Arctic Ice

[Gray-Wolf]

RE Captain Pugwash and double entendres.

I have met John Ryan and he was quite a character, I was always left with an impression that he successfully sued because it was just impossible to prove and only then won by the skin of his teeth. The other thing that made me doubt, was that there were other things "hidden" or with double meanings. He went to my school and captain pugwash wears the colours of the rugby team and Cut throat Jake the colours of our biggest rivals.

Sorry I can't provide anything more on topic, I confess to being a bit of a lurker - being a shrink my knowledge of climatology is rather limited!

Never fear Bongo, plenty on here don't know there cryospherical a**e from their elbow (me included)!!!! Welcome aboard mate! and thanks for the info on Pugwash.........My Bikey days mate ,Les, showed me a Kellogs Rice Crispies box that had to be withdrawn as the little 'cartoon' of Krispies pixies included one cameo of 'snap' with his willie, which was as big as himself, in his hands........a little joke from the boys in graphics that got as far as the production line!!!

Ice, still melting but not as fast today..........but still melting. Last years plot had flattened out by now and though there were still a few losses up to the 24th nothing much happened. This years melt is is obviously on and , with warm air due into the Russian/Siberian sectors you have to wonder how much more ice will go.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/we...x?linkid=106059

Not good, we now indeed do have 'island north pole'.

The sea routes all around the pole are now navigable. The squabble over 'data misinterpretation' ( calling meltwater flooded ice floes 'open water') has been settled by better sat. observation and ,for the first time on record, both the NW Passage and the 'northern passage' are now open to shipping.

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43803

Ellesmere Island alone lost 23% of it's 5 remaining ice shelves this year..........how long to build back those 10m thick brutes???

http://www.innovations-report.de/html/beri...lds_117569.html

and if you remove the sea ice/ice shelves the 'warm ocean' lapping at the shore warms inland up to 70 miles.........leading to the above permafrost collapse and releases of carbon to mirror our own efforts..............if you question CO2's impacts on climate now then within 10yrs you'll have a whole new perspective on warming!!!........Though I don't know whether the figures are out yet for this year last years northern 'melt season' led to a methane spike in the atmosphere. Seeing as methane had been 'stable' for a number of years it would be interesting to see if this years melt has led to a similar 'dump' from the perma frost.......or not.

[jethro]

So, how long until the Gulf Stream shuts down then? Umpteen reports not so long back, reported that freshening of the water by large amounts of melt water, would at least drastically slow the Gulf Stream, possibly shutting it down entirely. If all those reports were right, we can't be far away surely?

[tundra]

It must of been cold up there this summer for the first year ice to have lasted as long as it did. ho hum

[Gray-Wolf]

So, how long until the Gulf Stream shuts down then? Umpteen reports not so long back, reported that freshening of the water by large amounts of melt water, would at least drastically slow the Gulf Stream, possibly shutting it down entirely. If all those reports were right, we can't be far away surely?

We live and learn......so they say!

The whole 'Gulf stream shutdown' was based upon what occurred in the last years of the last major glaciation. The melt water from the U.S. ice sheets alone would have been phenomenal! As it is we find evidence of 'iceberg swarms' across the Atlantic (sea floor 'ploughed up' by the base of bergs and deposited rock from within the bergs) as we lost the major continental ice sheets and vast amounts of perennial sea ice.

No matter how I look at things I cannot see the potential for that to occur again, sorry Jethro but if you're looking for such evidence I feel it will be scant if not absent. Of course the melt waters from the loss of arctic ice shelves/perennial ice/Greenland ice sheet will have an impact (if only in the cyclogenisis south of Greenland leading to 2 years of floods here at home as lower layers of the atmosphere become chilled and more moisture precipitates out!!)

Edited September 8, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[Mondy]

It must of been cold up there this summer for the first year ice to have lasted as long as it did. ho hum

...and now the daylight/sunlight is much shorter.

So that's it. Sea Ice naturally melting has peaked and now it's back to the refreeze.

if only in the cyclogenisis south of Greenland leading to 2 years of floods here at home as lower layers of the atmosphere become chilled and more moisture precipitates out!!

Depending on the lie of the Jet Stream and even then I think you'll find the North Atlantic ocean will determine our weather ( see Gulf Stream above)

as lower layers of the atmosphere become chilled

You really mean Global Cooling, don't you?!

[jethro]

We live and learn......so they say!

The whole 'Gulf stream shutdown' was based upon what occurred in the last years of the last major glaciation. The melt water from the U.S. ice sheets alone would have been phenomenal! As it is we find evidence of 'iceberg swarms' across the Atlantic (sea floor 'ploughed up' by the base of bergs and deposited rock from within the bergs) as we lost the major continental ice sheets and vast amounts of perennial sea ice.

No matter how I look at things I cannot see the potential for that to occur again, sorry Jethro but if you're looking for such evidence I feel it will be scant if not absent. Of course the melt waters from the loss of arctic ice shelves/perennial ice/Greenland ice sheet will have an impact (if only in the cyclogenisis south of Greenland leading to 2 years of floods here at home as lower layers of the atmosphere become chilled and more moisture precipitates out!!)

You don't have to look too far to find articles and papers on the subject; many scientists do not share your confidence in there being no potential. Salinity seems to be the key, so lots of fresh water influx from melting ice has had a lot of scientists concerned for some time now.

