Arctic ice

[Iceberg]

We will have to agree to disagree Doctormog, firstly I don't believe that ice extent levels are significantly above last year, above yes but not significantly. I've never argued that they are below.

"Anyway both sites now show rapid melting continuing including the breakup of once was solid ice on the Russian side". WRT agendas and not posting on here again. I am not sure where the above fits in. There is rapid melt of the ice, particularly the ice that melted last year, which was a couple of weeks ago holding fast but is now distintergrating at a rate of knots. There are no guestimates.

BTW you kept saying that the current situation is norm for the summer. I think I've shown that it's nothing of the sort. This is very worrying when as you state synoptics are nothing like last year.

Please continue to post on here, but I will keep showing what is and what I believe to be happening.

[doctormog]

We will have to agree to disagree Doctormog, firstly I don't believe that ice extent levels are significantly above last year, above yes but not significantly. I've never argued that they are below.

"Anyway both sites now show rapid melting continuing including the breakup of once was solid ice on the Russian side". WRT agendas and not posting on here again. I am not sure where the above fits in. There is rapid melt of the ice, particularly the ice that melted last year, which was a couple of weeks ago holding fast but is now distintergrating at a rate of knots. There are no guestimates.

BTW you kept saying that the current situation is norm for the summer. I think I've shown that it's nothing of the sort. This is very worrying when as you state synoptics are nothing like last year.

Please continue to post on here, but I will keep showing what is and what I believe to be happening.

Just to clarify, my agenda comment was not directed at you, apart from the fact you had the courtesy to post those comparison links which was appreciated

The ice at the Russia side usually breaks up to some extent in an average year, but I agree the Canada/Alaskan side shows much more extensive melting than the norm. I haven't actually stated this summer is "normal" in terms of Arctic ice simply a bit more normal than last year. Re. The significantly bigger levels, I'm talking statistically rather than climatically and the situation could indeed change in coming weeks, I just think that if it was going to exceed last year's melt i.e. continue the trend of ever increasing absolute minimum then the current levels, fractured or otherwise would be lower. As I say time will tell.

The bottom line is that disintegration or not the following is the current picture and it may be craking but the rate of melt is not accelerating, this isn't my opinion by comments are observations based on all available data:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/..._timeseries.png

Maybe the acceleration will start soon? However the real damage was done at the end of June/Jul - look at the rate of change. If the sme thing had happened this year we'd have been in exceptionally dire straits for the reasons you and GW mention in this thread. The fact is because it didn't there is a certain element of "protection" which wasn't the case last year.

Just to put things in more concrete terms I now do not believe that last year's minimum will be exceeded this year (i.e. the absolute min extent will be higher)? What do you think?

[Gray-Wolf]

As you can see from this mornings image the central section of the NW Passage, deep channel, has ruptured and is in collapse. The two ends have been calving of floes since May and the route from the Alaskan end to Bering is now clear water as is the approach up the west coast of Greenland.

Canadian coast guards had it 'open' by the second week in Aug.......will it be early?

EDIT: Thanks to MODIS Terra for the image!

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.

As we know last year a fair proportion of perennial ice was lost. Due to their mass (compared to there surface 'plot') they take a while to melt and so the last 1/3 of the melt rate was modified by this task.

This year that multiyear ice does not exist and most of the melt to come is the thin skin of slush now left. As such I imagine the line on the 'graph' of ice extent to appear markedly different this year compared to last as we enter the 'rapid ice loss' phase of the summer melt.

There are going to be some sheepish folk no longer posting on this thread when we see the nose dive take place, I mean ,if folk can't constantly be posting that ice extent is exceeding last years then what will they post?

Edited July 14, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[doctormog]

There are going to be some sheepish folk no longer posting on this thread when we see the nose dive take place, I mean ,if folk can't constantly be posting that ice extent is exceeding last years then what will they post?

I mentioned the anomalous melting off NW Canada in my earlier posts. As for what I'll be posting later in the season, the same type of thing as I do currently, the discussion of the current situation. I've highlighted the two words in your above post which discredit the otherwise worthwhile content. No-one knows what will happen for certain. No-one.

