwater pools on the upland ice......helps you spot meltwater pools when you overfly the pole.

As you say Roger a lot of ice gone from the Alaskan/Canadian sectors already.

Compare it with last year both in terms of extent and satellite imagery.

Tell me what you find compared with this stage last July overall. I've checked the images on "Rapidfire" from July 2007.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Doctormog!

Well, for a start there is a heck of a lot less perennial ice in the images this year compared to last year so ,I suppose, there is a heck of a lot less ice 'mass' this year.

I could not find any contiguous stretches of sea ice on either sets of images, the current images show that the ice is all now well broken with large amounts becoming 'transparent' to the dark water below (at the point of final melt) which is different to last years images which has more 'open water' at this point.

I haven't seen any animations of the decay this year but by July last year the 'circulation' of the ice in front of Bering had already begun.

I would say that we need revisit the exercise in the last week of July as it would appear that by then large amounts of the patently thin ice will have gone and the 'misleading' ice extent maps will look markedly different (1cm of ice covering a square on the map mask would give 100% ice coverage on an ice extent plot.....so would 600cm of ice covering a square.......but they are obviously very different scenarios )

[Chris Knight]

Hi Doctormog!

Well, for a start there is a heck of a lot less perennial ice in the images this year compared to last year so ,I suppose, there is a heck of a lot less ice 'mass' this year.

I could not find any contiguous stretches of sea ice on either sets of images, the current images show that the ice is all now well broken with large amounts becoming 'transparent' to the dark water below (at the point of final melt) which is different to last years images which has more 'open water' at this point.

I haven't seen any animations of the decay this year but by July last year the 'circulation' of the ice in front of Bering had already begun.

I would say that we need revisit the exercise in the last week of July as it would appear that by then large amounts of the patently thin ice will have gone and the 'misleading' ice extent maps will look markedly different (1cm of ice covering a square on the map mask would give 100% ice coverage on an ice extent plot.....so would 600cm of ice covering a square.......but they are obviously very different scenarios )

Just for you GW, an animation of the last 30 days melt

Here are the expected drifts from AARI

Edited July 11, 2008 by Chris Knight

[Gray-Wolf]

So there is a circulation on the Siberian side of the Bering straights. It is the same as last year with the pack now starting to move behind Bering. It was in this phase last year that all of the ice cleared from the circulation allowing the 'grounded' perennial behind Greenland to lurch north and then drift east before autumn refreeze locked it in again.

By the time it gets to the perennial ice this year it'll have less melting to do as it is all now free of the seabed. I think this will be a more worrying situation than an equal/lower ice extent than last year as this 'perennial ice' is the last major concentration at the pole. We will all see, by Aug, just how 'fleeting' single year ice is so to loose the last of the perennial leaves the prospect of an ice free summer pole that much closer.

[0000]

Your food will thaw every other Tuesday.

but i'm sure there'll be someone with evidence to the contrary.

Ok I'm curious,other than an ice free summer Artic being a sign of a warming climate and a pain for Polar bears what knock on effect will it have on the enviorment and the Northern hemisphere's climate?

Edited July 11, 2008 by hannegan

[bluecon]

Increased CO2 and warmer temperatures are a benefit to mankind.

The whole AGW thing is ridicolous.

And if you left your fridge open it takes more energy to remove the heat so you would actually be warming the Earth as your food spoiled. AGW in a nutshell.

[Gray-Wolf]

Increased CO2 and warmer temperatures are a benefit to mankind.

The whole AGW thing is ridicolous.

???

[Nick L]

Increased CO2 and warmer temperatures are a benefit to mankind.

The whole AGW thing is ridicolous.

And if you left your fridge open it takes more energy to remove the heat so you would actually be warming the Earth as your food spoiled. AGW in a nutshell.

Yup, millions starving, major cities flooded and millions homeless. What a great benefit.

[0000]

Increased CO2 and warmer temperatures are a benefit to mankind.

The whole AGW thing is ridicolous.

And if you left your fridge open it takes more energy to remove the heat so you would actually be warming the Earth as your food spoiled. AGW in a nutshell.

*nips off to close door*

Any luck on my question peops?

[Mondy]

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...a.withtrend.jpg

Please find a fault in the above chart.

More scaremongering within (this thread, and others like it in "warming" bias comments)..*yawn*

Edited July 11, 2008 by Delta X-Ray

[BARRY]

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...a.withtrend.jpg

Please find a fault in the above chart.

More scaremongering within (this thread, and others like it in "warming" bias comments)..*yawn*

don't like colour

[0000]

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...a.withtrend.jpg

Please find a fault in the above chart.

