Arctic Ice

[millennia]

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'?

Hello everybody! Took a break of a few weeks as the circular arguements were getting me down. I thought I'd wait until the media caught on to the August melt I'd been watching and I've dropped back in exactly where I thought the discussion would be on this site.

Yes, it would have taken a particularly cold summer to stop first year ice succumbing this year. The fact we DIDN'T break the record from last year when there was so much vulnerable ice should be noted. Also I see a lot of movement in the pack and it appears to me that quite a bit of multi-year ice was lost again, and at the same time more first year ice remained than I thought it would. This confirms to me that ice loss is primarily ocean current driven and not through air temperature (as ice was lost in areas with little +ve anomoly). I'm glad we didn't get a new record for no more reason than it would be a gift to alarmists who have had little to crow about this year with substantial drops in temperature of the La Nina. What has been notable in the last few weeks is the ever increasing reporting of scientists coming out on the sceptic side of the arguement, particularly those alarmed by the punitive economic measures being mooted to combat the perceived threat at a time when the world can't afford these kind of mistakes. The economic measures, particualrly those of Europe and now even America, will not affect the rich but they will kill the poor - this will be the legacy of the great global warming scam.

Predictions - I see a warming off the coast of S America so a moderate El Nino could be on the cards. It will be interesting to see the affect on temperatures this Winter in correlation with PDO/AMO and SCs 23 and 24. Global warming may yet have it's swan song and with a Democrat President and Gore back in power plenty of time to wreek havoc with nasty capitalism and guarantee we never come out of this recession. So I think no great increase in ice year on year until the heat flow of ocean currents into the Arctic is reduced. In W Europe I see a warm Autumn followed by another plunge of the polar front taking storms across S England as they did this summer - get yer skis out up north!

I haven't a scooby what happens after that, too much can change in the next 6 months!

And finally, in answer to GWs 'first' Arctic route openings question - NO. I have before posted extracts of Amundsen's log from 1908 describing the NW passage as having "no ice as far as the eye can see" and newspaper reports from 1922 reporting huge loss of Arctic ice and an "inland sea" (sic) near the North Pole. We live in an information age and the last time this happened we didn't - this is the only 'first' we are experiencing. It has all happened before and it will happen again, and one day we will understand why.

But we don't yet.

[trevw]

Inflammatory, perhaps; but valid none the less:

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

my main issue with that document is the bit where they say about the nsidc saying previously that natural warming cycles were responsible for the melt, then adding a quote which says nothing of the sort.. merely that changes in ocean circulation are making a contribution ( changes possibly due to AGW for all the quoted information says ) It is the writer of the article who is imposing his own assumptions and making 2+2 = 5.

Now, I'm not saying that the ocean circulation changes definitely aren't natural but it is not convincing when quotes are wilfully misrepresented in that manner and tends to make me discount what that person has to say

On the record high snow and ice cover, obviously we all know that the ice was unusually thin, also the amount was roughly the same as 1984 from what I can find.. another la nina year I believe? I'm fairly sure also that I read somewhere that open water going into autumn/winter at the poles could lead to more snow.

Not sure that it proves anything as a single standalone year. Will be interesting to see if we get the same late,rapid,widespread refreeze this year and whether we get high snow levels again?

All in all the article strikes up a tone of 'AGW is dead long live natural cycles' without even attempting to convince anyone who doesn't already heartily agree.

[jethro]

my main issue with that document is the bit where they say about the nsidc saying previously that natural warming cycles were responsible for the melt, then adding a quote which says nothing of the sort.. merely that changes in ocean circulation are making a contribution ( changes possibly due to AGW for all the quoted information says ) It is the writer of the article who is imposing his own assumptions and making 2+2 = 5.

Now, I'm not saying that the ocean circulation changes definitely aren't natural but it is not convincing when quotes are wilfully misrepresented in that manner and tends to make me discount what that person has to say

On the record high snow and ice cover, obviously we all know that the ice was unusually thin, also the amount was roughly the same as 1984 from what I can find.. another la nina year I believe? I'm fairly sure also that I read somewhere that open water going into autumn/winter at the poles could lead to more snow.

