Arctic ice

[Thundery wintry showers]

The arguments, as I'm sure you'd see if you read the articles, are primarily that a much larger proportion of this year's ice is newly formed first year ice rather than ice that formed tens of thousands of years ago. Newer ice generally melts at a much faster rate than old, "consolidated" ice. Therefore, it will require conditions much better than last year's for the ice not to melt much quicker than last year.

As for volcanic eruptions, many do not have any significant effect on global climate, it depends on how severe the eruption is, and how readily the particles spread into the atmosphere. Pinatubo probably caused a global cooling of over 0.5C during 1992-93, but it was only very temporary.

[Gray-Wolf]

To try and drag the debate off Carinth's thread and back down here I'll repost the article from there back down here. BFTP had asserted that atmospheric Methane levels were going down but I remembered the who-ha back in April when it was announced that there had been a jolt upwards last year;

Carbon dioxide, methane levels rise sharply in 2007

mongabay.com

April 23, 2008

Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane — potent greenhouse gases — rose sharply in 2007, according to NOAA.

The U.S. weather agency said that global levels of carbon dioxide, the primary driver of global climate change, climbed by 0.6 percent, or 19 billion tons in 2007. Methane levels increased by 27 million tons after nearly a decade with little or no increase.

NOAA said that atmospheric CO2 levels currently stand at 385 parts-per-million, or about 38 percent higher than pre-industrial levels. It noted that the rise in CO2 concentrations has been accelerating since the 1980s when annual increases were around 1.5 ppm per year. Last year the increase was 2.4 ppm.

On the other hand, the increase in methane levels is a relatively new trend. Emissions had been flat since 1998.

8P t;line-height:100%">

Global methane (CO4) concentrations rose in 2007. The red line shows the trend together with seasonal variations. The black line indicates the trend that emerges when the seasonal cycle has been removed. (Credit: NOAA) </SPAN>NOAA attributed the rise in methane emissions to rapid industrialisation in Asia and higher emissions from peatlands in the Arctic and the tropics.

Methane is produced by both human activities and natural causes. About one-third of methane emissions come from oceans, wetlands, wildfires, and termites, while two-thirds from the production of oil and natural gas, mining, sewage and decomposition of garbage, changes in land use and deforestation, and livestock.

Billions of tons of methane are locked up in Arctic tundra and as frozen hydrate deposits in the deep oceans. Researchers are concerned that as the planet warms, these deposits could destabilise, releasing large methane emissions.

"We're on the lookout for the first sign of a methane release from thawing Arctic permafrost," said Ed Dlugokencky, a scientists with NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory. "It's too soon to tell whether last year's spike in emissions includes the start of such a trend."

8P t;line-height:100%">

The 2007 rise in global carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations is tied with 2005 as the third highest since atmospheric measurements began in 1958. The red line shows the trend together with seasonal variations. The black line indicates the trend that emerges when the seasonal cycle has been removed. (Credit: NOAA) </SPAN>Scientists say hydrate deposits may have played an important role in past climate change by causing fluctuations in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. For example, the rapid decomposition of frozen methane hydrate deposits, possibly a result of higher ocean temperatures, may have been responsible for the sharp spike in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases during the Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) -- a period of rapid, extreme global warming about 55 million years ago. The methane released during melting would have reacted with oxygen to produce huge amounts of carbon dioxide. The warming caused a mass extinction among marine animals and helped usher in the "Age of Mammals."

Most methane emissions never reach the atmosphere -- they are broken down by ultraviolet radiation. For methane that does reach the atmosphere, the gas has a lifetime of about eight years. In contrast, carbon dioxide can last a century in the atmosphere. As such, atmospheric methane levels can be quickly reduced, while carbon dioxide accumulates and presents a long-term problem. Still, methane levels have more than doubled since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century. With twenty five times more heat-trapping potential than carbon dioxide, methane's overall climate impact is nearly half that of carbon dioxide despite atmospheric concentrations of around 1,800 parts-per-billion.

Meanwhile at 385 ppm, present carbon dioxide levels may be significantly higher than at any point in the last 650,000 years, according to research published in 2005 in the journal Science. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could reach 450-550 ppm by 2050, resulting in higher temperatures and rising sea levels.

Environmentalists have recently launched a campaign targeting a global CO2 concentration of 350 ppm, a level which they say will avoid the worst impacts of global warming.

