Arctic ice

[Gray-Wolf]

You can see Arctic temps at this site.

As of yet still freezing or near freezing temps.

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

Why trouble us with 2m temps when the action occurs in the water?????

[bluecon]

Why trouble us with 2m temps when the action occurs in the water?????

My belief is that the surface temps are a large driver of the water temps.

And it is still all hard water.

Edited June 10, 2008 by bluecon

[Gray-Wolf]

My belief is that the surface temps are a large driver of the water temps.

And it is still all hard water.

The specific heat capacity of water is greater than that of air (which is why we fill our radiators with water and not air) and so will remain warmer longer (try a midnight swim sometime after letting your body become accustomed to air temp....you'll find the water has kept the days heat in a way that the air could not!)

As perennial ice gives way to thinner single year ice the opportunity for 'novel' currents into the arctic basin arises as areas, previously ice dammed by thick ,perennial ice, become open and available to 'flow'.

[bluecon]

The specific heat capacity of water is greater than that of air (which is why we fill our radiators with water and not air) and so will remain warmer longer (try a midnight swim sometime after letting your body become accustomed to air temp....you'll find the water has kept the days heat in a way that the air could not!)

As perennial ice gives way to thinner single year ice the opportunity for 'novel' currents into the arctic basin arises as areas, previously ice dammed by thick ,perennial ice, become open and available to 'flow'.

And then your radiator uses air to remove the heat from the water. And there are many air cooled engines. Bad analogy.

Surface temps will be very important as to how much ice is left at the end of the summer.

[Gray-Wolf]

And then your radiator uses air to remove the heat from the water. And there are many air cooled engines. Bad analogy.

Surface temps will be very important as to how much ice is left at the end of the summer.

So, Bluecon, are you really suggesting that your understanding of things is that if you have a steady stream of +5c waters and 2m air temps of-15c ice will form?

[bluecon]

So, Bluecon, are you really suggesting that your understanding of things is that if you have a steady stream of +5c waters and 2m air temps of-15c ice will form?

I look at it as the air temps are directly related to the water temps. If the Arctic has cold air temperatures this will slow the melt. Like you have said we will see in a short time. I believe last year was an anomoly with the record temps in the Arctic and this year no such thing will happen.

If the low level of ice in the Artic last year was such an anomolous event how did Larsen run the St. Roch through the northern passage in 80 some days in the early 40's?

Edited June 11, 2008 by bluecon

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.nsidc.org/news/press/20080610_Slater.html

More jolly news from NSIDC.

I also found this;

Study: Arctic warming rate could triple

That, in turn, could quickly thaw permafrost, releasing CO2 and methane

Rapid Arctic sea ice loss could triple the rate of warming over northern Alaska, Canada and Russia and trigger permafrost thawing that unleashes extremely potent greenhouse gases, according to a new study."Our study suggests that, if sea ice continues to contract rapidly over the next several years, Arctic land warming and permafrost thaw are likely to accelerate," lead author David Lawrence of the National Center for Atmospheric Research said in a statement.

"The loss of sea ice can trigger widespread changes that would be felt across the region," added co-author Andrew Slater, a scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Cental Arctic sea ice extent shrank to a record low last summer, more than 30 percent below average, while air temperatures over land in the western Arctic were unusually warm from August to October — reaching more than 4 degrees F above average.

Researchers used a climate model to study whether the two events were related, and found that when sea ice melts quickly, the rate of Arctic land warming is 3.5 times greater than the average 21st century warming rates predicted in climate models.

"While this warming is largest over the ocean, the simulations suggest that it can penetrate as far as 900 miles inland," NCAR said in the statement. "The simulations also indicate that the warming acceleration during such events is especially pronounced in autumn. The decade during which a rapid sea-ice loss event occurs could see autumn temperatures warm by as much as 9 degrees F along the Arctic coasts of Russia, Alaska, and Canada."

The experts then used the model to determine that in areas where permafrost is already at risk, such as central Alaska, a period of abrupt sea-ice loss could lead to rapid and long-term soil thaw.

A worst-case scenario would be thawing that unleashes vast amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, an even more potent greenhouse gas.

Thawing could also destabilize oil installations and other infrastructure. Parts of Alaska, Canada and Russia have already seen buckled roads, sunken homes and "drunken forests" of trees leaning at wild angles.

"An important unresolved question is how the delicate balance of life in the Arctic will respond to such a rapid warming," Lawrence said. "Will we see, for example, accelerated coastal erosion, or increased methane emissions, or faster shrub encroachment into tundra regions if sea ice continues to retreat rapidly?"

The study, which will be published Friday in Geophysical Research Letters, was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation.

© 2008 MSNBC Interactive

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

and Bluecon, I will post up the temp anoms from the region when I get a mo.

