Arctic Ice

[stewfox]

Polar bears dying out , 2006 due to global warming

http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=15365&in_page_id=2

26 August 2008 , poplar bears not dying out plenty of ice in Spitsbergan

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/climatewatch/article.html?in_article_id=278492&in_page_id=59

Mentions

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

But you see the warming mainly in the glac­iers – some of them are retreating 30 metres a year,' he added.

What is one to believe :o

[Mondy]

Shamelessly pinched from another message board:

...and as someone on that board said "Someone needs to photoshop that white crap out of the background.

We want to see open seas.."

I'm sure the agw folks thought it mildly amusing too, or maybe not :o

Edited August 26, 2008 by Delta X-Ray

[stewfox]

I'd agree with that Jackone.

The melt for the last few days has slowed sharply.

Typical I say the above and it goes and does the opposite.

180,000 lost in the last two days.

So only 470,938 between this year and last year now.

So where do you get the first figure from and the last ?

470,938 ? what 470,938 more square kilometers of ice now against the min last year ?

How much multi year, I assume most of the single year ice now gone ??

[Chris Knight]

So where do you get the first figure from and the last ?

470,938 ? what 470,938 more square kilometers of ice now against the min last year ?

How much multi year, I assume most of the single year ice now gone ??

There are still drifting buoys on the ice, some deployed in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. Here, so I guess there is at least 4 year old ice left, although they don't show up on the map below. Of course, some of them are bobbing around in open water now, waiting to be recycled.

[J10]

Tbe Rate of decline has ramped up and now we are closer to the 2007 figures than the 2005 figures, and this may well continue to the end of the year. There was always the possibility of this happening, but to such an extent is still a surprise.

Also to confirm we are now below the 2005 year low figure.

Latest Figures attached.

[osmposm]

http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=15365&in_page_id=2

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/climatewatch/article.html?in_article_id=278492&in_page_id=59

Metro is a free London tabloid with an apparent editorial staff of one man and a dog.

"What is one to believe?", you ask, Stew....the obvious answer is nothing that you read in Metro. And I'm fairly depressed that you want to reduce us here to discussing what papers like that say.

[osmposm]

Typical I say the above and it goes and does the opposite.

180,000 lost in the last two days.

So only 470,938 between this year and last year now.

I don't quite know where the 470K figure comes from either, Ice.

Assuming you're talking about the difference between the 2007 & 2008 IJIS figures for a particular date, as far as I can see the recent differences have been: 23rd August - 591,718; 24th August - 551,250; 25th August - 457,657. As of yesterday the difference has dropped further to 413, 281.

By the last week of August 2007 the ice extent area was dropping by around 30 or 40K sq km a day. In the last few days this year the daily drop has been two or even three times that!!

I'm afraid those more pessimistic prognoses of a month or two ago are now looking far from exaggerated.

Edited August 27, 2008 by osmposm

[Iceberg]

I could have sworn the figure was different but it must be the first time I've been accused of making it seem better than it is :o

Another big fall.

[Gray-Wolf]

This 'accelleration' in the melt isn't being reflected over on C.T. yet but the NSIDC graph shows it.

If this 'melting out' of the last of the single year ice carries on for a week then we will overtake last years ice extent which has to be one of the most worrying global events to have happened in human history. Any 'extra' losses will be at the cost of 'perennial ice' so we will see the same again next year if we have an 'average' summer (or better).

When do we now think melt/disruption will continue up to? 3rd week in sept maybe???

[Gray-Wolf]

After reading NSDIC's report I googled 'Arctic Ice' and it brought back 84 recent (past 2 days) news articles all shadowing the story.

Strange, if you look at the NSIDC's press releases/associated stories you find early Aug press releases telling us that the ice isn't melting as 'ordered'....... funny what 3 weeks can do eh?

[trevw]

This 'accelleration' in the melt isn't being reflected over on C.T. yet but the NSIDC graph shows it.

If this 'melting out' of the last of the single year ice carries on for a week then we will overtake last years ice extent which has to be one of the most worrying global events to have happened in human history. Any 'extra' losses will be at the cost of 'perennial ice' so we will see the same again next year if we have an 'average' summer (or better).

