Arctic ice

[Mondy]

1) Within the programme Change and Variability of the Arctic System - Nordaustlandet, some 50 researchers from ten nations will be gathered under 20 research projects. They will investigate glaciers and sediment to map climatic and environmental history, chart flora and fauna, as well as search for traces of human activities on Nordaustlandet, Svalbard, using the historical Kinnvika station as a base. The project was initiated in 2007. During 2008 work will be carried out in two stages, one in the late winter, early spring, and the other in the summer. LINK

---------------

2) Kinnvika - Arctic warming and impact research <<LINK2

*It's kinda ironic, don't you think, sea ice thwarted their research during the Summer stage of their activity!

Edited July 18, 2008 by Delta X-Ray

[Gray-Wolf]

I noted a "clutching of straws" phrase in one of the threads recently from an "alarmist" - The alarmist actually uses this particular word in his sig, so I assume it's ok to mention it?

Would any of the other alarmists care to comment on the fact the Hudson Bay still has ice evident right now, much later than in recent years? Temps there are considerably warmer than other Arctic areas, yet it's not melted.

No worries Delta!......I wish we could sign up to some " Dun't bover me" agreement and speak our minds myself but we have to think about those blessed 'Lurkers' and their age and sensibilities....I/You know it's only banter to 'colour' things after all, but there it is I suppose.

I'm as 'alarmist' as I am a Man U. fan but I'm saddled with both Still, we don't choose how folk see us ,we just 'act' as we are and they decide that for us!

I still do believe we will match or exceed last years ice extent min. but if we only end up with less than 2005 it'll still be a mighty big scare (for me at least) as we will carry through even less 'multiyear' ice than either of those years.

No-one (except the Ruskies and Canadians) want us to loose our cryosphere .......especially the Walrus,Polar Bear and Arctic Fox, but if it's goin' on we'd better monitor it......hadn't we?

[Roger J Smith]

Hudson Bay ice breakup usually occurs in July. It appears to me to be close to a normal situation there with about two-thirds of Hudson Bay currently ice free. In modern times it is rare for Hudson Bay to exhibit any ice cover in August or September, and freeze up only gets past a few shallow shoreline sections by about mid-December. So the Hudson Bay ice season is lagged from the air temperatures over nearby land by almost three months and this has a profound effect on air mass temperatures over the whole region. Without Hudson Bay there, the climate of northern Ontario would probably be a lot more like Saskatchewan or Alberta, even Manitoba is partly affected by its feedback into the atmosphere. The large lakes in Manitoba have roughly the same ice climatology on a shorter seasonal basis (January to May is the ice season for these lakes, December to June further north).

We need to relax a little on these threads and stop trying to score a winning goal in the first half, so to speak, as longer-term members realize, I am in the skeptic camp but I don't think that these arguments about "today's weather" or "this month's data" are very helpful to the discussion, also, I would like to see the discussion itself return to the appropriate threads because a lot of regular readers and posters on these topic-related threads are being driven away by the bickering. Not everyone who wants to read about arctic ice conditions has a dog in this global warming hunt, ice variations have always been a subject of discussion among people interested in long-range weather trends and forecasting, independent of the politics of global warming.

So I'm just suggesting to some of the newer people, you can tell from the title of each thread whether it is oriented towards debating AGW or not, and this one probably isn't, or wasn't up until recently. But you can always take material from a thread like this over to the more controversial threads and use it there within reason. Hope people take this the right way, I am as much in favour of a full discussion and debate on this issue as anyone, but also the forum has other important themes and we should all respect the overall use of a thread. I even started a humour thread for global warming (in the lounge) and I think at least half a dozen people found it mildly amusing, or coldly amusing perhaps. Go there now and prepare to be deeply offended. :o

[Snowball Earth!]

Yes have to agree with everything you say there Roger. I for one continue to look forward to your fascinating reports . Keep up the good work :o

[Gray-Wolf]

According to thep 'Pole cam' ,though it's been cloudy for days the temp is still in the plus's (+4c this am). The rest of the pole is still bogged down in cloud so any 'ice extent' monitoring will still be a little hit and miss. Are we to be in for a surprise when things clear u again?

[osmposm]

Would any of the other alarmists care to comment on the fact the Hudson Bay still has ice evident right now, much later than in recent years? Temps there are considerably warmer than other Arctic areas, yet it's not melted.

I'm not an alarmist (though perhaps on balance a 'partly anthropogenic warmist'), but as Roger has already said in his refreshingly sane post, there is nothing unusual in the amount of ice in Hudson Bay.

See here: http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/FECN15CWI..._0003861850.txt

The first paragraph makes clear that in Hudson as of 3 days ago, while some areas are behind in melting, others are well ahead. Overall, as Cryosphere (if you trust it) shows, that while things are slightly below the 79-00 mean, they are essentially normal.

And what do you mean by "recent years"? 2000, 2004 and 2005 all had more ice in Hudson Bay at this stage - 2005 very much more, the melt must have been late that year.....but it seems to have all disappeared very rapidly thereafter.