[Gray-Wolf]

I mentioned the anomalous melting off NW Canada in my earlier posts. As for what I'll be posting later in the season, the same type of thing as I do currently, the discussion of the current situation. I've highlighted the two words in your above post which discredit the otherwise worthwhile content. No-one knows what will happen for certain. No-one.

Micheal, no one knows that the sun will rise tommorow but I'd bet my bottom dollar on it doing just that.

Even with the 'differing' weather patterns as compared to last year if you look at the SST's across the region ,and up to the ice sheet edge, you'll see them all camped around +3c above normal.

I do not see those anomalies halting at the ice edge and not continueing under the remaining slush and though the 'slush' is still counted on the "above 15% ice cover" plots they will disappear remarkably quickly (starting over the next 2 weeks) and the graph 'will' nose dive.

You can congratulate me after the event for being such an excellant 'scryer' .

In life we must make generalisations of things we cannot 'know' (like the sun rising) just to continue .Otherwise we'd be bogged down in needless twaddle just to keep 'accurate in our language. Pedantry gone mad I like to call it.

Though nobody 'knows for sure' are you really saying that more ice won't melt or that the slush that was the single year pack won't just 'vapourise over the next fortnight? if so ,for why?

[doctormog]

Pedantry gone mad I like to call it.

Though nobody 'knows for sure' are you really saying that more ice won't melt or that the slush that was the single year pack won't just 'vapourise over the next fortnight? if so ,for why?

I'm not being a pedant just questioning your certainty about what, even in the most knowledgable circles, is an uncertain area as far as forecasting is concerned.

Will more ice melt? I'd be amazed if it didn't - it's still polar day up there and allowing for latent heat etc. it would be almost unprecented for a good deal more ice not to melt. The season will almost without doubt end up with a smaller ice extent than the 30 year climatic mean.

Will the ice just vapurise (sublime?) over the next fortnight, not in the way you suggest I would say as the temperatures in the whole region are not anomalously high. Yes the melt will continue but if asked directly for my guess as opposed to your guess I'd say there will be a continuing steady melt, most notably in the Canadian Arctic and extremes of the NW passage. Further east the Siberian region looks comparatively healthy and I wouldn't expect it to "vapourise" - not pedantry just opinion.

If things comes off exactly as you forecast I'll be happy to congratulate you but I'll wait for a couple of weeks if that's OK.

Do you think the ice extent in 2 weeks will be less that it was at the end of July last year? And what data set will you use CT or NSIDC? Just call it a challenge.

[Gray-Wolf]

Do you think the ice extent in 2 weeks will be less that it was at the end of July last year? And what data set will you use CT or NSIDC? Just call it a challenge.

Seeing as CT use NSIDC data to compile (via student input) their plots (which we know can be far from 'perfect' ) I use NSIDC data.

By 2 weeks from now I expect to see the 'ice extent' graph with a steep line decline in ice area. I do not know whether this will be in advance or the same (or less?) than the same point last year as everything is different to last year (and ,as we know, you need compare 'like' for 'like' to make meaningful comparisons) in both the predominent weather types over the pole and the demographic of single year v's perennial ice cover.

What I do know, and is agreed upon by all the leading authorities, is that single year ice melts faster than perennial ice and seeing that the percentage of single year is up on last year you'd expect mid to late season melt rates to reflect this.

[Mondy]

I guess this could go in both Arctic and Antarctic threads.

Once upon a time, many many years ago, the ice-age occured. Then it all melted, infact to be precise, 40 million cubic kilometers of ice melted. Wow! That meant sea levels rose 125m, with 3% less salt in the water. Coral reefs survived, and the natural life continued.

Now, between you and me, people on here are scaremongering about miniscule areas of ice melting and raising sea levels by a centimetre or so!

The reason why the Arctic ice is melting now is because it's summer in the northen hemisphere. Similarly, it's winter in the southern hemisphere, and it's easy to see down there the ice is thickening quickly.

Why do people have to be so negative about natural climatic cycles?

Edited July 14, 2008 by Delta X-Ray

[Mondy]

As you can see from this mornings image the central section of the NW Passage, deep channel, has ruptured and is in collapse. The two ends have been calving of floes since May and the route from the Alaskan end to Bering is now clear water as is the approach up the west coast of Greenland.