[Mr Sleet]

http://www.nsidc.org/news/press/20080610_Slater.html

More jolly news from NSIDC.

I also found this;

Study: Arctic warming rate could triple

That, in turn, could quickly thaw permafrost, releasing CO2 and methane

Rapid Arctic sea ice loss could triple the rate of warming over northern Alaska, Canada and Russia and trigger permafrost thawing that unleashes extremely potent greenhouse gases, according to a new study."Our study suggests that, if sea ice continues to contract rapidly over the next several years, Arctic land warming and permafrost thaw are likely to accelerate," lead author David Lawrence of the National Center for Atmospheric Research said in a statement.

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

and Bluecon, I will post up the temp anoms from the region when I get a mo.

And I could still be the next Prime Minister.

[biffvernon]

And I could still be the next Prime Minister.

Assuming you have as much chance as the rest of us, that's one in sixty million. I'd put shorter odds on the David Lawrence paper.

[Gray-Wolf]

And I could still be the next Prime Minister.

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

this is the Arctic's 'form' for completing the prediction.......what form do you have for becoming P.M.?

My monies on the arctic predictions and not seeing the right honourable Mr Sleet becoming P.M. in the same time frame

[Mr Sleet]

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

this is the Arctic's 'form' for completing the prediction.......what form do you have for becoming P.M.?

My monies on the arctic predictions and not seeing the right honourable Mr Sleet becoming P.M. in the same time frame

I could be David Cameron, of that great party soon to return to power.

Edited June 11, 2008 by Mr Sleet

[jethro]

I could be David Cameron, of that great party soon to return to power.

You can go off people ya know.....

[Richie V]

http://www.nsidc.org/news/press/20080610_Slater.html

More jolly news from NSIDC.

I also found this;

Study: Arctic warming rate could triple

That, in turn, could quickly thaw permafrost, releasing CO2 and methane

Rapid Arctic sea ice loss could triple the rate of warming over northern Alaska, Canada and Russia and trigger permafrost thawing that unleashes extremely potent greenhouse gases, according to a new study."Our study suggests that, if sea ice continues to contract rapidly over the next several years, Arctic land warming and permafrost thaw are likely to accelerate," lead author David Lawrence of the National Center for Atmospheric Research said in a statement.

"The loss of sea ice can trigger widespread changes that would be felt across the region," added co-author Andrew Slater, a scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Cental Arctic sea ice extent shrank to a record low last summer, more than 30 percent below average, while air temperatures over land in the western Arctic were unusually warm from August to October — reaching more than 4 degrees F above average.

Researchers used a climate model to study whether the two events were related, and found that when sea ice melts quickly, the rate of Arctic land warming is 3.5 times greater than the average 21st century warming rates predicted in climate models.

"While this warming is largest over the ocean, the simulations suggest that it can penetrate as far as 900 miles inland," NCAR said in the statement. "The simulations also indicate that the warming acceleration during such events is especially pronounced in autumn. The decade during which a rapid sea-ice loss event occurs could see autumn temperatures warm by as much as 9 degrees F along the Arctic coasts of Russia, Alaska, and Canada."

The experts then used the model to determine that in areas where permafrost is already at risk, such as central Alaska, a period of abrupt sea-ice loss could lead to rapid and long-term soil thaw.

A worst-case scenario would be thawing that unleashes vast amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, an even more potent greenhouse gas.

Thawing could also destabilize oil installations and other infrastructure. Parts of Alaska, Canada and Russia have already seen buckled roads, sunken homes and "drunken forests" of trees leaning at wild angles.

"An important unresolved question is how the delicate balance of life in the Arctic will respond to such a rapid warming," Lawrence said. "Will we see, for example, accelerated coastal erosion, or increased methane emissions, or faster shrub encroachment into tundra regions if sea ice continues to retreat rapidly?"

The study, which will be published Friday in Geophysical Research Letters, was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation.

© 2008 MSNBC Interactive

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

and Bluecon, I will post up the temp anoms from the region when I get a mo.

Theres just one word in summing up here, IF!. Lets face it (at the risk of sounding like a GW / AGW naysayer) it seems like the world is on one big mild ramp. No one really knows the outcome 50 years down the line be it global temps rising 9 deg c or the dawn of the next supposidly (typo!!) well overdue ice age. As before, time will tell and I'll tell you now, as much as I really miss snowy cold winters I would go for the 9 deg c rise anytime. The sudden dawning of the next ice age would be a far bigger threat to us homosaphians than a modest warming surely.

[bluecon]

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

this is the Arctic's 'form' for completing the prediction.......what form do you have for becoming P.M.?

My monies on the arctic predictions and not seeing the right honourable Mr Sleet becoming P.M. in the same time frame

They are predicting a much later thaw than last year. For instance predicting the Port of Churchill to open 16 to 18 days later than last year and almost at the normal mean.