There is (as once again Roger emphasizes) little point in arguing the toss about particular days or weeks. Whichever stance you're taking, you can always find a chart or statistic that will support it at that moment in time.

[osmposm]

According to the 'Pole cam', though it's been cloudy for days the temp is still in the plus's (+4c this am).

GW, the temp showing on the webcam image means little. As was pointed out by someone ages ago, even the external temperature probe on the webcam consistently shows temps several degrees above those recorded properly by the nearby weather station. This is the latest raw data, which is on the same website as the camera images: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/weather_data/2008/07100_hdr.wx

The two figures to look at are AirT1 & AirT2 (one has the air drawn over the sensor by a fan). The 2nd & 3rd columns show month and hour into the year, so the last readings given are for 27th June - nothing more recent, alas. You will see that the temperature, as is perfectly normal at this time of year, hovers around the freezing mark, mainly a bit below. At only one point did it reach even +1.0C, on the 22nd June.

Comparing these official weather station readings with those for the same time & date on Webcam #1, I conclude that the webcam image external temp sensor gives temps that are at least 1.5 and up to 4.5 degrees C too high. Or that was the situation before it shifted.

So while I agree that the current temperature is probably above zero, I don't think it's as dramatically so as you suggest. And yesterday's (Friday) webcam temps were at +1.0 or +1.5 until the last reading of the day, implying that today is the first day of generally above freezing weather. We will have to wait for the proper data to be updated to find out for sure.

Edited July 19, 2008 by osmposm

[osmposm]

Link to a map of Larsen's routes through the NW Passage.

Larsen wrote a book about the trip.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/arcticexpedition/larsenexpeditions

Thanks for that, Blue. As you can read, he encountered plenty of ice!

[jethro]

So I'm just suggesting to some of the newer people, you can tell from the title of each thread whether it is oriented towards debating AGW or not, and this one probably isn't, or wasn't up until recently. But you can always take material from a thread like this over to the more controversial threads and use it there within reason. Hope people take this the right way, I am as much in favour of a full discussion and debate on this issue as anyone, but also the forum has other important themes and we should all respect the overall use of a thread. I even started a humour thread for global warming (in the lounge) and I think at least half a dozen people found it mildly amusing, or coldly amusing perhaps. Go there now and prepare to be deeply offended.

I thought this was the thread to discuss the Arctic from a climate change perspective, hence it being in the climate change section of the forum. Carinthian's thread over in the general weather section is for discussing and noting current levels against seasonal changes - without the AGW slant.

[osmposm]

Yes, Jethro - I think Roger may have got confused as to which thread he was in (as I have more than once)!

[jethro]

Yes, Jethro - I think Roger may have got confused as to which thread he was in (as I have more than once)!

Reckon so; glad it's not just me who has "senior" moments

[Roger J Smith]

Oh okay, I see what you mean.

By the way, my fun global warming thread has disappeared, not in the archives or on the menu of the lounge.

KRUSTY KEN WILL COME BACK FROM BEYOND THE GRAVE AND EXACT A TERRIBLE VENGEANCE (he will lock in the current weather pattern for ten years).

U have been warned.

[jethro]

Oh okay, I see what you mean.

By the way, my fun global warming thread has disappeared, not in the archives or on the menu of the lounge.

KRUSTY KEN WILL COME BACK FROM BEYOND THE GRAVE AND EXACT A TERRIBLE VENGEANCE (he will lock in the current weather pattern for ten years).

U have been warned. :o

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!! I want snowy winters back B)

[bluecon]

Thanks for that, Blue. As you can read, he encountered plenty of ice!

Later in the voyage when he came up to the Prince of Wales straight he reported it ice free.

I am going to look up the book just to get an accurate view. He did keep a daily log.

[osmposm]

Comparing these official weather station readings with those for the same time & date on Webcam #1, I conclude that the webcam image external temp sensor gives temps that are at least 1.5 and up to 4.5 degrees C too high. Or that was the situation before it shifted.

So while I agree that the current temperature is probably above zero, I don't think it's as dramatically so as you suggest. And yesterday's (Friday) webcam temps were at +1.0 or +1.5 until the last reading of the day, implying that today is the first day of generally above freezing weather. We will have to wait for the proper data to be updated to find out for sure.

Apparent temp readings on North Pole Webcam #1's external probe dropped back down to 0.0 to +1.0 later yesterday (Saturday), implying actual temps back below freezing. So the slightly warmer weather lasted less than 24 hours

[Roger J Smith]

Remember I posted that study of summer temperatures at Cambridge Bay in the Canadian arctic, spanning the period from the 1930s to the present. That is on Net-weather somewhere, but rather than looking it up, I can recall that it showed slightly colder temperatures prevailing from the start of the records to the early 1970s, then a sharp warming in the mid-1970s and generally somewhat higher temperatures through 1999, followed by a period of rather cold temperatures again.

The last decade has not been much different from the 1940s when the St Roch navigated the Northwest Passage. And the warmest June in the series was actually in 1975.

