Arctic ice

[Mondy]

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.

That'll be the natural cycle then? (which is much dismissed on this particular forum/thread)

[osmposm]

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?

(i) I'm referring to the 1998 Walsh & Chapman data set viewable on Cryosphere today here: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/timeseries.1870-2007

I fully accept (as do they) that the pre-1953 figures, and even more so the pre-1900 figures must be taken with a pinch of salt. See here for a discussion on their derivation and reliability: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/guide/Data/walsh.html

However their estimates for the earlier years would have to be quite dramatically wrong - over 25% too high, in fact - for even 2005's 7.73m sq km to have been beaten, let alone 2007's 5.56. The lowest figure in the "debatable reliability" dataset was 1940 at 9.80m sq km - a full two million sq km higher than 2005.

(ii) As Iceberg has already mentioned, minimum ice area may not reached in some years until mid-Sept.

(iii) I'm not sure what the consensus of scientists said about year-on-year diminution of ice area mimima, but if they stated that every single year would be less than the year before, then yes, they were wrong. I suspect, however, that they didn't - just as they never suggested that each and every year's global (let alone local) temperature would be higher than the year before's.

Nor, as far as I am aware, did any serious scientists suggest that there are no natural cycles of temperature, or that they would cease to affect us - I don't ever remember natural climate cycles being "dismissed" on here either. What many of us think or fear, however, is that the natural cycles are and will continue to be taking place against a background or base that gets ever higher. This has been explained many, many times.

Edited July 27, 2008 by osmposm

[Iceberg]

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.

On the SST analysis chart I think the pacific is generally above norm in the north. We have seen a negative AO this summer though, A cooler western Canada and Alaska is certainly a consequence of the La Nina (strongest since 2000) this is I agree preventing the synoptic set up which drags the continental heat up into the arctic. I don't think the scientists thought the effect would be as strong as it had been. Given a return to neutral conditions though and the small lag time I think a more normal set up will probably occur, and probably has already started.

Again a discussion for another thread but I think the effects of the recent La Nina have been enhanced somehow, some La Nina's have very little effect some a great deal. The active state of the large PDO might well be one of the enhancers or surpressors.

[bluecon]

(i) I'm referring to the 1998 Walsh & Chapman data set viewable on Cryosphere today here: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/timeseries.1870-2007

I fully accept (as do they) that the pre-1953 figures, and even more so the pre-1900 figures must be taken with a pinch of salt. See here for a discussion on their derivation and reliability: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/guide/Data/walsh.html

However their estimates for the earlier years would have to be quite dramatically wrong - over 25% too high, in fact - for even 2005's 7.73m sq km to have been beaten, let alone 2007's 5.56. The lowest figure in the "debatable reliability" dataset was 1940 at 9.80m sq km - a full two million sq km higher than 2005.

(ii) As Iceberg has already mentioned, minimum ice area may not reached in some years until mid-Sept.

(iii) I'm not sure what the consensus of scientists said about year-on-year diminution of ice area mimima, but if they stated that every single year would be less than the year before, then yes, they were wrong. I suspect, however, that they didn't - just as they never suggested that each and every year's global (let alone local) temperature would be higher than the year before's.

Nor, as far as I am aware, did any serious scientists suggest that there are no natural cycles of temperature, or that they would cease to affect us - I don't ever remember natural climate cycles being "dismissed" on here either. What many of us think or fear, however, is that the natural cycles are and will continue to be taking place against a background or base that gets ever higher. This has been explained many, many times.

(i)That is what is passed off as science nowadays? Make up some data to fit the cause? That is embarrassing for the science community. They have no idea what the ice cover has been for the last 130 years.

(ii)Normally the melt will be largely concluded within a few weeks from now.

(iii)The BBC has trumpeted up the scientists calling for an ice free Arctic this year. Look back in this thread and you will see the proponents were firm in their beliefs that there would be less ice in 2008 than 2007. The scare mongers want to have it both ways.

