Carinthians Latest Arctic Reports

[SIG100]

Ice chart from DNMI:

[Chris Knight]

Yes we should probably leave most of the conjecture to the climate thread but i do have to correct a slight misunderstanding about radiation budgets. You can not look at outgoing long wave radiation in isolation away from short wave radiation. The link below explains how although outgoing long wave radiation increases short wave radiation is substantially reduced.

On a global scale, BF, yes.

However, in the Arctic, the maximum area of exposed ocean after the summer melt occurs around the autumn equinox, when short wave radiation from the sun is present for a maximum of half a day, whereas long wave radiation from ice or ocean is emitted 24 hours a day.

The Arctic radiation budget is naturally biassed towards a negative radiation budget, the causative reason for any planetary polar ice cap.

The latest update from the NSIDC released today touches upon this very subject

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html

A new record minimum is looking quite likely now.

Looks like the Arctic sea ice is on a hiding to nothing!

If the Arctic autumn is cloudy, the sea ice refreeze will be slower, of less area and thinner, with increased precipitation for a longer time. If clear skies predominate during the autumn, heat loss to space will cool things down faster, the temperature differential between the pole and sub-polar regions becomes greater, faster, and the potential for stormy interchanges with warmth from the Atlantic and Pacific increases. Both scenarios are intrinsically cooling that part of the earth, either at surface level, or from the top of the troposphere.

Either way, only one year old ice remains in the Arctic by spring. Looks like we need a cloudy spring and summer to restore any degree of the former status quo. The prospects of an Arctic sea ice increase in the near future do not look good.

[Gray-Wolf]

Took a flight over the pole this a.m. courtesy of MODIS Aqua and Terra and though sections of the Eurasian coast out towards Bering are cloud blighted you can see enough of the rest of the pack to leave you very depressed. Not only is the area covered in Polynya's all the way through to the pole most of the breakup is into very small floes and not the usual large sections. I wonder if ice thickness dictates the size that the ice breaks up into with thicker ice sustaining larger floes?

The fact that so much is visible means that there is a lot of sunshine up there at the moment (24hrs a day) and with the dark water already appearing throughout the polar ice then I'd expect ice loss to really speed up now.

The Canadian archipelago has one section of 'fast ice' and the rest well fragmented or gone so the NW Passage will be open again this summer. I wonder if shipping is planning to use the 'toll free' path into the Pacific this year? WE all know the impact ships smoke stacks have and it will not help the situation up there to have commercial vessels ploughing their way back and forth (never mind the other types of 'pollution' vessels bring to an area).

[oldsnowywizard]

ok i have tried three times to write this post and each time the images keep failing to show.. grrr

please go to the CT site and look at the comparison charts like the one below...

i would have expected previous years to have ice conditions much better than today??? If you compare todays date with the same date previously you will notice that the Artic has actually had larger polynya's and areas of melt. a few examples..

1980 - comparing June 6th you will see that this years ice conditions as portrayed by this map arent actually that far off conditions in 1980.

1990 - 3 Massive Polynya's much bigger than 2008 ( not sure why a skype link has shown here?)

1993 - 3 polynya's

1995- 8 polynya's small however there none the less

2006 - entire Artic region has 60-80% concentration values, much lower than currently shown.

if someone can show the 1990 comparison that is one of the very obvious ones.

please note this is ice concentration rather than ice thickness, we all know the situtaion here.. i am just a little suprised at the findings.

comments?

Edited June 7, 2008 by oldsnowywizard

[Mr Sleet]

ok i have tried three times to write this post and each time the images keep failing to show.. grrr

please go to the CT site and look at the comparison charts like the one below...

i would have expected previous years to have ice conditions much better than today??? If you compare todays date with the same date previously you will notice that the Artic has actually had larger polynya's and areas of melt. a few examples..

1980 - comparing June 6th you will see that this years ice conditions as portrayed by this map arent actually that far off conditions in 1980.

1990 - 3 Massive Polynya's much bigger than 2008 ( not sure why a skype link has shown here?)

1993 - 3 polynya's

1995- 8 polynya's small however there none the less

2006 - entire Artic region has 60-80% concentration values, much lower than currently shown.

if someone can show the 1990 comparison that is one of the very obvious ones.

please note this is ice concentration rather than ice thickness, we all know the situtaion here.. i am just a little suprised at the findings.

comments?

OSN

You make a very good point. When all is said and done the NH sea ice is down about 1 m sqkm and the SH ice area is up about 1msq.km. Putting the global tally right on the average line.