Not sure that it proves anything as a single standalone year. Will be interesting to see if we get the same late,rapid,widespread refreeze this year and whether we get high snow levels again?

All in all the article strikes up a tone of 'AGW is dead long live natural cycles' without even attempting to convince anyone who doesn't already heartily agree.

All valid points except that it clearly gives a link, in bold blue typeface, where the papers can be found together with brief synopsis. The information is there for you to read the complete picture.

[Chris Knight]

When a lot of ice melts, it absorbs a lot of heat, 80x as much heat to change from ice at 0C to water at 0C than to go from water at 0C to water at 1C. In refreezing over winter, it must lose all that heat, and as an ocean, it is more efficient as a radiator than if it were ice. It is also the case that to evaporate water at 0C takes 80x less energy than to sublime water vapour from ice, so now we have a new factor in the northern climate, a lot more polar water vapour available for dumping on the northern continents over winter, irradiating the heat into space as the clouds condense, and freeze in the middle and upper troposphere.

We saw it last winter in the northern continental snowfall, the evidence of tropospheric temperatures dropping in the mid and upper layers, and record Antarctic Sea Ice anomalies.

The net effect of polar ice loss is cooling, because we know that it will always refreeze in winter, while our poles are tilted the way they are now.

Now the Antarctic sea ice does this every year - the Antarctic has no multiyear ice, but it also refreezes annually, absorbing all that heat when melting, losing it to the Antarctic skies each southern winter.

We now have both poles in a situation where there will be an annual cycle of regrowth and massive loss, since the Northern sea ice will mostly be one year ice again next year, and subject to end of season melting, just like this year.

The question is now how fast will we cool, and how far down can temperatures fall before we get into a new stable polar configuration?

[Earthtrasher]

I don't really think it matters if the 2008 melt now matches the 2007 melt for a short time.

The fact is that through almost the entire melt period there was much more ice present in 2008 than in 2007 with a consequent sizeable increase in planetary albedo for nearly all the melt season despite most of the ice being thin and only one year old.

It was thought that the first year ice would melt away quickly early in the season giving a high chance of exceeding the 2007 melt. That did not happen despite the vulnerability of so much one year ice.

For all the one year ice NOT to have melted much more quickly tells us a great deal more than would a short matching of the 2007 melt right at the end of the season.

2009 will be more interesting.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I don't really think it matters if the 2008 melt now matches the 2007 melt for a short time.

The fact is that through almost the entire melt period there was much more ice present in 2008 than in 2007 with a consequent sizeable increase in planetary albedo for nearly all the melt season despite most of the ice being thin and only one year old.

It was thought that the first year ice would melt away quickly early in the season giving a high chance of exceeding the 2007 melt. That did not happen despite the vulnerability of so much one year ice.

For all the one year ice NOT to have melted much more quickly tells us a great deal more than would a short matching of the 2007 melt right at the end of the season.

2009 will be more interesting.

ET

What a Great pseudonym...love it! I have to say I have found 2008 very very interesting especially with the global temp drop... Interesting post though and certainly some validity in there which makes good sense.

BFTP

[Gray-Wolf]

I have to say I have found 2008 very very interesting especially with the global temp drop...

BFTP

EDIT: I thought I'd give it a minute for you all to have a look before posting.

We argue the toss about things on here, we are occassionally naughty enough to have Paul down to sort it out but we should never seek to mislead the younger, more impressionable 'lurkers' who frequent this site.

Global temps are still well above average, there may a have been a 'slowdown' in the rate of increase of temps (even a 'halt' in it's inexorable rise) but we are still warm and more ubiquitously so than ever before (as this years melt amply reinforces).

We have a readership who are forming their own impressions and ideas about the planet they live on and I for one feel that we owe it to them NOT to muddy the climate change issues any further than they have already become (esp. at times on these threads) in this current climate of dis/mis-information.

No one (but oil and gas explorers) welcome these changes. We are ALL the losers in this thing.

Lets just discuss both what we are seeing ,and the implications of what we are seeing, for the planet.