If you look at the AGW models pre 1998 they show a steady increase in temperature as manmade CO2 increased. These models have proved to be totally wrong even as Hansen has tried to fudge the facts.

Edited July 27, 2008 by bluecon

[beng]

On the SST analysis chart I think the pacific is generally above norm in the north. We have seen a negative AO this summer though, A cooler western Canada and Alaska is certainly a consequence of the La Nina (strongest since 2000) this is I agree preventing the synoptic set up which drags the continental heat up into the arctic. I don't think the scientists thought the effect would be as strong as it had been. Given a return to neutral conditions though and the small lag time I think a more normal set up will probably occur, and probably has already started.

Again a discussion for another thread but I think the effects of the recent La Nina have been enhanced somehow, some La Nina's have very little effect some a great deal. The active state of the large PDO might well be one of the enhancers or surpressors.

Sea temperatures in the far north pacific are below average - characteristic of negative PDO conditions - and it's those that I think may have some bearing on the melt rate of certain parts of the arctic icepack. Last year in early summer the water around Alaska was very warm relative to average, and some of that warm water no doubt entered the arctic itself following the initial melt back of the ice.

There is a warm anomaly further South, again characteristic of the negative PDO.

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data...t.7.24.2008.gif

I would agree that the current la nina has been enhanced - perhaps a combination of the PDO and the solar minimum.

Edited July 27, 2008 by beng

[Iceberg]

I think it's horses for courses Beng, the two SST charts attached show pretty normal conditions and SST's above in the Arctic circle on the Canadian/Alaskan side.

A few predictions from me.

The NE passage will open.

The NW passage will open.

Svalbard will not have ice joining to the arctic.

Franz Josef islands will not have ice joining them either.

Minimum ice extent will be reached in September.

Last years minimum will not probably not me reached.

The arctic north pole will NOT be ice free this year.

However alot of the 1 year ice will have melted.

The melt of Greenland ice will be the highest ever recorded.

[osmposm]

(i)That is what is passed off as science nowadays? Make up some data to fit the cause? That is embarrassing for the science community. They have no idea what the ice cover has been for the last 130 years.

(ii)Normally the melt will be largely concluded within a few weeks from now.

(iii)The BBC has trumpeted up the scientists calling for an ice free Arctic this year. Look back in this thread and you will see the proponents were firm in their beliefs that there would be less ice in 2008 than 2007. The scare mongers want to have it both ways.

(i) I'm sorry that you are back on your theme of corrupt scientist who fake their results to fit an agenda determined (presumably) by their desire for admiration or money. Bill Chapman helpfully twice provides his email address in the second link I gave. Perhaps you would care to write to him explaining that you believe his science is embarrassing, and that he has been making up data to "fit the cause"? He may reply that much of the earlier data came from John Walsh's work published in 1978 - rather before there was any likelihood of it fitting some lucrative orthodoxy. While Walsh and others - as Chapman would be the first to admit - did not and do not know exactly what ice cover there was pre-1953, they worked hard and long, using many sources (such as the long-standing Danish Ice Charts) to make their best estimates. Unless you or anyone else can demonstrate that they were hopelessly out, over-estimating by at least 27%, then I am inclined to accept as probably true that the minimum Arctic ice extents in both 2005 & 2007 were lower than any in the last 137 years.

(ii) You say "largely concluded". Well, yes: doubtless most of the melting will be over by late August. But you seem to be accepting that there may still be some well into September. What I talked about yesterday was "around a month and a half of melting time left" - i.e time when melting could still take place - and should the minimum not be reached until September, than it will not be the first time. It may be as late as that, it may not: like everyone else, I just don't know. Is that such a deeply contentious suggestion?

(iii) I thought you were talking about "the consensus of scientists" - that was the phrase you used. I'm not sure what the opinions of either a few extremists the media come up with OR a few ditto on here have to do with "the consensus of scientists"? As Roger elegantly put it, "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."

