Arctic ice

[Roger J Smith]

Well the stress zone on the ice pack is probably north of Point Barrow AK to around Wrangel Island in northeast Siberia. This is where last year's large anomaly developed in mid-August through the Bering. Ice melt seems to be fairly well advanced in the southern Beaufort Sea although perhaps nothing totally unprecedented. The real wild card is how thick the actual ice to the west of the melt zone happens to be after just nine months of re-freeze, as well as the weather pattern that develops. You can have a positive anomaly over the Bering region and a negative over Ellesmere Island so I don't personally think that conditions there will be a crucial factor in the outcome. Also, while July is the warmest month over most land areas of the arctic, August is the warmest month over the Beaufort due to seasonal lag. The maximum extent of ice melt is usually seen in September of any given ice year, last year it was more like October because a very large positive anomaly persisted near Wrangel Island. Also note, I'm not approaching this from any sort of "hope" outcome, in part because of the possible non-linearity of feedback, if you like the idea of colder weather to come, then you might actually want to cheer on the ice melt. Forecasting in this area is admittedly difficult, and I don't have much experience with it either (in terms of large anomalous meltdowns, nobody does).

The concept of underwater volcanoes having a role in ice melt is not farfatched, but if there is some sort of repeating annual pattern of ice melt then one would have to postulate annual eruptions of these volcanoes in some sort of organized pattern. I think that what I've seen so far this season correlates to weather patterns without raising a need for any further explanations.

Edited July 15, 2008 by Roger J Smith

[bluecon]

The edit button is not there so my question is, what affect is there from the open water in the Alaska area? Will this result in greater snowfall over the Arctic ice? I noticed the Canadian weather is showing snowing in the Arctic most days.

Edited July 15, 2008 by bluecon

[Nick L]

The edit button is not there so my question is, what affect is there from the open water in the Alaska area? Will this result in greater snowfall over the Arctic ice? I noticed the Canadian weather is showing snowing in the Arctic most days.

I thought open water was darker so it absorbed more sunlight making it warmer than ice, therefore exacerbating the melting problem. But I am by no means an expert on this!

[bluecon]

I thought open water was darker so it absorbed more sunlight making it warmer than ice, therefore exacerbating the melting problem. But I am by no means an expert on this!

The rare year that the major Great Lakes freeze over, the snowfall is very reduced on the downwind side which we call the snow belt. That is why Buffalo gets socked so heavily with snow when Lake Erie doesn't freeze. I was wondering if there was a similar effect in the Arctic. Maybe Roger knows.

Edited July 15, 2008 by bluecon

[Roger J Smith]

Snowfall can occur in the high arctic in summer and autumn from the usual dynamic processes in the atmosphere.

When there is open water like last autumn, there can be additional snowfall from processes similar to lake effect. This was a noticeable feature of the weather in November and one of the reasons why the winter became so severe in central North America and later on eastern regions at least in terms of the heavy snowfall observed across Quebec and New Brunswick.

However, open water at this time of year would be likely to shift any marginal precip in the western arctic or north shore Alaska to rain because in that climate zone any snowfall is usually already melting at temperatures near 0 C. This again is similar to lake effect in early autumn.

These processes can be over-hyped too, if the circulation pattern over the open water anomaly is not suitable, then this additional snowfall potential might be missed, just like in a mild winter in the Great Lakes region or other types of weather that don't generate lake-effect (sea-effect in this case).

[Nick L]

The rare year that the major Great Lakes freeze over, the snowfall is very reduced on the downwind side which we call the snow belt. That is why Buffalo gets socked so heavily with snow when Lake Erie doesn't freeze. I was wondering if there was a similar effect in the Arctic. Maybe Roger knows.

Yeah I see where you are coming from. It probably would increase snowfall in the Arctic, but at the same time it could increase melting.

[bluecon]

Yeah I see where you are coming from. It probably would increase snowfall in the Arctic, but at the same time it could increase melting.

It takes a lot of energy to melt snow and the white surface can really slow melting.

[bluecon]

Snowfall can occur in the high arctic in summer and autumn from the usual dynamic processes in the atmosphere.

When there is open water like last autumn, there can be additional snowfall from processes similar to lake effect. This was a noticeable feature of the weather in November and one of the reasons why the winter became so severe in central North America and later on eastern regions at least in terms of the heavy snowfall observed across Quebec and New Brunswick.

However, open water at this time of year would be likely to shift any marginal precip in the western arctic or north shore Alaska to rain because in that climate zone any snowfall is usually already melting at temperatures near 0 C. This again is similar to lake effect in early autumn.

These processes can be over-hyped too, if the circulation pattern over the open water anomaly is not suitable, then this additional snowfall potential might be missed, just like in a mild winter in the Great Lakes region or other types of weather that don't generate lake-effect (sea-effect in this case).