Regarding thicknesses, others have posted that first year ice thicknesses are 100-200 cm ( Russian sources) which I think is good and above normal.

On one of the enviro threads someone is frothing about the state of Hudson bay ice, but as that is always one year ice it looks absolutely normal !

I think there would have to be a calamitous drop in ice area now (much faster than 2007 ) to beat the 2007 minimum.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I think there would have to be a calamitous drop in ice area now (much faster than 2007 ) to beat the 2007 minimum.

There would, but it's also quite a feasible possibility because of the greater amount of first-year ice.

[Gray-Wolf]

I would concur TWS.

The Canadian coastgaurd Service do not offer a lot of hope in this matter. Most areas are forcast to be ice free ahead of times apart from the areas where perennial ice drifted into last year but these are still set to be ice free by Aug. (i.e. more perennial ice lost).

Ho Hum.........

[summer blizzard]

The ice loss situation is quite complicated, this is because while a lot is first year ice, in the areas where ice melted in 2006 leading to the poor amount in 2007 because of the thinness of first year ice, we have thicker first year ice, which is why the initial melt (mainly around Siberia) is being delayed compared to last year, however in the area which did'nt lose ice in 2006 but did in 2007 (high arctic), we are going to see a much faster drop than last year, so i would say it is going to be close, though if we can keep the Siberian Ice until at least july, then i think we will come out above last years.

[Polar Continental]

Morning all,

On the way to the states, May 25th I took a few shots of the spring ice break up in Hudson Bay, these shots were taken at around 35,000 feet, as you can see there was still a good deal of ice around.

Paul

[jethro]

Brilliant pics; flew over in February, really wished I hadn't packed my camera away in the luggage.

[doctormog]

Morning all,

On the way to the states, May 25th I took a few shots of the spring ice break up in Hudson Bay, these shots were taken at around 35,000 feet, as you can see there was still a good deal of ice around.

Paul

Those are great photos Paul.

[oldsnowywizard]

The ice loss situation is quite complicated, this is because while a lot is first year ice, in the areas where ice melted in 2006 leading to the poor amount in 2007 because of the thinness of first year ice, we have thicker first year ice, which is why the initial melt (mainly around Siberia) is being delayed compared to last year, however in the area which did'nt lose ice in 2006 but did in 2007 (high arctic), we are going to see a much faster drop than last year, so i would say it is going to be close, though if we can keep the Siberian Ice until at least july, then i think we will come out above last years.

SB could you explain what you mean please? why would there be thicker new ice where is no multiyear ice?

[Gray-Wolf]

SB could you explain what you mean please? why would there be thicker new ice where is no multiyear ice?

I think he may be referring to the ice build on the shallow coastal shelf areas impacted by a cold winter last time around. Sadly these areas are the first to melt. The forcast is for the Eastern passage to be open this year (earlier than the NW Passage so the perennial ice that was driven onto the Siberian coast last summer by the 'novel' synoptics that persisted then is set to melt, again because it is lodged on coastal fringes that warm very quickly) so all the ice in that region is forcast to melt. The temp forcasts for the next 3 months are set to be above normal across vast swathes of the high arctic with only 75 degrees north and beyond showing a chance of 'normal' temps for the period.

Now we are within the various agencies dealing with sea ice forcast periods wouldn't it make sense to check these out and temper our posts with the info there contained?

[oldsnowywizard]

GW can you post the temp forecasts for the next 3 months if poss?

[Gray-Wolf]

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

I will find those region by region forecasts OSW, promise!

EDIT: Though they are in the format of above/normal/below and not degrees C you understand.

Edited June 11, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[doctormog]

There is an indepth analysis of recent and forecast ice conditions available from the Canadian Sea Ice service or in fact "A collaboration of the Canadian Ice Service and the National/Naval Ice Center" http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/ARCTIC001..._0003788559.pdf

This was released a week ago.

[summer blizzard]

Very interesting links..

It seems that the North West Passage is expected to open, with only Baffin Bay and the Davis straight being obsticles to this, not forecast to melt until September.

[Gray-Wolf]

There is an indepth analysis of recent and forecast ice conditions available from the Canadian Sea Ice service or in fact "A collaboration of the Canadian Ice Service and the National/Naval Ice Center" http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/ARCTIC001..._0003788559.pdf

This was released a week ago.

Ta! doctormog! this was what i was trying to rediscover for OSW.

OSW, doctormog's provided the link to the place I'd got my temp forecast's from.