Edited July 27, 2008 by osmposm

[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.

As it is 2 weeks on from the date of this post/SIDC data as agreed:

[Gray-Wolf]

I think it's horses for courses Beng, the two SST charts attached show pretty normal conditions and SST's above in the Arctic circle on the Canadian/Alaskan side.

A few predictions from me.

The NE passage will open.

The NW passage will open.

Svalbard will not have ice joining to the arctic.

Franz Josef islands will not have ice joining them either.

Minimum ice extent will be reached in September.

Last years minimum will not probably not me reached.

The arctic north pole will NOT be ice free this year.

However alot of the 1 year ice will have melted.

The melt of Greenland ice will be the highest ever recorded.

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtim....php?A082100355

Your right about Svalbard.....

[Iceberg]

It's amazing how accurate the AMSR data is when you compare it to the real sat image from Aqua.!.

[bluecon]

(i) I'm sorry that you are back on your theme of corrupt scientist who fake their results to fit an agenda determined (presumably) by their desire for admiration or money. Bill Chapman helpfully twice provides his email address in the second link I gave. Perhaps you would care to write to him explaining that you believe his science is embarrassing, and that he has been making up data to "fit the cause"? He may reply that much of the earlier data came from John Walsh's work published in 1978 - rather before there was any likelihood of it fitting some lucrative orthodoxy. While Walsh and others - as Chapman would be the first to admit - did not and do not know exactly what ice cover there was pre-1953, they worked hard and long, using many sources (such as the long-standing Danish Ice Charts) to make their best estimates. Unless you or anyone else can demonstrate that they were hopelessly out, over-estimating by at least 27%, then I am inclined to accept as probably true that the minimum Arctic ice extents in both 2005 & 2007 were lower than any in the last 137 years.

(ii) You say "largely concluded". Well, yes: doubtless most of the melting will be over by late August. But you seem to be accepting that there may still be some well into September. What I talked about yesterday was "around a month and a half of melting time left" - i.e time when melting could still take place - and should the minimum not be reached until September, than it will not be the first time. It may be as late as that, it may not: like everyone else, I just don't know. Is that such a deeply contentious suggestion?

(iii) I thought you were talking about "the consensus of scientists" - that was the phrase you used. I'm not sure what the opinions of either a few extremists the media come up with OR a few ditto on here have to do with "the consensus of scientists"? As Roger elegantly put it, "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."

(i)I don't care who did the work or when, it is still junk science with no actual facts to back up the so called science. They don't have a clue what the actual ice cover in the Arctic was going back to 1870.

(ii)exactly. You have no idea how much melting time is left. Usually there is not much melt in September.

(iii)Is that not what professor Hansen who leads the movement has stated? Look at his predictions from the past and they are all wrong. No one in the AGW movement predicted a huge increase in manmade CO2 emmissions would result in a slight and increasing cooling. All the AGW predictions are for a temperature increase that will reach a tipping point and fry us all. Scare tactics basically.

I think it's horses for courses Beng, the two SST charts attached show pretty normal conditions and SST's above in the Arctic circle on the Canadian/Alaskan side.

A few predictions from me.

The NE passage will open.

The NW passage will open.

Svalbard will not have ice joining to the arctic.

Franz Josef islands will not have ice joining them either.

Minimum ice extent will be reached in September.

Last years minimum will not probably not me reached.

The arctic north pole will NOT be ice free this year.

However alot of the 1 year ice will have melted.

The melt of Greenland ice will be the highest ever recorded.

That is like picking the horses after the race has been run.

Your predictions have changed.

[Iceberg]

Yes but we arn't picking horses but having an adult conversation about arctic ice this year. Its not a competition with winners and losers.

However the fact that due to below average synoptics, probably due to the La Nina we had, arctic ice extent should be better than last year but still very very bad is something that is good news. We just have to hope that such synoptics and La Nina's continue for the next 5 years to give it a chance to recover a bit. I am not hopeful though.