Old Henry Larsen who spent so many years in the Arctic in the 30's and 40's said the wind has a greater effect then the Sun on the melt. It is very complicated like you say and not well understood even by an expert such as yourself. Keep up the great post's.

[Gray-Wolf]

Albedo of snow =80%+ Absorption of dark water around 80%

The biggest 'Chinook' out there at the moment is warm water and this is not as responsive to meteorological changes. At the moment there is also plenty of 'dark ice' around it being so thin as to be transparent and this is equally distributed around all the sectors.

As the evacuated Russian scientist found out the ice is acting in an 'unforeseeable' way in that it is melting at rates that were not expect. The final straw for the Russian team was that their floe was approaching warm currents so obviously other sections of ice are faring as poorly especially when their feet get into warm currents. As the 'press' of broken floes/slush eases then more rapid ice movement will start to occur with the Russian sector rotating around the 'locked in?' low pressure and the Canadian/Alaskan sector rotating as it did last year (and years previous). both these 'flows' will present the ice to the warm waters behind the Bering Straights.

We must concede that to have two years running of such high ablation is truely a novel event and does not bode well for future summers.

By October it will be interesting to see how much Perennial ice we still have in the arctic.

[Mondy]

By October it will be interesting to see how much Perennial ice we still have in the arctic.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

[trevw]

interesting times.. I am not yet convinced it is 'impossible' for us to equal or beat last years record losses however to do so the melt rate would obviously either have to accelerate to an unprecidented level or continue to a later date than ever before..

From what I can tell the reduced ice thickness means that a radical end to the season is 'possible' but whether it makes it 'likely' or not is I have to admit beyond me and will presumeably depend on weather and sea currents/temps?

Am finding it almost as interesting to speculate and read the opinion of others on here on this subject as I do during the annual mania surrounding prediction of snow (although it is obviously a far more serious subject)

(It seems to me that over the last few days CTs graph has started to catch up on last year a bit - no similar indication on the nsidc but then they use a 5 day running mean so it wouldn't necessarily show up as quickly)

Trev

[doctormog]

(It seems to me that over the last few days CTs graph has started to catch up on last year a bit - no similar indication on the nsidc but then they use a 5 day running mean so it wouldn't necessarily show up as quickly)

Trev

As is often the case with CT the blip in the Arctic Basin cover over the last couple of days looks like an artifact. It may be best to treat it with a pinch of salt (not literally as that would melt it ) and see what happens in this region in the next few days:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...m.region.1.html

[Gray-Wolf]

As is often the case with CT the blip in the Arctic Basin cover over the last couple of days looks like an artifact. It may be best to treat it with a pinch of salt (not literally as that would melt it ) and see what happens in this region in the next few days:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...m.region.1.html

Though we all know CT have their 'moments' the type of final 'drop off', when similar thickness single year ice melts to open water on mass, could be as steep as that.

We all have to remember that there is a large percentage of the ice that was poorly developed single year ice. Even the feb/march cold snap only extended ice extents but did not appear to add much to thicknesses. You have to imagine the final days of melt before open water may well be co-ordinated (as the amount od 'dark ice' testifies to) and appear to all happen at once. These are the two weeks when large tracts of ice will disappear from both the Russian sector and the arctic basin (by the 'look' of the ice there )and the 'extent' graphs can be a few days out of date.

Maybe I need to look at the behaviour of the ice across all regions before going on.

Right, There are a couple of areas that look 'queer' to me some drifting of ice into other sectors must now be occurring which means that there is plenty of open water now. I have no idea where the upward movement in the Can. Archipelago came from as ,apart from the last two days which have been cloud blighted, I've been watching it daily as it break up and drift off/ablating???

Edited July 16, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[doctormog]

Though we all know CT have their 'moments' the type of final 'drop off', when similar thickness single year ice melts to open water on mass, could be as steep as that.

Indeed however having checked other sources and imagery as well as the fact is is a vertical drop as has been seen with previous faults I suspect, as I 've stated the next few days will make the situation clearer. I'm not ruling out (entirely) that it's a genuin drop I just don't think that it is. Even with "poorly developed" ice circa 250,000 sq km is unlikely to melt overnight - perhaps over 3 days or so in extreme melting but not overnight.

[Mondy]

Regarding the NW Passage opening, this really is no big deal. It's happened before and will no doubt happen again:

LINK 1 / LINK 2

Interesting to see the BBC (who are known to champion GW) get the 2007 report incorrect:

The most direct shipping route from Europe to Asia is fully clear of ice for the first time since records began, the European Space Agency (Esa) says.

2000 report says this:

A Canadian police patrol boat has completed a voyage through the fabled Northwest Passage without encountering any pack ice.

Don't the BBC check previous stories anymore??

