Arctic ice

[Gray-Wolf]

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 isn't 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.

I share the same concerns of many of the larger bodies that monitor the cryosphere. It is not about the ice 'extent' alone but the 'mass' of ice in the arctic. We have ,over the last 2 years, accelerated our loss of perennial ice in an unprecedented way.

Even if some of the 'excess' ice weathers summer it would still be but a poor reflection on the thickness of the old perennial ice which we have lost and would need in excess of 6 years continual build up to start to replace the lost perennial.

I tend to believe we are due a moderate El-Nino over that period so where do we stand then if we get another '98 scale of Nino?

All in all I can't take very seriously any claims that we are 'doing all right this year' ,I find that sadly a quite laughable take on things.

All of those folk may be interested in meeting here on sept 28th to see how 'we' did

[0000]

I share the same concerns of many of the larger bodies that monitor the cryosphere. It is not about the ice 'extent' alone but the 'mass' of ice in the arctic. We have ,over the last 2 years, accelerated our loss of perennial ice in an unprecedented way.

Even if some of the 'excess' ice weathers summer it would still be but a poor reflection on the thickness of the old perennial ice which we have lost and would need in excess of 6 years continual build up to start to replace the lost perennial.

I tend to believe we are due a moderate El-Nino over that period so where do we stand then if we get another '98 scale of Nino?

All in all I can't take very seriously any claims that we are 'doing all right this year' ,I find that sadly a quite laughable take on things.

All of those folk may be interested in meeting here on sept 28th to see how 'we' did

Thanks GW mate(and most) for answering my question,it was an informative and interesting read

[bluecon]

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 or risk all your subsequent posts being ignored.

You have no proof increased CO2 levels are harmful. On the contrary they make plants and the Earth thrive. Greenhouse operators actually pump CO2 into the greenhouses to promote growth. And the oceans release CO2 as they warm. CO2 has no potential to destroy the planet, it is a trace gas and the whole idea is bogus as will be seen as the Earth enters the current cooling phase.

Please provide me the location where the Earth is experiencing such a dry effect. It is raining more than ever here after a huge increase in AGW gasses. AGW gas emmissions have probably doubled in the last ten years ands the Earth is showing a slight cooling. How do you explain that?

[Gray-Wolf]

Now they know what the Polar bears feel like!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7503060.stm

As I've noted before (both here and on Corrinth's thread) there are huge swathes of ice now transparent to the water below (though still shown as solid on extent charts). 2 weeks and a lot of ice will be gone, with or without warm plumes.

[Iceberg]

I think we've agreed on this for along time GW. A little snipet from the story. I've not posted much on this thread recently because I have a good guess about what will happen and it will be apparent to everyone in a very short while.

"Twenty Russian scientists are to be evacuated from their camp on a drifting ice-floe in the Arctic after it started disintegrating sooner than expected.

The Russians had set up research station "North Pole 35" on the floe last September when it measured a safe five kilometres long and three kilometres wide, and their original plan was to stay on it until this September.

But after enduring the permanent night of the Arctic winter and surviving the threat of polar bears, the scientists now find that their temporary home has shrunk to just 600m by 300m and faces complete break-up as it drifts towards a current known to contain relatively warm waters."

[bluecon]

Yet the fact is the ice melt in the Arctic is far behind last year.

As the Earth cools.

Silly stories won't cause the Arctic to melt faster.

Now they know what the Polar bears feel like!

Actually if they were Polar Bears the Europeans would shoot them.

Edited July 12, 2008 by bluecon

[Gray-Wolf]

Yet the fact is the ice melt in the Arctic is far behind last year.

As the Earth cools.

Silly stories won't cause the Arctic to melt faster.

bluecon. 20 scientists do not take it 'lightly' to set up camp on the ice. They will have chosen the most favourable spot for their expedition (checked on ice thickness and floes around it) and seeing as the one they chose was 5km by 3km you'd have tough it a good choice. The fact that they went out prepared to return in September must indicate (even to you) that things are occuring very quickly up there (2 months quicker than they envisaged) and from what I've seen of the ice the rapid thinning is not isolated.