[bluecon]

Of course it is a competition of ideas and the scientists were predicting the end of the Arctic ice and now it is increasing.

The consensus of sciece and scientists themselves will be the ultimate losers if the climate turns much cooler over the next years.

What is your theory? The world is undergoing AGW except the normal climate of the earth overides the AGW?

The way the economy is headed downhill nobody is going to care about AGW within the year.

[osmposm]

...I don't care who did the work or when, it is still junk science...

So, lets get this right, you are uninterested in understanding the details of our case, or the bona fides and motives of those who have worked to produce the evidence on which it's based, since....what....you just know they and we are wrong, and therefore don't feel the need to argue logically?

Well, OK, Bluecon - thank you at least for being so honest. It will save me many hours of internet investigation and analysis, not to mention time spent carefully trying to construct calm, intelligent, lucid, logical, well-argued posts, now that I know I might as well have been speaking Vulcan.

It's been nice talking to you, and I've learned a lot while doing my research.

[Mondy]

Anybody agree the greatest melting of 2008 now appears to be behind us?

Or will even this simple question be frowned upon?

[Smithers]

Anybody agree the greatest melting of 2008 now appears to be behind us?

Or will even this simple question be frowned upon?

I definitely agree. The accelerated melting of the past couple weeks was likely due to the rapid melting of the remaining ice in the Hudson and Baffin Bays. Now that that low-latitude ice is gone, the melt rate has slowed considerably. The ice in the actual Arctic Circle continues to melt much slower than last year.

[The Eagle]

Not only will we end up well ahead of last year in the winter peak and summer trough.........but we are looking at a huge increase in Ice this winter if the facts are to be believed. This could be a record winter for Artic Ice generation and could well take it above average for Winter Peak.

[acbrixton]

...but we are looking at a huge increase in Ice this winter if the facts are to be believed. This could be a record winter for Artic Ice generation and could well take it above average for Winter Peak.

Darkman, I can understand that if this year's minimum is greater than last years (at present that looks pretty likely) then, all other things being equal, this winter's maximum would be proportionately greater than last winter's maximum.

However: 1. on what basis do you predict a "huge increase"? What are the "facts" that support your prediction please? [surely 'facts' exist regardless of whether one chooses to believe them?];

2. why might next winter see "record" volumes of ice creation and/or above average ice cover? I can understand that where a summer with below average minimum ice cover is followed by a winter of at least average cold ice creation might exceed the historical average for ice creation. However bearing in mind that the 2007 minimum was the lowest recorded and assuming that the 2008 minimum will be somewhat greater than than 2007 why then should ice creation in the next winter exceed that of the last winter (unless you are 'forecasting' colder than average conditions in the Arctic from October 2008 to March 2009)?

regards

ACB

[bluecon]

So, lets get this right, you are uninterested in understanding the details of our case, or the bona fides and motives of those who have worked to produce the evidence on which it's based, since....what....you just know they and we are wrong, and therefore don't feel the need to argue logically?

Well, OK, Bluecon - thank you at least for being so honest. It will save me many hours of internet investigation and analysis, not to mention time spent carefully trying to construct calm, intelligent, lucid, logical, well-argued posts, now that I know I might as well have been speaking Vulcan.

It's been nice talking to you, and I've learned a lot while doing my research.

Think of this. If they can know what the ice was in 1870 it would be a much easier thing to have predicted the ice in 2008 and to know the ice extant in 2009. It is very easy to say the ice was at a certain extant in 1870 and very difficult to predict 2008. And now with all this powerful science the AGW scientists are wrong for 2008.

They have absolutely no solid evidence to back up their beliefs. So they know from scant evidence what the ice was like 139 years ago and with all the scientific equipment available today they get it wrong for 2008?

Edited July 29, 2008 by bluecon

[The Eagle]

Darkman, I can understand that if this year's minimum is greater than last years (at present that looks pretty likely) then, all other things being equal, this winter's maximum would be proportionately greater than last winter's maximum.