[Nick L]

Regarding the NW Passage opening, this really is no big deal. It's happened before and will no doubt happen again:

LINK 1 / LINK 2

Interesting to see the BBC (who are known to champion GW) get the 2007 report incorrect:

2000 report says this:

Don't the BBC check previous stories anymore??

I think this further proof that the BBC do not give any hint that global warming may not exist. I posted in here (I think) how I found dozens of stories supporting the GW theory and absolutely none going against it. A bit of middle ground would be appreciated BBC.

[Roger J Smith]

Arctic weather watchers alert, you'll see a period of colder temperatures and snow over the northern arctic islands in Canada next two or three days, while the Bering and Siberian sectors are under the growing influence (sounds like last year here) of a mild southeast to southerly flow that looks especially warm over the region west of Wrangel Island. Shoreline temperatures may reach 25 C in northern Siberia, this usually equates to 10 C a few kms offshore over ice but as soon as the shore ice thins, a rapid melt ensues, aided by large volumes of river outflow from the Yenisei and Lena Rivers. In my (space weather) field research there is evidence of a retrograde blocking set-up causing this regional pattern which will tend to favour retention of the Greenland and Svalbard sector sea ice at the expense of the Siberian sector.

As to that other question about sea-effect snow and its relation to ice cover, a few points. Sea-effect snow is almost always less dramatic than Great Lakes lake-effect, but follows the same general principles. It maximizes when air masses near or below -7 C dew points flow over waters of 4-7 C (any warmer and the transition to rain is a negative factor). The ideal over-water trajectory seems to be 400 kms, shorter and there is not enough time to maximize, longer and there is too much modification of air mass. When water temperatures fall to the range 0 to -2 C (as is possible with salty sea water), the effect is already potentially cut in half (lower evaporation rates). A partial ice cover will make a slight reduction, a thin ice cover will still work to some extent because some water vapour can escape through the thin covering. Even a frozen lake or ocean can generate some moisture transfer but we are getting into 10% or less of full potential and this is why the arctic has traditionally been called a polar desert. Only a few vigorous low pressure systems with a source of milder air in their circulation can squeeze out any moisture for snow in the average far northern winter although the snow that is already on the ground tends to blow around a lot so you can have frequent blizzard conditions without any real net precipitation. One location may get another location's snow and thus report a cm or two of snowfall in these situations.

Something worth keeping in mind, ice melt in different regions may have a different cause. In one place it is river discharge, in another it is mild air mass overspread from nearby land, in yet another it is warmer currents arriving from a nearby source of open water. So when AGW proponents speak about "global warming" related to arctic ice melt, they need to be careful to distinguish reasons and processes which may be different or even unrelated. Just as likely as an explanation of any unusual melting is regional pattern change. This can happen independent of global or hemispheric warming and in fact is cited as a possible cause of glacial periods. If we ever reached a point in the research of glacial cycles that downplayed Milankovitch and upgraded random variability or solar variation or other astronomical signals, then the conventional position (it is likely to be a long wait for the next glacial and that one won't be as strong as the four major glacial periods in recent geological times) might be undermined. Then if these other factors proved to be more significant, we could always be in the shadow of an encroaching glacial period more or less at random. I still think that the Milankovitch cycles must be at least half if not three-quarters of the story, but the door is open for other variance to be explained.

[Gray-Wolf]

Roger,

if all the myriad of effects are a result of 'warming' then we are merely filibustering....we must be patient as the differing dynamic of ice cover this year means (obviously) a different 'pattern' of melt rates/speeds for this year than others.Just the proportion of multi-year V's single year, being the most obvious difference.

[Roger J Smith]

I agree, patience is of the essence. I've been reading a lot of recent books on ice age climate and the whole area of research, and it reminds me that the main grounding of a lot of the people who get very concerned about AGW happens to be in this area, which is by its very nature catastrophic in outlook.

After you've spent a few weeks or months getting your head around the spactacular changes of the LGM (last glacial maximum), the oscillations through the Older and Younger Dryas (late advances) and the Allerod and Bolling interstadials (the first big warmings after the LGM), then how the glacial lakes developed over vast areas, suddenly emptied out over weeks or months, and thus altered the Atlantic circulation and perhaps led to more large fluctuations, it all seems very immediate, because a description of what happened over "only" a thousand years that far back (15,000 let's say) telescopes in our imagination, we visualize human and animal populations fleeing, migrating, setting out en masse for new habitats, when in fact all of this was as leisurely as the gradual westward drift of the European population to North America since Shakespeare's time, half a millennium basically.

So I believe this is one reason why people look at these rather large changes over short periods (we had not seen anything quite like the 2007 ice free anomaly) and it is not difficult to project these into very rapid climate shifts right around the corner, especially with the hockey stick graph so prominent in a lot of public discourse on this subject.