Let's try and drop the attitudes and play nice eh?

Edited August 28, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[Mondy]

but we should never seek to mislead the younger, more impressionable 'lurkers' who frequent this site.

I'm sorry, but isn't this exactly what people like Al Gore, Hansen et al are doing on a bigger scale? Misleading..

People should not believe what they read or think they know, subsequently preaching to the "lurkers".

I guess you haven't come across this yet? http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/app/WsvPageDsp....86&Lang=eng

Just look at the forecast upturn, Summer is almost gone - let's sit back and enjoy the ice re-growing instead of being consistently negative about everything you've seen or read.

[pottyprof]

Can we please drop the attitudes as this adds nothing to the debate.

There are some interesting points being raised.. let's not spoil it..

People should not believe what they read or think they know, subsequently preaching to the "lurkers".

I think that applies to everyone..

Thanks children.. Play nice...

[Chris Knight]

EDIT: I thought I'd give it a minute for you all to have a look before posting.

We argue the toss about things on here, we are occassionally naughty enough to have Paul down to sort it out but we should never seek to mislead the younger, more impressionable 'lurkers' who frequent this site.

Global temps are still well above average, there may a have been a 'slowdown' in the rate of increase of temps (even a 'halt' in it's inexorable rise) but we are still warm and more ubiquitously so than ever before (as this years melt amply reinforces).

We have a readership who are forming their own impressions and ideas about the planet they live on and I for one feel that we owe it to them NOT to muddy the climate change issues any further than they have already become (esp. at times on these threads) in this current climate of dis/mis-information.

No one (but oil and gas explorers) welcome these changes. We are ALL the losers in this thing.

Lets just discuss both what we are seeing ,and the implications of what we are seeing, for the planet.

Let's try and drop the attitudes and play nice eh?

Interesting figure. Can we have a link to the source of that figure, please GW, for the oceans, it seems different to all SST data (the major area on the globe have a lot of negative anomalies in many regions) that I have seen throughout the July period this year, even from NOAA sources. July HadCET anomaly was +0.2 according to the Hadobs data. So what precisely do the anomalies in the figure refer to?

DXR - On other sites, this would be referred to as "cherry picking", but a nice representation of the Canadian sector, nonetheless!

Edited August 28, 2008 by Chris Knight

[Chris Knight]

I don't really think it matters if the 2008 melt now matches the 2007 melt for a short time.

The fact is that through almost the entire melt period there was much more ice present in 2008 than in 2007 with a consequent sizeable increase in planetary albedo for nearly all the melt season despite most of the ice being thin and only one year old.

It was thought that the first year ice would melt away quickly early in the season giving a high chance of exceeding the 2007 melt. That did not happen despite the vulnerability of so much one year ice.

For all the one year ice NOT to have melted much more quickly tells us a great deal more than would a short matching of the 2007 melt right at the end of the season.

2009 will be more interesting.

As you say, the 2008 melt (extent) has been the greatest on record, and may still exceed 2007's minimum (or maximum melt, I am getting confused) extent.

Edited August 28, 2008 by Chris Knight

[osmposm]

And finally, in answer to GWs 'first' Arctic route openings question - NO. I have before posted extracts of Amundsen's log from 1908 describing the NW passage as having "no ice as far as the eye can see".......

Millennia, you're not seriously suggesting that Amundsen's slow, careful picking of his way through the shallow southerly passage over two years in 1903-1905 compares with last year's full opening of the northerly deep water passage, are you? 1908, incidentally, was not the date of his "log", but the publication date of the English translation of his 1907 account of the voyage.

Amundsen's little 70 ft sealer Gjoa was specially ice-strengthened, by the way, and spent two winters locked in ice en route at the harbour now named after it. The start at the eastern end of the passage was straightforward: Amundsen said - and I presume that your quote also relates to this stage - that it "resembled a holiday excursion". But he added that the rest, he was certain, would not be so easy. And so it proved.