Let me ask you something, when the ice extent crashes over the next 4 weeks and possibly falls below last years levels will you then turn 'warmist' being as you seem to set your 'camp' by lines on maps?

[Red Raven]

You have no proof increased CO2 levels are harmful. On the contrary they make plants and the Earth thrive. Greenhouse operators actually pump CO2 into the greenhouses to promote growth. And the oceans release CO2 as they warm. CO2 has no potential to destroy the planet, it is a trace gas and the whole idea is bogus as will be seen as the Earth enters the current cooling phase.

Please provide me the location where the Earth is experiencing such a dry effect. It is raining more than ever here after a huge increase in AGW gasses. AGW gas emmissions have probably doubled in the last ten years ands the Earth is showing a slight cooling. How do you explain that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=169

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6070400772.html

http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/245

http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/spot_gcc.html

http://www.physorg.com/news134314354.html

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?a...7626&page=0

...and on and on and on.

To argue against the science of AGW is a valid one but to also argue that C02 is harmless in all contexts is not only naive but blatantly wrong - even the ardent anti-AGW scientists do not propose such a view.

[Iceberg]

Latest pic from this morning shows that although ice extent is up the ice for large areas of the arctic is broken, worryingly also very near the north pole. This could well be a melt pool by say 1 weeks time.

[bluecon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=169

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6070400772.html

http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/245

http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/spot_gcc.html

http://www.physorg.com/news134314354.html

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?a...7626&page=0

...and on and on and on.

To argue against the science of AGW is a valid one but to also argue that C02 is harmless in all contexts is not only naive but blatantly wrong - even the ardent anti-AGW scientists do not propose such a view.

Absolutely no proof that a tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is harmful. it makes life flourish.

[J10]

Just a reminder that several posts has fallen foul of the New Code in Conduct with particular regard to personal attacks and as a result these personal comments have been amended, posts of both sides of the argument have been effected.

Please note that these rules continue to apply going forward.

[Nick L]

Absolutely no proof that a tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is harmful. it makes life flourish.

But he just posted several links completely destroying your view point. Sorry but the vast majority of scientists in the world agreeing that excess CO2 is harmful is enough proof for me. Either you are winding us up or totally ignoring the FACT that the negatives of excess CO2 greatly outweigh the benefits. That is your view and I respect that, but I think you need to look at the evidence available and then reconsider your stance on the matter.

And please, I don't want to start a whole big argument over this. Can we just all agree to differ and draw a line under it?

Edited July 12, 2008 by nick2702

[BUSHY]

And please, I don't want to start a whole big argument over this. Can we just all agree to differ and draw a line under it?

Why? this subject needs debating and that is in fact the point of the forum.

In my opinion Bluecon has a point when he says there is no proof because this is substantially true -there is no proof, only theory, hype and opinion presented as such. No one scientist has been able to point to any evidence and say " There is the undeniable fact or facts that settle the matter once and for all". The whole subject is still very much an uncharted sea and much work and research needs to be done before we can even begin to draw an accurate map.

I also question the "majority of scientists believe" that keeps popping up. Do they really?

[Iceberg]

In your opinion...However this thread is not to go through the entire Science behind AGW, But to discuss the Arctic Ice situation.

[Nick L]

Why? this subject needs debating and that is in fact the point of the forum.

In my opinion Bluecon has a point when he says there is no proof because this is substantially true -there is no proof, only theory, hype and opinion presented as such. No one scientist has been able to point to any evidence and say " There is the undeniable fact or facts that settle the matter once and for all". The whole subject is still very much an uncharted sea and much work and research needs to be done before we can even begin to draw an accurate map.

I also question the "majority of scientists believe" that keeps popping up. Do they really?

Because we have already seen that it is starting to get out of hand. General debate that's fine, but I don't want to start a slanging match. Pretty much the whole of science is based on theory, we don't "know" anything. We have to do with very strong theories.

[Iceberg]

Owwww, new look graphics on MR Chapmans site. I am awaiting to hear whether they are high resolution.