Canadian coast guards had it 'open' by the second week in Aug.......will it be early?

EDIT: Thanks to MODIS Terra for the image!

As we know last year a fair proportion of perennial ice was lost. Due to their mass (compared to there surface 'plot') they take a while to melt and so the last 1/3 of the melt rate was modified by this task.

This year that multiyear ice does not exist and most of the melt to come is the thin skin of slush now left. As such I imagine the line on the 'graph' of ice extent to appear markedly different this year compared to last as we enter the 'rapid ice loss' phase of the summer melt.

There are going to be some sheepish folk no longer posting on this thread when we see the nose dive take place, I mean ,if folk can't constantly be posting that ice extent is exceeding last years then what will they post?

Have you ever thought that under water earthquakes cause the breakup and not melting? One very quick look at this or this will show tremors and aftershcks easily identifiable with the areas you are so "worried" about. The NW passage is breaking up because the Ring of the Fire goes right through it! With every jolt in the ocean something has to give - just so happens the NW passage is a good location to witness a break up of ice due to the tremors.

Similarly, there was a report recently of a great chunk breaking off somewhere in Antartica. In a rush to frighten the world, scientists hastily arranged a media release declaring this was bad news for the globe. What they forgt to mention was a 5.5 (Richter) earthquake took place in this region the very day the chunk fell off! You couldn't make it up!

Edited July 14, 2008 by Delta X-Ray

[stewfox]

I guess this could go in both Arctic and Antarctic threads.

Once upon a time, many many years ago, the ice-age occured. Then it all melted, infact to be precise, 40 million cubic kilometers of ice melted. Wow! That meant sea levels rose 125m, with 3% less salt in the water. Coral reefs survived, and the natural life continued.

Now, between you and me, people on here are scaremongering about miniscule areas of ice melting and raising sea levels by a centimetre or so!

The reason why the Arctic ice is melting now is because it's summer in the northen hemisphere. Similarly, it's winter in the southern hemisphere, and it's easy to see down there the ice is thickening quickly.

Why do people have to be so negative about natural climatic cycles?

What month (30 year average) is the max melt for the Artic , July or August ?

I feel Im watching a tennis match with arguments going back and forward and its 1-1 set all and 4-2 in the third set but I dont know if its a five setter

[Gray-Wolf]

I guess this could go in both Arctic and Antarctic threads.

Once upon a time, many many years ago, the ice-age occurred. Then it all melted, infact to be precise, 40 million cubic kilometres of ice melted. Wow! That meant sea levels rose 125m, with 3% less salt in the water. Coral reefs survived, and the natural life continued.

Now, between you and me, people on here are scaremongering about minuscule areas of ice melting and raising sea levels by a centimetre or so!

The reason why the Arctic ice is melting now is because it's summer in the northern hemisphere. Similarly, it's winter in the southern hemisphere, and it's easy to see down there the ice is thickening quickly.

Why do people have to be so negative about natural climatic cycles?

The end of the last ice age led to the displacement of the people living in those areas affected. The 'Beaker' culture which spread into NW Europe are a reflection of this and so are the 'flood' mythologies abounding in many cultures.......and of course their were a lot less folk then and the notion of capital cities being sited on the lowest bridging point wasn't even conceived.

I'm not sure you are familiar with our 'Square Mile' but this area does seem to have a global impact in it's workings. Were it not for the Thames barrage this 'computer driven' area of the world economy would have been 'disrupted' at least by past storms/high tidal surges. The barrage is reckoned to be overtopped within the next 15yrs if the current rates of change continue.

How many other areas of our 'developed world' exist within these capitol cities and face the same problems (and we're not talking New O. here....LOL)

A 1cm rise in sea level makes redundant 1m of coast (due to the variability in storm surges/spring tides etc) so these 'piffling amounts' in a flat calm ocean may not seem much but when you remember the dynamics of the planet we live on you'll see it does (lest we forget....sea level has started accelerating in it's increases over the past 30 yrs and appears to be continuing in it's rapid change in rate).

Sooooo, now we live on a planet where over 2/3 of the people live around sea level and many areas of the productive land available also sits at, or around sea level.