View of the actual ice. Doesn't look like Hudson Bay will open for the Port of Churchill near as soon as last year especially considering it is quite cold in the area.

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

Edited June 11, 2008 by bluecon

[Gray-Wolf]

They are predicting a much later thaw than last year. For instance predicting the Port of Churchill to open 16 to 18 days later than last year and almost at the normal mean.

View of the actual ice. Doesn't look like Hudson Bay will open for the Port of Churchill near as soon as last year especially considering it is quite cold in the area.

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

Are you not being a little disingenuous there bluecon? the areas set for 'normal' thaw times are those packed full of drifted perennial ice and the fact that they will become 'ice free' would suggest the loss of more perennial ice. So, a thing you hold up as a positive is, in effect, another negative..............

Edited June 12, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[millennia]

Are you not being a little disingenuous there bluecon? the areas set for 'normal' thaw times are those packed full of drifted perennial ice and the fact that they will become 'ice free' would suggest the loss of more perennial ice. So, a thing you hold up as a positive is, in effect, another negative..............

I don't think you can lose as much ice as you lost last year without knock on effects. It has been a remarkable recovery after last year but it leaves a lot of vulnerable 1st year ice plus, as GW points out, multi-year ice that broke free from the pack and drifted to areas where it may now melt off. Even a cold summer this year will not return us to normal and it's probably best to have a forensic examination in the autumn of what happens this summer than to try and second guess now.

The next couple of months will be interesting, on a global scale we are now at the point where total ice coverage starts to drop again (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...a.withtrend.jpg) it will be interesting to see if there is a significant break below 0 on the anomaly as we are currently running 1m sq km ahead of last year at this time.

[SnowBear]

And on that note why are we arguing or even talking about it?

Is it not best to leave any discussion at all about this now until the appropriate time ie: in the Autumn when true comparisons can be drawn?

Just a thought

[Gray-Wolf]

A plea I've made numerous times on here Snowbear! Fine enough to look at research and new data but the 'will it, won't it' debate should surely pause until mid July when we can see the direction this years melt is going in (as by Mid-July this years 'single year ice' will be in full retreat giving us some idea as to how much more perennial ice is at risk).

Waiting to mid-October may be a little too pedantic for many on here as ,by August, we will know if we are heading for retention or further loss.

Edited June 12, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[bluecon]

Are you not being a little disingenuous there bluecon? the areas set for 'normal' thaw times are those packed full of drifted perennial ice and the fact that they will become 'ice free' would suggest the loss of more perennial ice. So, a thing you hold up as a positive is, in effect, another negative..............

So you are saying if the ice melts at a later time it will cause greater earlier ice melt?

[Gray-Wolf]

So you are saying if the ice melts at a later time it will cause greater earlier ice melt?

Surely the loss of perennial ice is of great concern? We can see already how transient the single year ice is, even when it has had a second growth spurt in the areas affected by the late 'cold snap', with the polynia's opening currently throughout the region and the rapid degradation of any fast ice still in situ.

With the predicted 'above average' temps for all regions south of 75 degrees north, and swathes of those beyond 75 north, the prospect do not look good do they?

As has oft' been said on here no matter how extensive single year ice is it matters not a jot if it's all gone by mid Aug. and more perennial ice is eroded.

Don't just believe what I say though check out every single global sea ice forecasting organisation to find your confirmation.

None of this is a game. It is a very real and deadly earnest global situation whose impacts will be felt by you and I equally.

[bluecon]

I still want to know how the little St. Roch chugged through the northern part of the Northern Passage in 80 some days in the early 40's crossing from the East coast of Canada to the west coast. Was there less ice then?

It doesn't appear as though this is the first time the ice has been at such a low level. And the ice has recovered before and it will again.

[Gray-Wolf]

As the ice forcast reports make plain an open Northwest passage has been an infrequent visitor up north but never, to our historical knowledge, in two consecutive years.

Edited June 12, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[Mr Sleet]

As the ice forcast reports make plain an open Northwest passage has been an infrequent visitor up north but never, to our historical knowledge, in two consecutive years.

Why don't you take your own advice to Snowbear and wait and see ?

[Gray-Wolf]

Why don't you take your own advice to Snowbear and wait and see ?

We happen to be discussing current forcasts and the implications.

If we are not, in your opinion, to use/discuss forcasts then this would be a very impoverished site indeed don'tcha' think? :lol:

[Mr Sleet]

We happen to be discussing current forcasts and the implications.

If we are not, in your opinion, to use/discuss forcasts then this would be a very impoverished site indeed don'tcha' think?

You are second guessing whether or not the NW passage will open up this year. Take your own advice- wait and see.