My belief is a lack of a belief, I suppose you could say, I picture this as a climatic interval with a lot of conflicting stresses coming to bear, and who knows how it will all play out, many different factors all cancelling out to give only slight change, or some set of changes winning out over another set, and sending us into a whole new climate regime? We can perhaps improve our skill in predicting events just ahead, God only knows, Netweather has as many people doing just that as perhaps the whole rest of the planet combined. But there is little by way of active verification of longer-term forecasts. People toss off predictions for 2012, 2020, 2050 etc, and have done similar things in the past, but who ever checks these out, the problem being the long time interval as well as the avalanche of new predictions for all sorts of different periods.

There is a tendency for many to believe that the latest made prediction is the most relevant one, but that ain't necessarily so. Hubert Lamb's book published in 1977 contains a lot of ultra-long-term predictions, some of which cover the period between then and now and extend on beyond now. Some of those are holding together rather well.

If you had said in 1980, I think it will on the whole be warmer in the next thirty years, especially the middle decade of that period, you would have nailed it. Not many actually said that back then. I don't know why we assume that today's crop of "experts" will do any better.

For the record, I think the summer of 2974 will be a scorcher.

Edited July 17, 2008 by Roger J Smith

[bluecon]

Regarding the NW Passage opening, this really is no big deal. It's happened before and will no doubt happen again:

LINK 1 / LINK 2

Interesting to see the BBC (who are known to champion GW) get the 2007 report incorrect:

2000 report says this:

Don't the BBC check previous stories anymore??

The 2000 voyage was by the St. Roch 2 and was a recreation of the 1944 voyage of the St. Roch through the uncharted northern passage. The St. Roch easily navigated the passage in 1944 and more than a hundred boats have done the same thing. Just BBC propoganda.

If you had said in 1980, I think it will on the whole be warmer in the next thirty years, especially the middle decade of that period, you would have nailed it. Not many actually said that back then. I don't know why we assume that today's crop of "experts" will do any better.

For the record, I think the summer of 2974 will be a scorcher.

When I was doing my geology thesis paper in the early 80's my proff scoffed at the idea that an Ice Age was coming.(that was the scientific consensus then) He correctly asserted that we were still in a warming from the last Ice Age. He was an eccentric brilliant scientist.

Just give me next Thursdays weather and I would be amazed.

Went down to Lake Erie today and the water was so cold you could not walk in it for more than a few meters or your feet were numb. The air temp in the city was around 90 deg and probably 20 deg lower at the shore. I have seen the cold water condition before but never to this extreme. The lake was covered with a low fog. Climate is totally unpredictable.

[Iceberg]

Weather is totally unpredictable, climate is predictable hence the difference.

I don't know many times it's been said on this thread but the opening of the NW and NE passage is nothing to do with whether a ship can or can't get through, even a P&O ferry can get through 1 ft of ice.

It's to do with the passage being open enough to allow commerical traffic, i.e completely open, no ice, no chance of an accident, being able to do it in a definative time period and no chance of having to wait to a big piece of ice to float by or get intangled. There is also more than one NW passage.

[Gray-Wolf]

It's to do with the passage being open enough to allow commercial traffic, i.e completely open, no ice, no chance of an accident, being able to do it in a definitive time period and no chance of having to wait to a big piece of ice to float by or get intangled. There is also more than one NW passage.

Correct on all counts I believe!

Most interest seem to be focused around the 'Deep Channel' through the NW Passage as this would take even the largest of commercial vessels cutting journey times significantly.

The problem comes when ships decide to take this route as, as the recent paper on pollution from shipping showed us, that much soot blanketing the high arctic over summer will not help us retain the little amounts of perennial ice we have left.

[Gray-Wolf]

Bottoms! Edit's gone :lol:

Going back to talking to Arctic 'locals' for their take on the changes.

It may be true that folk will tell you what they think you want to hear but then when you get Govt. information films for the Inuit people outlining what a 'wasp' is and the dangers of handling them (as they haven't encountered them ,until now, in their histories) as the wasp moves ever northwards with the isotherms and invades their tribal areas, it becomes increasingly hard to ignore/deny the changes taking place in this warming world of ours .

[bluecon]

Weather is totally unpredictable, climate is predictable hence the difference.

I don't know many times it's been said on this thread but the opening of the NW and NE passage is nothing to do with whether a ship can or can't get through, even a P&O ferry can get through 1 ft of ice.

It's to do with the passage being open enough to allow commerical traffic, i.e completely open, no ice, no chance of an accident, being able to do it in a definative time period and no chance of having to wait to a big piece of ice to float by or get intangled. There is also more than one NW passage.

True that Henry Larsen travelled through 2 different NW passages in the 40's. And in the northern passage he never broke through ice to do it.

[Gray-Wolf]

do I hear straws being clutched ever tighter???