However: 1. on what basis do you predict a "huge increase"? What are the "facts" that support your prediction please? [surely 'facts' exist regardless of whether one chooses to believe them?];

2. why might next winter see "record" volumes of ice creation and/or above average ice cover? I can understand that where a summer with below average minimum ice cover is followed by a winter of at least average cold ice creation might exceed the historical average for ice creation. However bearing in mind that the 2007 minimum was the lowest recorded and assuming that the 2008 minimum will be somewhat greater than than 2007 why then should ice creation in the next winter exceed that of the last winter (unless you are 'forecasting' colder than average conditions in the Arctic from October 2008 to March 2009)?

regards

ACB

For a start last Winter nearly reached average - After the record high melt. You must see that a repeat of last winter will see Artic ice sheet expand above average. This follows a poor melting of ice this summer season. Ice builds on itself. It will not contract this winter unless it defies the laws of physics. It will expand and more multiyear ice should be created.

[bluecon]

Anybody agree the greatest melting of 2008 now appears to be behind us?

Or will even this simple question be frowned upon?

One thing that is ignored that a lot of the ice extant last year wasn't caused entirely by melt but wind from the Alaska way that piled up the ice. And it was freakishly warm in the Arctic. Anomoly condition that will likely not be repeated this year.

For a start last Winter nearly reached average - After the record high melt. You must see that a repeat of last winter will see Artic ice sheet expand above average. This follows a poor melting of ice this summer season. Ice builds on itself. It will not contract this winter unless it defies the laws of physics. It will expand and more multiyear ice should be created.

Last Winter was very cold in the Arctic and this summer has not seen the high temps or winds of 2007. With the cold conditions in Pacifac and the cool Sun expect a very cold winter again in the Arctic.

The facts have changed and people should look at that instead of blindly supporting the AGW theory.

Edited July 29, 2008 by bluecon

[The Eagle]

One thing that is ignored that a lot of the ice extant last year wasn't caused entirely by melt but wind from the Alaska way that piled up the ice. And it was freakishly warm in the Arctic. Anomoly condition that will likely not be repeated this year.

Last Winter was very cold in the Arctic and this summer has not seen the high temps or winds of 2007. With the cold conditions in Pacifac and the cool Sun expect a very cold winter again in the Arctic.

The facts have changed and people should look at that instead of blindly supporting the AGW theory.

Nothing in the media yet of course. They will be forced to say something after the coming winter. We are looking down the barrel of a massive increase in Artic Ice and the media dont touch it. They will next year in bewilderment im sure.

[acbrixton]

Darkman, I can understand that if this year's minimum is greater than last years (at present that looks pretty likely) then, all other things being equal, this winter's maximum would be proportionately greater than last winter's maximum.

ACB

Darkman thanks for the reply; I will respond later.

In the meantime I have realised that the first paragraph of my post is wrong: whilst the amount of winter ice creation is dependent, in part, upon the previous summer's melt it is not the case that aggregate winter ice cover is inversely proportional to the previous summer's melt. A warmer than average summer followed by an averagely cold winter will, all other things being equal, mean higher than average ice creation (as the area of open ocean experiencing suitable winter cold would be greater than average; presumably the extent of ice creation would be inhibited by the fact that ice free oceans absorb rather than relect heat). Winter ice is primarily dependent on that winter's conditions with the proviso that where there has been above average summer melt the resulting warmer oceans would require colder than average conditions to allow ice creation to fully recover.

regards

ACB

[Iceberg]

Just to remind people of a couple of facts.

1) the maximum amount of ice last winter was low. Only one year 1996 I believe had less ice between 1980 and 2000.

2) The amount of ice this summer will be low most likely the second lowest on record.

and look no mention of AGW, this thread is so much better when it's not an AGW bashing thread.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/index.php

Maybe some folk would like to refresh themselves as to what the June report said (above) in so far as ice levels come late Sept.