More scaremongering within (this thread, and others like it in "warming" bias comments)..*yawn*

oo squiggly lines

[jethro]

*nips off to close door*

Any luck on my question peops?

I've asked the same question many times but I don't think anyone knows. Logically, as Roger says more open water should lead to more snow; it would appear that historically this is how glaciation has begun. Also, there have been quite a few studies done, which say that lots of ice melt will lead to decreasing salination of the ocean and stop the Thermoline circulation. I should point out, other studies have said the Thermoline circulation is driven by wind and not due to salinity of the ocean.

Like I said, I don't think anyone knows. Do they????

[bluecon]

but i'm sure there'll be someone with evidence to the contrary.

Ok I'm curious,other than an ice free summer Artic being a sign of a warming climate and a pain for Polar bears what knock on effect will it have on the enviorment and the Northern hemisphere's climate?

The ice free summer in the Arctic is a figment of Algores imagination. It is not going to happen so the question is mute.

My neighbour watched the Algore scarefest movie and is certain we are all going to soon die. I told him that the movie is meant to terrify children and adults shoud be smarter than that.

Edited July 12, 2008 by bluecon

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Hanners

There will be many wide reaching changes but you must hold in mind that we will not stop our wicked ways just because the pole melted......in fact it looks like we'll compound our issues with more fossil fuel extraction up there and cross polar shipping over summer (and throughout winter once the Rusky 'super icebreaker' is on line).....so ,unlike previous posts ,the likelihood of any meaningful ice/snow increase are fanciful.

You have to envisage the 'new' polar currents that will evolve once water can set up 12 month, uninterrupted, flows.

You have to imagine that which once was a desert (with all the evaporate able water locked away under ice) becoming a 'new' rainfall source with saturated air masses flooding south to meet with our African/Spanish plumes. Never very good when cold wet bumps into warm wet is it?

Soooo, we get the russian coasts shedding lots of peat (once permafrost) into the seas up there and massive (up to 30% of our methane hydrates are stored in the permafrost in the arctic regions) releases of methane into our warming atmosphere.

We also get the impacts upon the Greenland ice sheet (already taking a hammering as flow rates off the ice sheet attest to) as the ice free north coasts allows warmth to penetrate up to 70 miles inland (as the recent paper on the loss of permafrost showed) and the attendant sea level 'alterations' this involves.

The changes up north will, in all probability, be the thing to break the Antarctic's period of 'splendid isolation' as the hikes in sea level 'float' the remaining ice shelves leading to their fracturing at the coast (like peanut brittle if you try and bend it) and disintegration. This of course will lead to rapid ice loss from the interior of both EAIS and WAIS leading to further sea level hikes.

I'm sure this little 'sketchette' will give you a few ideas as to how much the loss of permanent ice over the arctic will alter things globally.

[Red Raven]

Increased CO2 and warmer temperatures are a benefit to mankind.

The whole AGW thing is ridicolous.

And if you left your fridge open it takes more energy to remove the heat so you would actually be warming the Earth as your food spoiled. AGW in a nutshell.

That's a whole different argument. Whether AGW is happening or not a world with increased C02 and a warmer one has the potential to devastate the planet as we know it. Increased C02 means more acidic oceans, more acidic oceans means less life in them. A warmed world means a change in rainfall patterns, which in turn means areas now providing food may no longer be able to and with such large immovable populations we now have the consequence is unthinkable.

Come on Bluecon present a valid counter argument

[jethro]

Hi Hanners

There will be many wide reaching changes but you must hold in mind that we will not stop our wicked ways just because the pole melted......in fact it looks like we'll compound our issues with more fossil fuel extraction up there and cross polar shipping over summer (and throughout winter once the Rusky 'super icebreaker' is on line).....so ,unlike previous posts ,the likelihood of any meaningful ice/snow increase are fanciful.

You have to envisage the 'new' polar currents that will evolve once water can set up 12 month, uninterrupted, flows.

You have to imagine that which once was a desert (with all the evaporate able water locked away under ice) becoming a 'new' rainfall source with saturated air masses flooding south to meet with our African/Spanish plumes. Never very good when cold wet bumps into warm wet is it?

Soooo, we get the russian coasts shedding lots of peat (once permafrost) into the seas up there and massive (up to 30% of our methane hydrates are stored in the permafrost in the arctic regions) releases of methane into our warming atmosphere.