Less than a month after starting, on Sept 12 1903, Amundsen, sensing the advent of harder conditions, decided to lay up for the winter; they were frozen in by early October. They stayed there for nearly two years, engaged upon scientific study and learning Inuit ways, only setting off to the west again in August 1905. They successfully negotiated the rest of the shallow passage - as little as three feet deep in places - and cleared the Archipelago on the 17th. The full NW passage was technically not complete, however, and another winter was spent locked in ice in 1905-6 before they rounded the coast of Alaska and into the Bering Sea in the summer of 1906.

It's as well to investigate a little more deeply before posting somewhat misleading quotes.

Edited August 28, 2008 by osmposm

[Android]

For Sea Surface Temperature there is HadSST2:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadsst2gl.txt

Here are the anomolies for each month since Jan 2006:

0.266 0.284 0.240 0.305 0.326 0.337 0.361 0.437 0.384 0.379 0.379 0.387

0.365 0.361 0.310 0.286 0.264 0.332 0.354 0.282 0.294 0.228 0.149 0.112

0.116 0.154 0.165 0.194 0.220 0.251 0.352

Same again from the NCDC monthly sea surface temperature record:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalie...01-2000mean.dat

0.3842 0.3745 0.3846 0.4177 0.4681 0.4653 0.4477 0.4767 0.4996 0.4897 0.5173 0.5133

0.4665 0.4760 0.4107 0.4118 0.3700 0.4345 0.3944 0.3489 0.3801 0.3411 0.2535 0.2519

0.2480 0.2933 0.3100 0.3275 0.3555 0.3926 0.4248

The minimum in sea surface temperature was about January this year near the peak of the La Nina. Since then sea surface temperature has climbed and is now back at about 2006 levels.

[osmposm]

Interesting figure. Can we have a link to the source of that figure, please GW, for the oceans, it seems different to all SST data (the major area on the globe have a lot of negative anomalies in many regions) that I have seen throughout the July period this year.......

Perhaps the anomalies shown are for air temperatures, Chris, even over the ocean - rather than sea surface temps (assuming that's measurable).

Edited August 28, 2008 by osmposm

[Android]

The ncdc one for July is up, so here's the cru one:

As for Arctic sea ice extent, looks like the difference today between 2008 and 2007 is now lower than it was back in May according to nsaidc:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/..._timeseries.png

Im less interested in the minimum now and more interested in how fast it will freeze again. Will it be drawn out like it was last year? Someone earlier said about storms preventing it reforming in the open areas as fast, how does that work?

Edited August 29, 2008 by Android

[trevw]

All valid points except that it clearly gives a link, in bold blue typeface, where the papers can be found together with brief synopsis. The information is there for you to read the complete picture.

the link to the peer reviewed papers doesn't find any documents.. could be a glitch on the site, will try again another day.

The other link that seems relevant to the quote I have scan read and it eems very interesting but I need to read it in more depth (lots of references) but while relevant to the article it still doesn't change the fact that the quote talks of ocean currents contributing to the melt but D'Aleo describes the quote as agreeing that the melt is all down to natural cycles. This puts me sort of 'on guard' while reading his article.

Cherry picking something from the linked article it seems to put great weight on the fact that the temps in south west greenland closely track the AMO - which it mentions in brackets is a measure of Atlantic temps 0-70degN - since southwest greenland lies in the atlantic between 60-70degN isn't that a given? Since the AMO is just a measurement of the affects of a cycle then what would be interesting to me is whether there is a trend up or down in the peak and trough temps of the AMO rather than stating the obvious (well, seems obvious to me but that might be lack of understanding ) that natural cycles also affect temperatures?

Trev

Just look at the forecast upturn, Summer is almost gone - let's sit back and enjoy the ice re-growing instead of being consistently negative about everything you've seen or read.

That's not a forecast, it's the 'median' curve from 1971-2000..

interesting to see in their year on year comparisons that they show a reduction again in old ice from last year.. Is there a site that has similar stats for the whole arctic?

[jethro]

Morning Trevw,

Agree things get cherry picked, my instant reaction to many things is "yeah right" purely because of the choosing of information to prove a point whilst omitting anything which disagrees with the author. So, I can see where you're coming from...