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

As I've been banging on about down here the prospect of massive methane releases from the melting of the northern permafrost is now a certainty the only questions remaining seem to be how quickly, how much and how this changes the latest IPCC predictions for the impacts of our tinkering.

As a layperson my take on things seem as bleak as ever.

Due to the 'unexpected' scale of last years melt we must concede that the 'old' predictions for melt on both land and in sea can no longer be relied upon. Science seems to be scrabbling to play catchup in fact. The 'impacts/consequences' of the northern melt can no longer be relied upon either so we must use our wits on whatever 'current' data we are supplied with. The reports from the 'polar year' teams who were 'on the ground' throughout the melt were chilling enough (even though they enjoyed extreme high temps and got rained on at the north pole!) with eyewitness accounts of hillsides slipping away to reveal the bare rock beneath as the permafrost melted in the Alaskan/Canadian arctic may give some pointers as to where our Methane 'spike' originated from.

Last year the 'Eastern Passage' did not open up as multiyear chunks were piled up against the coastlines by the 'unexpected' weather patterns. We know the NW Passage did open and those coasts, where the teams were, were bathed in +c water temps which helped rapidly thaw the permafrost there (and release it's frozen methane). This year the Eastern passage is expected to open up (by Aug) and so the Eurasian/Siberian permafrost, the largest regions of permafrost on the planet, will be treated to it's own 'warm bath'. You can bet your bottom dollar next years figures of atmospheric methane will far exceed this years.

Though short lived the heating potential of methane is well documented. How many other 'tipping points' will this methane surge cause us to breach? How far beyond the IPCC's worst case scenario are we to go?

As you know I have great concerns about 'rapid climate shift' and it appears that I now have a mechanism to bring about the cataclysm I perceive.

If anyone mentions 'alarmist' I'll laugh. How much more alarming must things become before folk see the rapidly approaching planetary disaster we now face?

We will see, I believe, the naysayers clinging onto the IPCC's worst case scenario as some kind of mental safety net as the true scale and rapidity of change becomes apparent.

The,the,the, that's all folks.................

[Mr Sleet]

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h...l%3Den%26sa%3DN

There is very good correlation between rising ruminant population and methane levels, which stopped rising in the late 1990's. Despite the authors rather dodgy attempt to claim otherwise.

Also says that the IPCC have acknowledged that in 2007 methane levels appeared to have plateaued.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h...l%3Den%26sa%3DN

There is very good correlation between rising ruminant population and methane levels, which stopped rising in the late 1990's. Despite the authors rather dodgy attempt to claim otherwise.

Also says that the IPCC have acknowledged that in 2007 methane levels appeared to have plateaued.

So, there you sit with the NOAA measurements for both CO2 and methane in front of your eyes and still you hark back to what the IPCC have witnessed over the preceding years......DOH!

[Mr Sleet]

So, there you sit with the NOAA measurements for both CO2 and methane in front of your eyes and still you hark back to what the IPCC have witnessed over the preceding years......DOH!

You can show anything you want by sleight of hand /careful selection of scales.

You would make a great politician GW

Edited June 3, 2008 by Mr Sleet

[bluecon]

You can show anything you want by sleight of hand /careful selection of scales.

You would make a great politician GW

Of course ther was a huge freeze in the Artic this year and the temps are still cold.

No matter what the beliefs are that the ice will melt like last year the science does not back the beliefs.

Are we talking science or an AGW belief?

Are you pushing your religion instead of looking at the facts? Something to think about.

[Iceberg]

Quite sad that some people right this rubbish.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/157...s-Notebook.html

Still if we get the record, rapid melt that seems likely then I wonder if he will retract the daft story.

Thinner ice already showing weakness

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

As mentioned, the thin ice that covers much of the Arctic Ocean is showing signs of early breakup, with large polynyas off the coast of Alaska, the Canadian Archipelago, and Baffin Bay. Coastal polynyas are not unusual, at this time of year, but the polynyas we are currently seeing appear larger and more numerous than usual. This is partly because of the thinner, weaker ice cover.

Thorsten Markus at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center has noted the size of the North Water polynya at the northern end of Baffin Bay, which typically forms in May. The polynya is much larger than normal, possibly nearing its largest area on record.

Inuit report that sea ice is starting to break up near Baffin Bay much earlier than normal this year. They have observed wide cracks in the ice already forming, according to NSIDC scientist Shari Gearheard, who lives and works in the Baffin Island hamlet of Clyde River.