When do we now think melt/disruption will continue up to? 3rd week in sept maybe???

From what I've observed CT seems to lead the NSIDC data.. I would have said we have passed the crossover point where the NSIDC extent data continues to fall whereas the CT area graph starts to level off.

I thought perhaps this might be because NSIDCs extent is only really interested in the ice edge whereas the the CT data is area and as the higher lattitude 'holes' in the pack start to freeze back up this starts to balance the melting at the fringes. Or maybe I've got this confused and it is because of the threshold concentrations they use?

Whichever, the lag can be seen by the fact that last years CT graph levelled out mid august but the NSIDC graph was still on a slowing decline for a further month.

That said, if the nsidc graph 'tip' isn't straightened out by some revisiting of the data in the next day or so which seems unlikely as they've just posted an update then the extent is retracting at quite a rate now, and CTs area still dropping towards last years minimum as well.. (albeit slowly)

cheers

Trev

[osmposm]

I could have sworn the figure was different but it must be the first time I've been accused of making it seem better than it is ....

And I suspect you were right, Ice: it now looks to me as if each day's IJIS/AMSR-E figure for Sea Ice Extent is - like the one used on the NSIDC graph - subject to later revision. The difference between 2007 & 2008 for 26th August worked out as 413,281 km² when I did it early yesterday morning. The same calculation for the 26th now gives a difference of just 404,531 km². They've obviously changed this year's figure today, as they presumably did the one you calculated, too.

By the way, people, I have received no reply to my polite, intelligent & supportive email query to NSIDC about the graph revision at the end of July - see here: http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...p;#entry1306493 . I sent it on 6th August, with an equally polite follow-up on the 15th, but as yet they've not even acknowledged. One suspects that insufficient staff and/or reluctance to engage in possibly long email correspondence with tiresome amateurs is to blame, rather than a conspiracy to hide their doctoring of the numbers......but I have to say I am very disappointed. It may not be any of these, but it's easy to interpret it as at best incompetence or laziness, and at worst arrogance. I feel slightly less inclined now to defend the bona fides of those accused of "cooking the books" to fit a political agenda.

[Roger J Smith]

I suspect there is a bit of hocus-pocus going on with these figures, the maps I look at every day seem to be showing an orderly reduction that stays about the same distance behind 2007 at each stage. Already noted that the melt seems more prodigious on the Novaya Zemlya side of the basin, and least spectacular in the Canadian section.

At the moment a large part of the arctic basin is not subject to anomalous warmth and so the maximum extent may be soon reached. I'm expecting a little redistribution but nothing too dramatic in early September.

What will be different, then, from 2007 is that the ice margin will probably stabilize closer to 78 N than 84 N in the Siberian section, then it will probably readvance faster than last autumn.

Summer melt may already be pretty much over in arctic Canada, as temperatures are falling below freezing again over quite a wide area. I've heard conflicting descriptions of the ice conditions in the NWP, suffice it to say that there are large sections that did not thaw this season, whether you can get through without assistance is probably subject to chance to some extent (this has always been a region subject to somewhat disorganized patchwork quilt conditions of open water, drift ice and pack ice).

[trevw]

I suspect there is a bit of hocus-pocus going on with these figures, the maps I look at every day seem to be showing an orderly reduction that stays about the same distance behind 2007 at each stage. Already noted that the melt seems more prodigious on the Novaya Zemlya side of the basin, and least spectacular in the Canadian section.

Perhaps there was a large area of ice at just greater than 15% concentration that is now starting to dip lower than 15%? - this would present itself as a sharp acceleration in melting while in reality the melting could actuall be slowing drastically (not saying this is happening, just that it is possible) - as long as it is still going on and there is a large enough area that only needs a little more melt to get it under the threshold..

[Iceberg]

I agree with that Trev, you can only really compare like with like so CT with the previous years CT, NSIC with NISC etc.

On that basis we have had another terrible year being only 400K higher than the biggest minimum recorded.

[Gray-Wolf]

And now the media is full of the 'second highest melt on record' stories.....or 9 Polar Bears in the middle of Chukki sea.....or 60% more carbon in the perma-frost than we thought there was (now we've been out and measured it). Funny the difference a week can make!