[oldsnowywizard]

crunch time now.. this time last year things went very pear shaped in the arctic..

areas to note -

Chukchi and russian sectors doing much better this year.

barents and kara doing worse - not suprising as there was only a couple of weeks of ice formation last winter.

so i would suggest we arent doing too badly..considerin. in fact one would have expected the thinner ice to melt very quickly.. this doesnt look like the case at the moment. time will tell though of course.

[Gray-Wolf]

Once again,OSW, I have issues with the accuracy of C.T. Apart for them being the better part of a week behind times their guestimates leave a little to be desired!

When I overflew the pole this a.m. all the sea ice was well disrupted (through to the pole) and the polynya's noted by NSIDC were now providing huge areas of dark water in their respective areas. Not only that but the disrupted pack is also riddled with patches of dark water, straight through to the pole. We must be cautious of sea-ice reports as the skin of 10cm of ice will show as contiguous yet ablate in less than a day. Better to talk in terms of 'last week' when using the current sea ice extent graphics and only rely on the 'near real time' satellite images to see where we are actually at. Sadly much of the pack is visible as cloud cover is absent or very thin stratoform.

[oldsnowywizard]

Once again,OSW, I have issues with the accuracy of C.T. Apart for them being the better part of a week behind times their guestimates leave a little to be desired!

When I overflew the pole this a.m. all the sea ice was well disrupted (through to the pole) and the polynya's noted by NSIDC were now providing huge areas of dark water in their respective areas. Not only that but the disrupted pack is also riddled with patches of dark water, straight through to the pole. We must be cautious of sea-ice reports as the skin of 10cm of ice will show as contiguous yet ablate in less than a day. Better to talk in terms of 'last week' when using the current sea ice extent graphics and only rely on the 'near real time' satellite images to see where we are actually at. Sadly much of the pack is visible as cloud cover is absent or very thin stratoform.

GW, a few comments.. agreed that CTs' charts are usually a week behind, i dont know that they actually post guestimates though? i maybe wrong.. the graphical images are based on satellite information and only lag by a day. their graphical tool is quite useful as it provide a satellite based comparison. At this time of year with the sun being at its highest point in the sky 24/7 its not suprising to see melt water.. as previously posted conditions in 1990 were much worse than today in some areas.

the flight over the pole is brilliant and you are lucky to be able to do that... although i would say.. you will only have visibility of a certain amount of area from your flight path and this wouldnt be a true representation of the whole area, although it would be useful if you mentioned where you did see. Where there are polynyas of course the dark water will absorb energy and cause more melt...10 cms of ice could indeed ablate in less than a day, provided conditions are there to encourage that.. for the next week or so, there are no warm plumes, 850 temps are set to 0, there is a polar low which will bring cloud cover, SSTs are in most areas showing negative anomolies... so in actual fact conditions are quite favourable to limit ice loss.. something completely opposite to last year.

considering the amount of only year old ice i would suggest that we are doing better than i think everyone expected.

just out of interest did you see anything positive on your flight?

Carinth any updates from your side?

[oldsnowywizard]

image shows one area at least showing ice cover

[Mr Sleet]

crunch time now.. this time last year things went very pear shaped in the arctic..

areas to note -

Chukchi and russian sectors doing much better this year.

barents and kara doing worse - not suprising as there was only a couple of weeks of ice formation last winter.

so i would suggest we arent doing too badly..considerin. in fact one would have expected the thinner ice to melt very quickly.. this doesnt look like the case at the moment. time will tell though of course.

You are right. The rate of melt is slower than last year . Attempts to discredit Cryosphere Today suggest that some commentators on here are becoming a little worried about their predictions B)

[Thundery wintry showers]

A lot depends on conditions over the Arctic over the summer months and September. Last year, there was a huge melt in late June and early July, most likely associated with the large plume of >10C 850hPa air that headed north of 80N. High pressure and dry sunny weather prevailed over the pole last summer, so conditions were pretty anomalous.

I still think we'll end up running last year's record close or maybe beating it, but it's not a foregone conclusion.

[Mr Sleet]

A lot depends on conditions over the Arctic over the summer months and September. Last year, there was a huge melt in late June and early July, most likely associated with the large plume of >10C 850hPa air that headed north of 80N. High pressure and dry sunny weather prevailed over the pole last summer, so conditions were pretty anomalous.

I still think we'll end up running last year's record close or maybe beating it, but it's not a foregone conclusion.

Indeed TWS I will come and eat humble pie if I'm wrong, have no fear

Genuine question to all and sundry . I'm going to challenge what seems to be an assumption that " multiyear ice " is somehow more resistent to melting than single year ice. For a given thickness, I don't see why that should be the case. Anyone have any hard evidence on this ? Facts please, not opinions