Polynyas are a source of heat for the atmosphere in spring; in summer, however, they are large absorbers of solar energy. Resultant warm ocean surface waters then eat away at the ice edge, accelerating melt.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Of course ther was a huge freeze in the Artic this year and the temps are still cold.

No matter what the beliefs are that the ice will melt like last year the science does not back the beliefs.

Are we talking science or an AGW belief?

Are you pushing your religion instead of looking at the facts? Something to think about.

Well, you clearly aren't prepared to read any posts unless they state either that AGW doesn't exist, or that we should keep the current status quo anyway, because that point has been answered many, many times on many different threads.

[bluecon]

The arguments, as I'm sure you'd see if you read the articles, are primarily that a much larger proportion of this year's ice is newly formed first year ice rather than ice that formed tens of thousands of years ago. Newer ice generally melts at a much faster rate than old, "consolidated" ice. Therefore, it will require conditions much better than last year's for the ice not to melt much quicker than last year.

As for volcanic eruptions, many do not have any significant effect on global climate, it depends on how severe the eruption is, and how readily the particles spread into the atmosphere. Pinatubo probably caused a global cooling of over 0.5C during 1992-93, but it was only very temporary.

Only 0.5 degrees?

The whole of the AGW belief is barely that and other volcanoes have caused much larger cooling.

Just what is the amount of gasses released into the atmosphere from volcanic activity? Much larger than human sources. And the thousands of feet of Calcium Carbonate rock I am currently above? Life is constantly removing carbon from the atmosphere for a building block.

The Arctic ice was much thicker this year and the temperatures are much colder. What will the result of that be?

Well, you clearly aren't prepared to read any posts unless they state either that AGW doesn't exist, or that we should keep the current status quo anyway, because that point has been answered many, many times on many different threads.

I am just looking at the facts.

"Clearly, we're seeing the ice coverage rebound back to more near normal coverage for this time of year," said Gilles Langis, a senior ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa.

Winter sea ice could keep expanding

The cold is also making the ice thicker in some areas, compared to recorded thicknesses last year, Lagnis added.

"The ice is about 10 to 20 centimetres thicker than last year, so that's a significant increase," he said.

If temperatures remain cold this winter, Langis said winter sea ice coverage will continue to expand.'

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02...arctic-ice.html

Edited June 6, 2008 by bluecon

[Thundery wintry showers]

Well okay, I'll answer the ice point again,

• a much larger proportion of the ice this year is first-year ice,
  
• first year ice usually melts quicker than long-established ice,
  
• therefore, conditions would have to be very favourable for us not to see a faster melt than last year, and thus at least approach the minimum set last year.
  

The article was written on 15 February and some quotes from it:

But he added that it's too soon to say what impact this winter will have on the Arctic summer sea ice, which reached its lowest coverage ever recorded in the summer of 2007.

That was because the thick multi-year ice pack that survives a summer melt has been decreasing in recent years, as well as moving further south. Langis said the ice pack is currently located about 130 kilometres from the Mackenzie Delta, about half the distance from where it was last year.

"Winter ice coverage could continue to expand"- relative to earlier in the 2007/08 season.

Yes, those are the facts. But how do you get from those facts to the conclusion that the Arctic ice, overall, isn't retreating, when you take summer minima into account?

[bluecon]

The Arctic still has had near freezing cold. May was much colder this year than last and the melt is delayed and the ice is thicker. Will the fact that there is huge new amounts of this years ice and colder temperatures delay and reduce the melt?

I am curious why science as we now see it practiced ignores this sort of evidence from Churchill, Manitoba?

"By 1724, a global weather observation network was proposed to the Royal Society in London. Over the next two hundred years, over 100,000 qualitative observations would be recorded at York Factory. Another 61,000 observations made at Fort Churchill.

A typical Hudson's Bay Company entry would include the first melt, first rain, thunder and lightning, the first frost and snow and the total number of days with rain or snow. Daily entries include wind direction, wind speed, precipitation and general weather observations.

Short-term climate change is not a new phenomena. Over the fifteen years between 1720 and 1735, the first snowfall of the year moved from the first week of September to the last. Also, the late 1700s were turbulent years. They were extremely cold but annual snow cover would vary from 'extreme depth to no cover'. For instance, November 10th 1767 only one snowfall that quickly thawed had been recorded. June 6, 1791 many feet of snow in the post's gardens. The entry for July 14, 1798 reads '…53 degrees colder today than it was yesterday.'