Anyway both sites now show rapid melting continuing including the breakup of once was solid ice on the Russian side.

[Mondy]

Owwww, new look graphics on MR Chapmans site. I am awaiting to hear whether they are high resolution.

Anyway both sites now show rapid melting continuing including the breakup of once was solid ice on the Russian side.

Is that so?

Nobody has commented on this yet: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...a.withtrend.jpg

And just for good measure, 2008 looks pretty decent compared to 2007:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/20072008arctic.jpg

I honestly like to see fair arguments from both sides, but when reading stuff like "rapid melting" when it's actually not, it kinda gets on my goat.

Play fair Warmaholics

PS, have a read - fair point raised in the quote below

How can anyone make a claim with a straight face that ice conditions in the Arctic are either historically low or grim when we've only been monitoring these levels for the last 35 years?

Edited July 13, 2008 by Delta X-Ray

[Iceberg]

Please please please look up extent, area, cover do some reading and come back when you've grown up and would like to stop the wind up.

Cheers

[doctormog]

Owwww, new look graphics on MR Chapmans site. I am awaiting to hear whether they are high resolution.

Anyway both sites now show rapid melting continuing including the breakup of once was solid ice on the Russian side.

Are you suggesting that this is anything but the norm for mid-summer? As far as I'm aware the ice pack fractures and cracks with the movement and polar-day melting each summer?

Compare it with previous year's imagery and get back to me. The other year on year comparisons paint a favourable picture compared with last year. Can you show me (with links please) an overview of the current situation compared with the same date last year for the entire region that shows a "less favourable picture" (compared with last year). There's little point in saying the ice is breaking up if that in itself is not overly remarkable. Perhaps it is but I'm not so sure.

[Iceberg]

Yes it is very remarkable. The ice as seen from the highest res we have access to taken from the Bremen site.

This year bares no resemblence to any year apart from 07. And even when compared to last year, Yes Ice extent is down we know that, but alot of the ice that's left is broken slush. More so around the North Pole than last year. When you consider that we have had no warm plumes unlike last year, ice did very well last winter and radiation warming has been less this is remarkable. Until last year the core arctic maintained it's ice pretty much without it turning to slush.

Sorry Mr Doctormog, this thread has explained this before and this has certainly been explained more than a few times, but I know you've not been around awhile.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'd tend to believe what the folk who have lived ,generation after generation, in the polar regions have to say about what they are experiencing.

They (both Russian and American/Canadian aboriginals) tend to disagree with some of the 'notions' and 'directions' some folk prefer to take on the board 'cause all I hear from these aboriginal folk is how fugged things are and how they (in their folk history) have no comparable 'time' to fall back on and 'glean' the necessary 'new' survival skills that would help them to continue to live there. Are they all in the pay of Al Gore or the bankroll of their respective govt.s or is the collapse of their way of life 'real'?

You sit here full of your "oh it ain't happening" , "oh it's all happened before" whilst real live people,cultures and ecosystems (far removed from you and your experience) are suffering and then have the gal to tell us it isn't 'novel', it happens all the time?????

Don't give me the " we've only been taking meaningful measurements for the past ......years " line either. Folk have lived out there for millenia, their life depended upon knowing their environment and it's workings, now all this is changing and you sit their in your developed world chair and tell them they are wrong, they don't understand?????

If you don't believe the science listen to the locals I say.

Summat strange going on eh?

Edited July 13, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[0000]

I'd tend to believe what the folk who have lived ,generation after generation, in the polar regions have to say about what they are experiencing.

They (both Russian and American/Canadian aboriginals) tend to disagree with some of the 'notions' and 'directions' some folk prefer to take on the board 'cause all I hear from these aboriginal folk is who fugged things are and how they (in their folk history) have no comparable 'time' to fall back on and 'glean' the necessary 'new' survival skills that would help them to continue to live there. Are they all in the pay of Al Gore or the bankroll of their respective govt.s or is the collapse of their way of life 'real'?

You sit here full of your "oh it ain't happening" , "oh it's all happened before" whilst real live people,cultures and ecosystems (far removed from you and your experience) are suffering and then have the gal to tell us it isn't 'novel', it happens all the time?????