However, on this particular occasion, the cherry picking doesn't prove a point whilst ignoring counter-evidence - it's a genuinely valid point. The ins and outs of ocean currents and their cycles, how it impacts the Arctic etc are too long to explain in brief detail (to be honest, I can't remember all the detail).

If the links don't work in that article, go back to page two in this thread and you'll find a link to all the Polyakov stuff; it's full of detail. I know I keep pushing this guys papers but they really are an eye opener for anyone who thinks the position of the ice loss we currently have is unique, or that warmer air temps are to blame for it all. Polyakov isn't an AGW sceptic, he isn't out to prove the theory or the IPCC wrong (in fact they accept and quote his findings). These papers demonstrate that even without increased emissions and warmer air temps, the Arctic would currently be experiencing a warm cycle with ice loss.

[Gray-Wolf]

Im less interested in the minimum now and more interested in how fast it will freeze again. Will it be drawn out like it was last year? Someone earlier said about storms preventing it reforming in the open areas as fast, how does that work?

If you can imagine 5 or 6 days of anticyclonic 'calm' allowing a thin skin of ice to form (100% 'cover') then a storm (and associated swell) smashes the 'skin' into pieces so exposing a huge surface area and then 'mixing' of the surface layers (which the ice cover had started to 'order' with an insulating layer below the ice contact with the ocean) you can see that the process then has to start up again to produce the 100% cover plot on the graphics we use.

This kept happening , in sections, through until mid December last year so limiting the depth of the single year ice formed (even with the cold Feb/March to prop them up).

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

EDIT: I thought I'd give it a minute for you all to have a look before posting.

We argue the toss about things on here, we are occassionally naughty enough to have Paul down to sort it out but we should never seek to mislead the younger, more impressionable 'lurkers' who frequent this site.

Global temps are still well above average, there may a have been a 'slowdown' in the rate of increase of temps (even a 'halt' in it's inexorable rise) but we are still warm and more ubiquitously so than ever before (as this years melt amply reinforces).

We have a readership who are forming their own impressions and ideas about the planet they live on and I for one feel that we owe it to them NOT to muddy the climate change issues any further than they have already become (esp. at times on these threads) in this current climate of dis/mis-information.

No one (but oil and gas explorers) welcome these changes. We are ALL the losers in this thing.

Lets just discuss both what we are seeing ,and the implications of what we are seeing, for the planet.

Let's try and drop the attitudes and play nice eh?

GW

Please Please. You mislead all the time and respond incorrectly. You are showing temp anomaly, I said the temp this year has fallen and it has from recent previous warmth. I have said nothing about it being cooler than a set period of time. Also what catastrophe is there currently due to the warmth we have? None, not event he ice melt in the arctic is a catastrophe...and yes the polar bears are NOT suffering, there is plenty and plenty of evidence of them thriving.....something you mislead on too.

Now temps currently globally are falling, but temps are currently running above the 61-90 30 year mean but they are no longer rising :lol:

Oh I wonder how the anomaly would show from 1980 -2008

BFTP

Edited August 29, 2008 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Earthtrasher]

I've noticed something creeping in here that I've seen on a number of other forums.

It's often said that there can be no significant current global cooling because the anomalies are still significantly positive. That is misleading.

If one gets a peak or a trough in anything then the highest or lowest anomalies are bound to be clustered on both sides of the peak or the trough.

Given that cycles are inevitable and all pervasive one is on a cooling or warming trend after the peak or trough has been passed and no amount of bluster about a continuing positive or negative anomaly is relevant to anything.

All that matters is the length and speed of the new trend and whether it changes again sooner or later than 'normal'.

The fact is that we have passed a global warming peak and are now on a downslide. No one knows what happens next but there are indicators such as a quiet sun and a negative PDO with other oceanic oscillations moving towards negative.

As regards Arctic ice there has been an indication this season with the persistence of first year ice that the melt peak has been passed and the next move is to more ice. In my view the peak ice melt of 2007 was the last gasp of the 1998 El Nino working it's way to the Arctic ocean after 9 years. There is less warmth in the system from Pacific to Arctic now even though the Atlantic remains warmer than average.