I think the final figures will be very close to 2007.......either above or below but a lot closer than most though possible at the start of the season. The most important thing about this years melt is how 'average' an Arctic year it has been (unlike last summer).

[Devonian]

I suspect there is a bit of hocus-pocus going on with these figures, the maps I look at every day seem to be showing an orderly reduction that stays about the same distance behind 2007 at each stage. Already noted that the melt seems more prodigious on the Novaya Zemlya side of the basin, and least spectacular in the Canadian section.

Roger, I never understand why some people think conspiracy 'hocus pocus' as a first option rather than that the data might be, no it can't be, right. As others have said, there are good mechanisms (not least that there is no reason why NSIDC might be dishonest) that explain such changes.

At the moment a large part of the arctic basin is not subject to anomalous warmth and so the maximum extent may be soon reached. I'm expecting a little redistribution but nothing too dramatic in early September.

Melting continues (because of the warmth accumulated in the Arctic Ocean?) "Surface melt has mostly ended, but the decline will continue for two to three more weeks because of melt from the bottom and sides of the ice.".

What will be different, then, from 2007 is that the ice margin will probably stabilize closer to 78 N than 84 N in the Siberian section, then it will probably readvance faster than last autumn.

Not impossible, though I doubt anyone speculating in May that ice loss would reach second or first place in the record would be told not to speculate and wait and and see by your good self?

And now the media is full of the 'second highest melt on record' stories.....or 9 Polar Bears in the middle of Chukki sea.....or 60% more carbon in the perma-frost than we thought there was (now we've been out and measured it). Funny the difference a week can make!

I think the final figures will be very close to 2007.......either above or below but a lot closer than most though possible at the start of the season. The most important thing about this years melt is how 'average' an Arctic year it has been (unlike last summer).

Indeed.

Has it been a warm summer up there? I don't think so. So I guess we're seeing what a lot of people thought, that first year ice IS more vulnerable to melt - obviously?

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Dev!

Though we were actively 'dissuaded' from open predictions earlier in the season it did seem a bit of a 'no brainer' to predict that last years single year ice would melt again this year (or was that just me???).

Now we are approaching 'min' it will be interesting to hear the final 'melt season wrap up' from the guys who mooted ice retention and would not accept this years inevitable meltdown. How they could still hold out that a thin slab of ice on a body of warm water would fare well intrigues me as , though my educational credentials do not include thermodynamics, I could see no other outcome (and posted as much) as we see today.

I would also like the folk who were caught out by this years melt to predict (plus or minus 2500km) the next few years melt. Will there be a gradual turn around and retention or are we really over the crest and on the downward, slippery slope, to an ice free Arctic (beyond the fabled 'tipping point')

Question. Are all the Arctic sea routes now open and if so is this a 'first'?

[jethro]

Talking of no brainers.... scientists have long held the view, supported by data, that warmer oceans are THE biggest player in Arctic melt; yes, local "weather" does have an impact but not the biggest impact. The same scientists say CYCLES in ocean currents are the over-riding factor, warmer atmospheric temperatures may have augmented these, but not by much.

Ocean cycles do not suddenly change direction or phase in a single season, expecting massive ice recovery in a single season is ludicrous.

IMHO using the amount of ice as a gauge of AGW and how far down the road of planet destruction we've travelled to date, is a pattern dictated and led by the media - let's give the populace a graphic illustration of open seas and ice melt to drive home the message, throw in the odd stranded Polar Bear for good measure, got a pic with cubs on it - all the better.

The mythology of this story stems from the expected AGW signal being amplified in the polar regions, sadly that theory does not include the known natural ocean cycles, other than to give them a cursory nod. It was deemed that the AGW signal would over-ride those ocean cycles (a presumption too far IMO); to date there is nothing in the data to support that assumption.

The level of ice is not a reliable measure of AGW, more a game of pin the tail on the donkey.

Heads for cover..............

[Gray-Wolf]

I imagine, insofar as incoming radiation is concerned, that the equator receives more of it's fair share. Nature does not like 'imbalance' and so tries to iron out the global differences in temp by flooding warm air to the poles and displacing the cold air amassing there.