To the planet this may not mean much. To the people it matters a lot (Esp. if you live in Asia/India or the southern Pacific island chains).

If we are (as appears to me) at or beyond the first of the tipping points then ,as current research shows, we can expect dramatic sea level changes over the space of a couple of years, far to fast to 'adapt' our modern world to.

How do you move all the oil terminals, that offload the supertankers and refine the oil, 'up' 2m or back 20m? or hadn't you thought of that??? the Gulf states seem to have enough issues when a 'cane approaches never mind having to deal with sea level hikes.

And the Arctic oil pipeline? with the permafrost in a state of constant melt this too seems to have issues (esp. passing the stringent 'tests' of the environment agency) or do the yanks not use gas any more?

By the way isn't one side of one of you're islands close to slipping into the sea? Doesn't the increase in storm surge make it more likely for the side of the island to fail and slip into the sea? Just a thought

Edited July 14, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[Iceberg]

Recently it's been September. So definately a 5 set match.!

[stewfox]

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!

The links related to Jan 2006, 2007 and 2008 and sea ice extension and yes I too see less sea ice now July 2008 then any of those ??

[Osbourne One-Nil]

You couldn't make it up!

Oh, I don't know...

[doctormog]

The links related to Jan 2006, 2007 and 2008 and sea ice extension and yes I too see less sea ice now July 2008 then any of those ??

LOL I had to read that twice before I realised what you were saying!

[Roger J Smith]

I tend to accept the general idea that arctic ice cover has decreased since 1980, and I think that some of the statements on here and elsewhere that imply a lack of data from before satellite coverage are somewhat misleading. There were enough observations from explorers, arctic residents and military bases, navigation in some cases, to give us a fairly accurate idea of how extensive arctic ice was even in the 19th century (ask Franklin, he found out the hard way, if his expedition had gone up there in 2007 he would be back in London today).

As longer-term posters on NW realize, I am not in the AGW or "warmist" camp but I certainly believe in natural variability and what we've seen in recent decades is a swing towards less ice in the northern hemisphere, and more ice in the southern hemisphere.

I've posted elsewhere that open water in the arctic is no guarantee of warming types of climate change over large regions of the northern hemisphere. The open water anomaly in late 2007 was quite extensive and appeared to have an almost immediate negative feedback on temperature through snow cover anomalies. I've been watching the ice extent this year quite carefully and without going to any extremes it looks to me as though we will probably see another large ice-free anomaly by September. Whether it matches last year (when the open water reached 84 N north of Siberia) is doubtful, but it could be the second largest anomaly in recent years.

Now, living in Canada and following our politics and history quite carefully, I feel qualified to comment on this complicated question of what aboriginal (Innuit) northern Canadians say about climate change. I tend to believe those in the western arctic who say that ice cover is of shorter duration and that it recedes further from the coasts (of Banks Island and the mainland) earlier in recent decades. Sometimes they embellish with statements that can be disproven, such as "it never used to rain here in November or April" as I read once, climate records show that these unusual events happened in much earlier decades on occasion. So like all of us, they tend to blur extremes in memory but have a pretty good handle on general trends, as I am sure no one would start picking holes in statements of older U.K. residents saying that winters aren't what they used to be -- the statistics bear this out.

There can be a tendency too for native people, when questioned, to give responses that they think will create an economic response. I heard a rather ironic story, that native hunting guides in the western arctic are now seeing a sharp downturn in business, not because the animals have disappeared, but because hunters are not coming north after hearing the stories about endangered species and vanishing wildlife. So what comes around goes around. My hunch all along is that polar bears will find new ways to stay healthy if they have to adapt, and perhaps their diet in the future will be primarily news reporters.

As to what happened in Greenland in the first century of the LIA, the main relevance of that episode is that we should be aware that these warmer epochs can change through natural variation to much colder regimes. Although the current arctic climate is on the milder side of the long-term averages, there is a strong suggestion in the research that at some point around 1000 AD the arctic region was even milder than today, and perhaps had less sea ice. The climate of the post-glacial climatic optimum (3000 to 5000 yrs ago) was definitely milder than today, but this is predicted by the Milankovitch cycles and does not disprove the AGW hypothesis so much as qualify it.