[doctormog]

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.

With another 6 days to go I just thought I'd update (using NSIDC data as agreed) the current ice extent picture:

[bluecon]

Looks very unlikely at this point that the melt will be anywhere near last years.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/p...=22&sy=2008

And starting to pass the 2005 and 2006 minimum.

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

Edited July 22, 2008 by bluecon

[bluecon]

Later in the voyage when he came up to the Prince of Wales straight he reported it ice free.

I am going to look up the book just to get an accurate view. He did keep a daily log.

QUOTE (osmposm @ 19 Jul 2008, 03:41 PM) Thanks for that, Blue. As you can read, he encountered plenty of ice!

I looked it up and he did run into ice near the entrance to the Prince of Wales Straight.

Other than that it was mostly ice free. Must have been similar or warmer than most recent years.

Edited July 22, 2008 by bluecon

[Mondy]

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/p...=24&sy=2008

Tell me which year has the most sea ice?

Edited July 26, 2008 by Delta X-Ray

[osmposm]

As has previously been discussed, Delta, day-by-day comparisons of different years don't mean terribly much, since ice melting and movement is such an irregular process. 2005 was also a particularly bad year for the melt, even within recent times - until 2007 it had the lowest minimum in our records (back to 1870).

Unfortunately there is still around a month and a half of melting time left, and neither you nor I know what that will bring - though a minimum above 2007's but below 2005's would seem quite possible.

If we must talk single days, then at least as relevant a fact (if we can call Cryosphere Today fact!) is that as of yesterday the arctic ice level was still around 1.3m sq km below the 1979-2000 mean, though at least running some 0.5m sq km above the 2007 level for the same date.

It would be nice if last year had marked a cylical minimum, but at this stage there's really no evidence to support that.

Edited July 26, 2008 by osmposm

[bluecon]

Records back to 1870? Please provide the 1870 ice melt record.

Not very likely there is a month and a half of melt left.

If the ice is not less than the 2007 level does that not mean the consensus of scientists were wrong?

[Iceberg]

Your right Bluecon the consensus of scientists would be wrong, they factored in an average year temperature, radiactive warming and SST wise. This has not happened, synoptics have so far delivered a cooling arctic than expected. The next week or so should be the warmest in the Arctic this year though.

Minimum ice extent is often reached mid sept so it's just as likely as being then as end of august currently.

Some very interesting things happens at the moment, but I will not post up my thoughts for another week until the evidence is very clear.

[Roger J Smith]

The general public may have been misled by the media into thinking that the AGW theory predicted a non-stop increase in ice melt year after year, I doubt that even the more ardent proponents within the scientific community would have expected this, you are always going to see year-to-year variations. So what we are seeing right now is not really a definitive sign of any theory verifying or not verifying.

What is clear is that a fairly rapid melt is underway north of Siberia, the most recent ice cover map is showing sizeable melt areas between Wrangel and New Siberian Islands, and although the pace is behind the record melt year of 2007, it still remains possible for this season to come close to matching last year's noteworthy melt. Given the fairly wide opening at the Bering Straits now and these new melt areas, combined with the very warm temperatures over much of Siberia, I would not be surprised to see a large ice-free area opening up at least to 77 N by late August. We'll see, but whatever happens, it won't really change the overall balance of which theory is more credible, that would have to wait for events between now and 2020 or 2030, which will have no real "memory" of the 2007 or 2008 seasons.

The article posted elsewhere about the 1938 warming event in the arctic should be very instructive to all concerned -- within two years of this ice-free season, very cold winters had suddenly returned to Europe, so whatever may be underway now could easily reverse to something quite different over the space of a year or two.

Also, with the lag between land and ocean responses, you would expect the final stage of a polar warming to be open water followed by severe cold on land, so that may be the signal to watch for here, more than sudden reductions in melting.

[beng]

Your right Bluecon the consensus of scientists would be wrong, they factored in an average year temperature, radiactive warming and SST wise. This has not happened, synoptics have so far delivered a cooling arctic than expected. The next week or so should be the warmest in the Arctic this year though.

Minimum ice extent is often reached mid sept so it's just as likely as being then as end of august currently.

Some very interesting things happens at the moment, but I will not post up my thoughts for another week until the evidence is very clear.

I don't think they factored in the switch in the PDO - which has produced much colder waters around Alaska this summer and prevented the warm surge of energy into the arctic from the pacific that has been typical of the warm PDO phase. The reports of such a cool summer in Anchorage, Alaska reflect this switch too. Give it another 5-10 years and the Atlantic should also flip into the cold phase - at which point ice cover should begin to recover in the Barents sea.

Incidentally 850hPa temperature in the arctic basin are now showing signs of dropping quickly according to the models - so I'd say the minimum in the basin itself is very close (maybe another 2 weeks of melt). Of course ice will continue to melt in a few of the outer reaches for some time after - but I think the minimum could be earlier this year than recent years - especially given the lower global temperatures.

Edited July 26, 2008 by beng