Be it wind or wave it is the 'extra' heating that is the concern here. We have a world of 'fluctuations'. Ice levels have risen and fallen in the past around 'natural' cycles and agglomerations of natural cycles but not like we have witnessed for the past 30yrs. Ice shelves have been lost, glaciers are falling to bits (and not just melting from the snouts), ice sheets are losing mass, Perma-frosts are melting both within and outside of natural drivers. The sickening underlying trend (when other cycles are teased out) is up.

Yes J. they saw polar Bears whilst doing there rounds. 9 in one flight out in the deep waters in East Siberia and Chukchi. Yes they were exhausted and no we can't help as to tranqs them just lets them drown.

The last 'record' for bears in open water was 18 for the season so 9 in one day ain't bad.

However much we 'wish' it wasn't so it is becoming, year on year, apparent that the worse case predictions are now coming to pass and your earlier 'dismissive' posts on the plight of such critters are starting to look a little 'uncaring' (which I know isn't you J. ).

Edited August 28, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[Roger J Smith]

Well my point was that what I am seeing on the map today is more or less what I expected to see from two weeks or a month ago, and so if the "rate of change" has suddenly changed in somebody's estimation, then they must have revised the criteria because I am not seeing anything different from what was anticipated (check out several predictive comments earlier in this thread). And the ice margin is nowhere near as far north as last year (yet) and doesn't seem to be heading that way, I think the boundary will soon stall at some position between 79 and 80 N in most areas north of east Siberia.

I tend to agree that a full meltdown is in the realm of possibility within 10-20 years, and I have been thinking this for quite some time, not necessarily having to do with human activity, but as a natural phenomenon that is probably quite predictable as we must be nearing the onset of the warmest phase of the inter-glacial and in the last one temperatures were as much as 2-4 C higher than they are now (around 120,000 yrs ago) so if various natural factors don't intervene to stall that development, we could be seeing this soon in our own times.

I have always thought this was possible, and I don't think there is much we can do about it in reality, although it seems that various countries are determined to try because they think the cause is human production of greenhouse gases, whereas I tend to think it is largely a natural phenomenon. Since everyone agrees that it happened between the last two ice ages, I don't really understand why it is now verboten to suggest it could happen again for natural reasons alone.

As for the polar bears, they have always faced a difficult environment, I wonder when they evolved from their land cousins, before or during the previous ice age, and what was their fate during the last inter-glacial or the one before that?

They have always thrived around Hudson Bay which routinely loses all its ice cover in August and refreezes in December or January, and one could be just as far from land in central Hudson Bay as in the Chuckchi Sea.

[jethro]

I imagine, insofar as incoming radiation is concerned, that the equator receives more of it's fair share. Nature does not like 'imbalance' and so tries to iron out the global differences in temp by flooding warm air to the poles and displacing the cold air amassing there.

Be it wind or wave it is the 'extra' heating that is the concern here. We have a world of 'fluctuations'. Ice levels have risen and fallen in the past around 'natural' cycles and agglomerations of natural cycles but not like we have witnessed for the past 30yrs. Ice shelves have been lost, glaciers are falling to bits (and not just melting from the snouts), ice sheets are losing mass, Perma-frosts are melting both within and outside of natural drivers. The sickening underlying trend (when other cycles are teased out) is up.

Yes J. they saw polar Bears whilst doing there rounds. 9 in one flight out in the deep waters in East Siberia and Chukchi. Yes they were exhausted and no we can't help as to tranqs them just lets them drown.

The last 'record' for bears in open water was 18 for the season so 9 in one day ain't bad.

However much we 'wish' it wasn't so it is becoming, year on year, apparent that the worse case predictions are now coming to pass and your earlier 'dismissive' posts on the plight of such critters are starting to look a little 'uncaring' (which I know isn't you J. ).

The Equator/Pole difference is nothing new you know; that's how circulation works.