Don't give me the " we've only been taking meaningful measurements for the past ......years " line either. Folk have lived out there for millenia, their life depended upon knowing their environment and it's workings, now all this is changing and you sit their in your developed world chair and tell them they are wrong, they don't understand?????

If you don't believe the science listen to the locals I say.

Summat strange going on eh?

That's a valid point GW you see programme after programme where the inhabitants of Alaska ect say the generations before them would not recognise their world now.I suppose there could be a bit of the old 'things these days aren't what they used to be' as I immagine you get in any culture but as you say when it becomes necessary to learn new lifestyle skills somethings happening....and fast! What that something is remains to be seen as in a relatively short timescale the inhabitants of Greenland experienced the exact opposite crisis only a millenia ago

[Gray-Wolf]

That's a valid point GW you see programme after programme where the inhabitants of Alaska ect say the generations before them would not recognise their world now.I suppose there could be a bit of the old 'things these days aren't what they used to be' as I immagine you get in any culture but as you say when it becomes necessary to learn new lifestyle skills somethings happening....and fast! What that something is remains to be seen as in a relatively short timescale the inhabitants of Greenland experienced the exact opposite crisis only a millenia ago

Only the 'grockles' got caught out in Greenland. The 'locals' knew just how to cope with their environment and it's 'fickle' nature ( the reports of blue eyed Inuits on the NW tip of Greenland may add weight to the tales of 'rescue' of the struggling Norsemen into the new culture).

Folk who are still strongly centred on oral traditions are far better at remembering 'complex' information than us who rely on other media to store info. Even in our own recent past, with Bards/Druids able to memorise tales/sagas 4 days in the telling, we can see just how much we can commit to memory when it is all we have to 'save' things in.

[0000]

Only the 'grockles' got caught out in Greenland. The 'locals' knew just how to cope with their environment and it's 'fickle' nature ( the reports of blue eyed Inuits on the NW tip of Greenland may add weight to the tales of 'rescue' of the struggling Norsemen into the new culture).

Folk who are still strongly centred on oral traditions are far better at remembering 'complex' information than us who rely on other media to store info. Even in our own recent past, with Bards/Druids able to memorise tales/sagas 4 days in the telling, we can see just how much we can commit to memory when it is all we have to 'save' things in.

Gw is it not possible that cultures that have developed at the periphory of natures extremes the Artic or desert regions have not just ebbed and flowed with natures tides of climate?If that were the case these changes in location would possibly be even beyond humanities ability to pass on through the eons.Therefore could it not be possible as the ice melts artifacts could be found far further North than now immagined and ice melt is infact a norm? Just a possibility

[doctormog]

Yes it is very remarkable. The ice as seen from the highest res we have access to taken from the Bremen site.

This year bares no resemblence to any year apart from 07. And even when compared to last year, Yes Ice extent is down we know that, but alot of the ice that's left is broken slush. More so around the North Pole than last year. When you consider that we have had no warm plumes unlike last year, ice did very well last winter and radiation warming has been less this is remarkable. Until last year the core arctic maintained it's ice pretty much without it turning to slush.

Sorry Mr Doctormog, this thread has explained this before and this has certainly been explained more than a few times, but I know you've not been around awhile.

Thanks for those images, as I suggested they show the significantly greater ice levels this year compared with last (albeit a good deal less than the long term average).

GW My sister-in-law grew up in the high Arctic and I'm perfectly well aware of the situation in the area. Apologies if your comments weren't directed at me.

I guess I'll just leave this thread alone as there are too many agendas and too many "wills" regarding possibilities to the future developments. As a scientist I find it frustrating, guestimates stated as fact just come across as arrogance I'm afraid and a few "mays" or "coulds" wouldn't go amiss.

Time will tell, as will the evidence - right now it says there's more ice, fractured or otherwise than last year - if it melts it melts but until it does it hasn't and is still there. I can't see into the future but the temperature outlook for the high Arctic is nothing like it was last year's unusual synoptic induced heat.