I see no way for any AGW atmospheric effect to be large enough to be more than a gnat bite (if even that) in the face of natural forces of such an overwhelming scale.

I make no prediction, merely an informed guess. As always, time will tell.

[Gray-Wolf]

I do not think that within the period of 'human history' (including our archaeology) we have experienced climate perturbations that have lead to a complete loss of Arctic ice twinned with the collapse of Greenland's ice sheet with the Antarctic in a similar state of 'meltdown'.

As far as I am aware ALL the work done on the sedimentation below the ice would show a similar tale (no meltdown for over 100,000yrs) of contiguous ice cover through the period. Folk twaddle on about the 'little ice age and medieval warm period' but through these 'small' climatic wobbles the status quo remained at both extremities.

Any attempt to 'blend' past epochs with recent history can be perceived as disingenuous at worse and misrepresentation at best and ,I feel, we should attempt a level of clarity in our assertions that is bourne out by the evidence.

Polar Bears: Time will tell, some areas/sectors have maintained population numbers and ,through the presence of human activities, have been 'growing' in recent years. That which brought the supporting infrastructure for the human populations is now in collapse, due to the recent climate shift, and so that support network is dwindling. The populations of Bears that have been on the increase must now surely be set for a population crash as the extra 'protein' the human population brought into the area disappears.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Polar Bears: Time will tell, some areas/sectors have maintained population numbers and ,through the presence of human activities, have been 'growing' in recent years. That which brought the supporting infrastructure for the human populations is now in collapse, due to the recent climate shift, and so that support network is dwindling. The populations of Bears that have been on the increase must now surely be set for a population crash as the extra 'protein' the human population brought into the area disappears.

As yet there is no crash and no evidence to suggest one.

BFTP

[Android]

As regards Arctic ice there has been an indication this season with the persistence of first year ice that the melt peak has been passed and the next move is to more ice. In my view the peak ice melt of 2007 was the last gasp of the 1998 El Nino working it's way to the Arctic ocean after 9 years.

On the contrary, from what I see the first year ice has folded as expected - that's why ice melt has been so fast over the past month and why the current extent is so close to last year's. Additionally if this years melt indicates anything it's surely that ice decline is continuing. Last year's minimum was dramatic and yet we are seeing ice levels nearly as low as last year without the same unusual weather that contributed to last years record minimum. It's additionally remarkable considering that this years refreeze created a higher maximum extent than last years.

Either the rate of arctic ice decline has accelerated or it's taken a step downwards due to 2007.

I think what someone said on here about storms is very interesting. When the ice starts reforming it'll take longer to establish, as a result there is less time in the year for ice to reform than there used to be. Just as much time to melt, but less time to form.

[Gray-Wolf]

I think what someone said on here about storms is very interesting. When the ice starts reforming it'll take longer to establish, as a result there is less time in the year for ice to reform than there used to be. Just as much time to melt, but less time to form.

The one thing never addressed by the folk who will not admit that the phenomina up north is 'novel' ,and therefore very worrying, is the measurable shift in both re-freeze and the start of the thaw.

Those factors alone would eventually lead to the loss of summer ice pack but if we factor in warming oceanic influences and warmer incursions of southern airmasses then the date for an 'ice free' summer arctic must grow closer.

If we try and factor in increasing 'freak' weather conditions (like last year's) then we may be only 1 summer (akin to last years) away from having an ice free summer arctic!

Again this year we have seen big reductions in the remaining perennial pack so , next year, we will have even more single year ice (percentage wise) than this seasons start and so must face a similar 'low' level of ice come next September...... even with another summer of 'average' weather conditions.

Ho hum....

[doctormog]

Again this year we have seen big reductions in the remaining perennial pack so , next year, we will have even more single year ice (percentage wise) than this seasons start

Care to clarify how this can be if ice levels are higher (albeit not that much) than this time last year? To me that suggests you're implying that some of the perennial ice melted when the single year ice didn't or something similar.

Edited August 30, 2008 by doctormog