Sea levels higher than modern times were only recorded in the postglacial between the last "ice age" or glacial (the Wiscosin or Wurm) and the one before it, so around 120,000 years ago. We have not seen higher sea levels in this post-glacial, because in that warmer climate in early historic times there was still more land ice left over from the glacial. Baffin Island, for example, is still rebounding from its recent ice load that has apparently melted by about 50% since those times.

So in other words, this argument is not very clearly defined, even if it warms up and ice disappears, this is no guarantee of warming events elsewhere. The two hemispheres are not entirely similar in the ways that polar ice interacts with climate, with a stronger zonal flow in the south, it is more intuitive that less ice means warmer climates at lower latitudes. Less ice in the northern hemisphere probably means milder winters in western Europe but as to other mechanisms, these are more complex and as we saw in winter 2007-08, feedback can be swift, if there were a few years in a row like that, some sort of imbalance could develop and swing climate regimes into a new pattern entirely. I have also a strong concern that the weakening and westward-drifting North Magnetic Pole could shift the climate balance in the arctic towards less pack ice for a while, then perhaps shift the ice centre to the north of Siberia later on if the trend continued for 20-30 years.

[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.

Just heard back from Bill and as expected his site now uses the high resolution AMSR-E. A big big improvement.

[Mondy]

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

Not so.

July 2

July 12

I don't see where the rapid melting is taking place.

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks again Delta!

The july 2nd image shows the NW passage Deep channel and my MODIS image from yesterday morning show just how much ice, including the rapid disintegration of the cental section, has been lost over the 2 weeks.

I've not yet had a chance to check out todays images (school run) but will do so especially the 'disputed eastern sectors' as ,from what I recall, it is mostly mush out there now. :lol:

Edited July 15, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[Mondy]

A little bit down this page, you have a wonderful section named "Ice Sheets" - makes for good reading and blows all the melting, mass hysteria etc out the window.

[Michael Winston]

There can be a tendency too for native people, when questioned, to give responses that they think will create an economic response.

A good point. It has been alleged, by Meades amongst others, that when Ralph Vaughn Williams was collecting folk-songs in Sussex and Norfolk at the beginning of the last century, word got around that he would buy the singers a drink or two. Hence, there were many inventive singers of non-existant songs all too willing to add to Williams' collection!

Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear, as my dad used to say. :lol:

Regards,

Mike.

[Gray-Wolf]

Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear, as my dad used to say. :lol:

Regards,

Mike.

Well that bodes well for further education then :lol:

[Mondy]

It's interesting to compare sea ice coverage from yesterday to that of 15 years ago (same day): http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/p...=14&sy=2008

And then I read this: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...be-f48c0dc90304

They returned with images and data showing that red-hot magma has been rising from deep inside the earth and blown the tops off dozens of submarine volcanoes, four kilometres below the ice. "Jets or fountains of material were probably blasted one, maybe even two, kilometres up into the water," says geophysicist Robert Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, who led the expedition.

So is it conceivable that underwater volcanoes are the cause of ice melt? Or is this too sensible a thought?

Of course some would say the undersea volcanoes are to do with Global Warming!

Edited July 15, 2008 by Delta X-Ray

[picog]

It's interesting to compare sea ice coverage from yesterday to that of 15 years ago (same day): http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/p...=14&sy=2008

And then I read this: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...be-f48c0dc90304

So is it conceivable that underwater volcanoes are the cause of ice melt? Or is this too sensible a thought?

Of course some would say the undersea volcanoes are to do with Global Warming!

The ice cover 15 years ago looks less robust in many areas although it's extent appears greater. I was surprised to see that much of the ice today is so close to proper pack ice compared with 15 years ago — particularly the ice to the north of Greenland.

[bluecon]

Below freezing in Alert again today

http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/city/pages/...2_metric_e.html

Grise Ford below normal temps.

http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/city/pages/...2_metric_e.html

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

http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/jet_stream/index_e.html

These cold temps if they continue are going to drop the melt farther behind last year each day.

Doesn't look like last years low level of ice will be matched without some freak hot weather arriving soon. July is the warmest month in the Arctic and it is half over.

Edited July 15, 2008 by bluecon