We seem to be running in roughly forty year cycles of warming and cooling - within a longer term warm period. This century has been marked by a warming period (1910-1940) followed by a cooler period through to the 1970s. The latest warming trend began in the late 70s, early 80s."

http://www.polarbearalley.com/hudson-bay-p...ate-change.html

[bluecon]

How did Larsen make it through the Arctic in the much colder and frozen 1940's?

Was there less ice in the Arctic in the 1940's?

"World War II provided Larsen an opportunity to follow in the footsteps of his hero and compatriot. In 1940 the St Roch was sent on a mission to travel from the Western Arctic to the Eastern Arctic. The St. Roch completed the West to East voyage in 1942, taking 28 months to do so. For most of these 28 months the St Roch was frozen in. The St. Roch was the second vessel to traverse the Northwest Passage, and the first to do so from west to east. Upon her arrival in Halifax the St. Roch was given an extensive refit, giving her a larger engine, and a deckhouse, increasing her accommodation. The refit was completed in time for her to make the return voyage to Vancouver during the ice-free period, completing her voyage in less than eighty-six days.

For her first transit of the Northwest Passage, Larsen had followed Amundsen's route. For her return voyage Larsen explored a more northerly route, through the Prince of Wales Strait which had not been completely navigated."

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

Interesting site showing Arctic ice melt.

http://www.socc.ca/seaice/seaice_current_e.cfm

Edited June 6, 2008 by bluecon

[Gray-Wolf]

TWS,

None so blind as those who will not see!

Many sound individuals on this site have been warned by Paul when dealing with that kind of individual because, in their frustration, thier posts have contravened the new 'code'.

It is a shame that the 'winders' are not themselves given a firm warning when they continue to post provoking and insulting material.

All of science agrees that the single year ice this year is significantly thinner than has been recorded in the past and many areas that were the domain of multi year ice (cemented to the shallow shelf floor) is now single year ice and we all know how warm the shallows can be compared to the deeper water on sunny days.

The agencies that matter are all showing signs of concern about how rapidly the melt, through May, has progressed. The provisional forecasts for a greater ice loss than last year were pooh-poohed by many on here at the height of and we advised patience. The time of waiting is over and we can now both look back over this winters posts and predictions on the subject to see how the differing camps fare.

I am often held up as a doomsayer whilst posting on here though I maintain that I am a realist. Very soon I will have a definitive answer on the subject.

[bluecon]

TWS,

All of science agrees that the single year ice this year is significantly thinner than has been recorded in the past and many areas that were the domain of multi year ice (cemented to the shallow shelf floor) is now single year ice and we all know how warm the shallows can be compared to the deeper water on sunny days.

All of science does not agree with the your belief that the single year ice is thinner.

Here is the proof from the scientists that actually study and measure the arctic ice.

"Clearly, we're seeing the ice coverage rebound back to more near normal coverage for this time of year," said Gilles Langis, a senior ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa.

Winter sea ice could keep expanding

The cold is also making the ice thicker in some areas, compared to recorded thicknesses last year, Lagnis added.

"The ice is about 10 to 20 centimetres thicker than last year, so that's a significant increase," he said.

If temperatures remain cold this winter, Langis said winter sea ice coverage will continue to expand.'

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02...arctic-ice.html

[Gray-Wolf]

Due to the diversion onto carinths thread for a short period we now have two areas of links showing what the major ice agencies are saying about the ice (including both Canadian coastguard and press) so I am at a loss as to where you discovered your lone voice with his strangely inconsistent opinions.

Let us play patience my friend and, noting the time and date, resume this conversation in July.

By then you will be forced to concede how silly you are/were being.

Edited June 6, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[bluecon]

Due to the diversion onto carinths thread for a short period we now have two areas of links showing what the major ice agencies are saying about the ice (including both Canadian coastguard and press) so I am at a loss as to where you discovered your lone voice with his strangely inconsistent opinions.

Let us play patience my friend and, noting the time and date, resume this conversation in July.

By then you will be forced to concede how silly you are/were being.

The lone voice of the Canadian Ice Service.

http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/WsvPageDsp.cfm?ID=1&Lang=eng

They are predicting warmer than average temperatures resulting in a later smaller melt than last year.

http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/ARCTIC001..._0003788559.pdf

[grab my graupel]

Could I just remind people please, that the code of conduct applies to "every" member who uses this thread.