The extra heating isn't the b-all and end-all but it's definitely been portrayed as such. Not like the last 30 years?? Yes we have, even in our limited time span of accurate measurements, within our grandparents lifespan. Ice shelves calve, always have done, always will do and it's not because they've melted and gone all slushy, that's just our perception of melting ice in our world. It snows - yippee, it warms up - it thaws

If the Polar Bears were in the field at the end of my garden, in all likelihood I'd make them a bed in the barn and spend a fortune at the fishmongers before tucking them up with a hot water bottle; I'd feel better but I'm not so sure they would. Human perception (mine included) is along the lines of "awwww, aint they cute" but Mother Nature doesn't do sentiment, she's a harsh beast. Every creature on this Earth, including us goes through good times and bad, intervention makes us feel good, nothing more.

Watching the ice melt and taking it as a measure of our influence on the world, is in my ever so humble opinion, not an accurate indication of the extent AGW. I've provided links to valid, respected papers to vindicate my opinion - I'm not just being a stubborn mare here. We'll never agree on this GW, I'm happy to agree to disagree but I do reserve the right to step in occasionally to insert a pragmatic view to counteract your dramatic one. Deal?

Whilst I remember (off topic, sorry mods) do you want some of those plants?

[Devonian]

Well my point was that what I am seeing on the map today is more or less what I expected to see from two weeks or a month ago, and so if the "rate of change" has suddenly changed in somebody's estimation, then they must have revised the criteria because I am not seeing anything different from what was anticipated (check out several predictive comments earlier in this thread). And the ice margin is nowhere near as far north as last year (yet) and doesn't seem to be heading that way, I think the boundary will soon stall at some position between 79 and 80 N in most areas north of east Siberia.

I tend to agree that a full meltdown is in the realm of possibility within 10-20 years, and I have been thinking this for quite some time, not necessarily having to do with human activity, but as a natural phenomenon that is probably quite predictable as we must be nearing the onset of the warmest phase of the inter-glacial and in the last one temperatures were as much as 2-4 C higher than they are now (around 120,000 yrs ago) so if various natural factors don't intervene to stall that development, we could be seeing this soon in our own times.

So, we're not heading for the next ice age? So, who is right, the sceptics saying we're in for a major cool down (see several threads here), or those like you who see a major warming up? Perhaps it's both

I DO think an ice free Arctic may have happened before. I doubt it could have happened so quickly (if it does). I for one wont rule out humanities action being a major player in all this.

I have always thought this was possible, and I don't think there is much we can do about it in reality, although it seems that various countries are determined to try because they think the cause is human production of greenhouse gases, whereas I tend to think it is largely a natural phenomenon. Since everyone agrees that it happened between the last two ice ages, I don't really understand why it is now verboten to suggest it could happen again for natural reasons alone.

As for the polar bears, they have always faced a difficult environment, I wonder when they evolved from their land cousins, before or during the previous ice age, and what was their fate during the last inter-glacial or the one before that?

They have always thrived around Hudson Bay which routinely loses all its ice cover in August and refreezes in December or January, and one could be just as far from land in central Hudson Bay as in the Chuckchi Sea.

Oh, I also think animals don't want to die. So, polar bears will fight to survive changes. I just think we shouldn't play god with their future by accelerating any changes thanks to changing the atmosphere's radiative properties.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

So, we're not heading for the next ice age? So, who is right, the sceptics saying we're in for a major cool down (see several threads here), or those like you who see a major warming up? Perhaps it's both

I DO think an ice free Arctic may have happened before. I doubt it could have happened so quickly (if it does). I for one wont rule out humanities action being a major player in all this.

Oh, I also think animals don't want to die. So, polar bears will fight to survive changes. I just think we shouldn't play god with their future by accelerating any changes thanks to changing the atmosphere's radiative properties.

Poor poor thriving polar bears

A survey of the animals' numbers in Canada's eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining, because of mankind's interference in the environment.

In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today.

"There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears," said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals.

His findings back the claims of Inuit hunters who have long claimed that they were seeing more bears.

"Scientific knowledge has demonstrated that Inuit knowledge was right," said Mr Taylor.

BFTP

Edited August 28, 2008 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[jethro]

Inflammatory, perhaps; but valid none the less:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ARCTIC_ICE_IN_THE_NEWS.pdf