We also get the impacts upon the Greenland ice sheet (already taking a hammering as flow rates off the ice sheet attest to) as the ice free north coasts allows warmth to penetrate up to 70 miles inland (as the recent paper on the loss of permafrost showed) and the attendant sea level 'alterations' this involves.

The changes up north will, in all probability, be the thing to break the Antarctic's period of 'splendid isolation' as the hikes in sea level 'float' the remaining ice shelves leading to their fracturing at the coast (like peanut brittle if you try and bend it) and disintegration. This of course will lead to rapid ice loss from the interior of both EAIS and WAIS leading to further sea level hikes.

I'm sure this little 'sketchette' will give you a few ideas as to how much the loss of permanent ice over the arctic will alter things globally.

Come on GW, that's a great deal of speculation on your part, where is the data to support this?

[Gray-Wolf]

Come on GW, that's a great deal of speculation on your part, where is the data to support this?

The 'data' has been presented on here (enviro thread) in dribs and drabs since I joined the board!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80709103848.htm

above is an article on the 'soot' put out by shipping which is quite pertinent to the 'cross polar' travel we can expect to see and its impacts on snow/ice cover (by lowering albedo) as more vessels use northern shipping routes.

I have left out any 'personal take' on the further reaching impacts but it doesn't take a mastermind to work out just how far reaching the impacts will be (when based on the current 'understanding' of the mechanisms at play up there).

There are plenty of other impacts I could go on about. How's about the multidecadal Pacific oscillation? will it now flood the polar region through Bering now the 'ice dam' has gone that used to temporarily isolate the polar ocean from the Pacific?

and what of the 'polar circulation' ? will the flow of cold waters past Greenland affect the formation of the summer lows blighting Blighty?

Should we expect, over the months where solar energy is at it's greatest, our own 'monsoon' to develop as the lower levels of the T.M. air masses are 'chilled' by the polar circulation below leading to enhanced precipitation from the condensed out moisture.......kinda like the last few so called 'summers' in fact....... leading to increased flooding and the negative social impacts this brings (insurance, temporary accom, water bourne disease etc.)

'taint pretty, 'taint nice but is it probable?

[Mondy]

Gray Wolf?

Artic ice 2008

ftp://sidads.colorado.edu//DATASETS/NOAA/...200801_extn.png

Arctic Ice 2007

ftp://sidads.colorado.edu//DATASETS/NOAA/...200701_extn.png

Arctic Ice 2006

ftp://sidads.colorado.edu//DATASETS/NOAA/...200601_extn.png

Tell me you see less sea ice now than in 2006 and I'll never post on this forum again!

Edited July 12, 2008 by JACKONE
Reason for edit: Reason for edit: JACKONE : To Remove Personal Comments as per the Code of Conduct

[Gray-Wolf]

Gray Wolf?

Tell me you see less sea ice now than in 2006 and I'll never post on this forum again!

Errm, yes.

I see less ice now than in 2006

By the way your links don't seem to work for me!

I guess they show ice thickness and extent and ,as such, you'll note just how much 'mass' of ice was present back then with building sized masses of multiyear strewn all across the north Greenland sector.

I tell you what, I'll lay out a thin sheet of gold on a table, next to it I'll lay out a thin sheet of gold that is smaller in diameter but full of big chunks of gold.....which is more?

EDIT: Sorry Snowbear you posted along with me! I'm on a course of antibiotics for some bone infection and I do take Dihydrocodeine each day to help me deal with a very mangled body.......as Indiana Jones said..."It's not the age , it's the mileage..."

Edited July 12, 2008 by JACKONE
Reason for edit: Reason for edit: JACKONE : To Remove Personal Comments in Quote above as per the Code of Conduct

[SnowBear]

Delta, I dont think comments like "are you on drugs" are going to get you very far on this forum. GW isnt on drugs I am sure, and before taking a swipe at someone, isnt it best to get the right timescale? Those images are for January? We are in July.

JUNE images for 2006, 2007, and 2008

2006

ftp://sidads.colorado.edu//DATASETS/NOAA/...200606_extn.png

2007

ftp://sidads.colorado.edu//DATASETS/NOAA/...200706_extn.png

2008

ftp://sidads.colorado.edu//DATASETS/NOAA/...200806_extn.png

[SnowBear]

No worries GW, I just cant stand people who have to say someone "are you on drugs" just because someone else's view differs from their own.

Looking at the June images I would actually say in ice extent there isnt a great deal of difference across the 3 years when in view of the big scheme of things. 11.1mill sq miles for 2006, 11.5 in 2007, 11.4 in 2008. A slight increase but nothing earth shattering.

Edited July 12, 2008 by SnowBear