Now can we try to get along nicely!

Thank you

Brian

[Gray-Wolf]

Strange that Blue con, when I read the Canadian coastguards recap,current,and forecast for ice in their areas I get the impression that only a very small region (beyond 75 degrees north) will experience 'normal temps' with the rest experiencing above normal temps for the season. The only areas with 'normal' breakup dates appear to be those with abnormal amounts of drifted,multi year remnants. The rest are set for an early melt with the resultant impact on sea surface temps.

Seeing as we are in a northern hemisphere 'cold phase' this is a disastrous forecast for the region (when you take into account the permafrost/methane issues) and surely must go to show how far beyond any chance of recovery we are.

This is not a competition. This is a very serious situation with only one 'truth' to it. As I said above if we are not willing to listen to the vast majority of science then we must be patient for 6 weeks longer as by then the awful reality will be unfolding before us.

[beng]

Seeing as we are in a northern hemisphere 'cold phase' this is a disastrous forecast for the region (when you take into account the permafrost/methane issues) and surely must go to show how far beyond any chance of recovery we are.

The PDO may have switched to the cold phase, but we certainly don't know that for sure as it only happened last year; it definitely has not had enough time to have much impact on 30 years of warming in the arctic (assuming it will). The Atlantic is still very much in its 'warm' phase and will be for at least another 5 years if previous patterns hold true. The Cold Phase if it has started, has only JUST started - which means if you believe there's a cold phase we're essentially at the pinnacle of the previous warm phase's warming.

Edited June 8, 2008 by beng

[bluecon]

It all depends on the temperatures. There is no way that the scientist can accurately predict the temps. Last year it was freakishly warm in the later stages of the summer and this caused much of the record melt. Without those extreme warm spells, this years melting from a larger and thicker ice mass, will result in a much larger ice cover heading into the next Winter.

Gray Wolf,

Even if they are above normal temps they are still lower than last year.

Arctic temps

http://www.athropolis.com/map2.htm

Edited June 8, 2008 by bluecon

[Admiral_Bobski]

This is not a competition. This is a very serious situation with only one 'truth' to it. As I said above if we are not willing to listen to the vast majority of science then we must be patient for 6 weeks longer as by then the awful reality will be unfolding before us.

There is only one Truth. But truth is discovered through facts, and facts only exist once an event has occurred. It is not a "fact" that we will lose a catastrophic amount of ice this summer, it is a supposition: to claim some "awful reality" on the basis of "one truth" when that truth is based more on supposition than fact is inappropriate. We can discuss these issues as and when the catastrophe occurs.

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

There is only one Truth. But truth is discovered through facts, and facts only exist once an event has occurred. It is not a "fact" that we will lose a catastrophic amount of ice this summer, it is a supposition: to claim some "awful reality" on the basis of "one truth" when that truth is based more on supposition than fact is inappropriate. We can discuss these issues as and when the catastrophe occurs.

CB

Very true C.B.! as I have mooted we can better discuss things in 6 weeks when the single year ice has mainly gone and we can see how the remaining perennial ice is coping.......I wonder if the high arctic is enjoying similar weather to here? (24 hrs a say).

[Mr Sleet]

Due to the diversion onto carinths thread for a short period we now have two areas of links showing what the major ice agencies are saying about the ice (including both Canadian coastguard and press) so I am at a loss as to where you discovered your lone voice with his strangely inconsistent opinions.

Let us play patience my friend and, noting the time and date, resume this conversation in July.

By then you will be forced to concede how silly you are/were being.

Well if you are relying on the Press for a fair opinion then good luck to you.

Edited June 9, 2008 by Mr Sleet

[Gray-Wolf]

The 'Press' I speak of are the NOAA /NSIDC 'press releases and so I do trust both the data and presentation. Of course these releases are then cobbled into articles in both Canadian and U.S. media and you can see the 'slant' that some journo's wish to place on it.

[bluecon]

Very true C.B.! as I have mooted we can better discuss things in 6 weeks when the single year ice has mainly gone and we can see how the remaining perennial ice is coping.......I wonder if the high arctic is enjoying similar weather to here? (24 hrs a say).

You can see Arctic temps at this site.

As of yet still freezing or near freezing temps.

http://www.athropolis.com/map2.htm