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?cid=9986&p...455&tid=282

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/05mar_arctic.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/...11120041942.htm

http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/poles/thermoh...circulation.htm

http://zfacts.com/p/190.html

http://www.benfieldhrc.org/activities/issues5/pages/gulf.htm

[Gray-Wolf]

You don't have to look too far to find articles and papers on the subject; many scientists do not share your confidence in there being no potential. Salinity seems to be the key, so lots of fresh water influx from melting ice has had a lot of scientists concerned for some time now.

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?cid=9986&p...455&tid=282

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/05mar_arctic.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/...11120041942.htm

http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/poles/thermoh...circulation.htm

http://zfacts.com/p/190.html

http://www.benfieldhrc.org/activities/issues5/pages/gulf.htm

Even though the amounts of freshwater may become of flood proportions I can't see anything like the last two melt water surges at the end of the last glaciation and I think most studies center on the impacts back then.

There will be changes in oceanic currents I'll wager and they will have their own impacts on various parts of the globe (even if only in the very short term) but I can see no parallel with the end of the last ice age.

In effect we are tipping away from the glacial ages and forcing ourselves back into the temperate poles climate of the Mammoth.

The end result of all this may bring vast swathes of Eurasia into prime agricultural conditions but, at the moment, there seems to be no moves to exploit the resource.

Edited September 8, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[laserguy]

You don't have to look too far to find articles and papers on the subject; many scientists do not share your confidence in there being no potential. Salinity seems to be the key, so lots of fresh water influx from melting ice has had a lot of scientists concerned for some time now.

A reduction in ocean salinity as warm currents melt ice (not a tiny bit of CO2 in the air to blame),falling atmospheric temps,a quiet sun etc.... it's,it's...it's ice age II!

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/global_co.../08/128749.html

*This post intended in good humour... I think!

[Roger J Smith]

Here's my preferred solution to rising sea levels. I would say start planning this regardless of whether or not people think greenhouse gas reductions will solve the climate change issue or even whether or not you think there is an issue, because sea levels could still rise anyway from natural warming, and if they don't, this plan will still work well.

I'm suggesting that the international community spend the necessary billions of dollars to create a massive desalination project in west Africa, using land in northern Mauretania and southern (disputed territory) southern Morocco where the land is quite flat, just above sea level in most places, and almost entirely devoid of human activity or presence today. This landscape could be transformed into large holding reservoirs for sea water (they could be engineered to 5-10 metres depth below sea level) and then this water would be desalinated and used to irrigate surrounding regions in a gradual extending program over time, most of the irrigation would be directed south and east rather than north to take advantage of the best agricultural potential.

As this would be partly a sea-level maintenance program, some of the reservoirs could be left empty and then filled up later if sea levels were rising. The change in global climate from this agricultural production would be negligible because most of the water used would go into the soil and crops, some would evaporate but there would be little additional rainfall anywhere. So the water would effectively be transferred from ocean to land.

This would have to be a massive program to make a difference to sea level. There are other similar concepts we could be exploring in other regions. Parts of the Baja California peninsula could be used for the same purpose, as well as the potential for Australia to look at similar projects. However, we could also be looking at technology that would evaporate large quantities of sea water in some safe location and force it onto land in the form of steam that would condense into holding reservoirs. The cost of all this might turn out to be less than the engineering required to mitigate rising sea levels. It might also expand the full extent of arable land and feed millions as well as providing new regions for immigration of third world populations.

[laserguy]

I'm suggesting that the international community spend the necessary billions of dollars to create a massive desalination project in west Africa, using land in northern Mauretania and southern (disputed territory) southern Morocco where the land is quite flat, just above sea level in most places, and almost entirely devoid of human activity or presence today. This landscape could be transformed into large holding reservoirs for sea water (they could be engineered to 5-10 metres depth below sea level) and then this water would be desalinated and used to irrigate surrounding regions in a gradual extending program over time, most of the irrigation would be directed south and east rather than north to take advantage of the best agricultural potential.

Excellent. Brilliantly simple but as far as I can see - why not? This is where,to me,the whole AGW thing falls flat. I am sure as I can be that politicians know full well that CO2 emissions have no effect,which is why they don't even bother to try to come up with brilliantly effective solutions like that,but just tax/restrict everything in sight - the idea being that reducing CO2 by a few ppm will halt the great climate machine. Or so they say - I'm afraid their motives are about anything but climate. My pov of course,but until they act in ways along what you've just said,Im not listening to them.

[jethro]

Even though the amounts of freshwater may become of flood proportions I can't see anything like the last two melt water surges at the end of the last glaciation and I think most studies center on the impacts back then.

Actually, the links I posted don't focus upon flood proportions or melt water surges. The studies were based upon melting glaciers, diminished ice and increased precipitation in the form of both snow and ice, due to more open water, further decreasing salinity.

In a perverse way, those articles make me chuckle, they're all a few years old and the hype at the time was the Arctic is melting, the Gulf Stream will shut down, we'll all freeze. Funny how just a few years later, with less ice than anticipated, and those studies are no longer in the press. They were stated with absolute authority at the time, doom and gloom a plenty; obviously not the flavour of the month any more - and yet we're supposed to lap up the latest doom and gloom as gospel.

Personally, I reckon no one has a clue as to what the outcome will be; pure speculation from all quarters.

[Chris Knight]

Here's my preferred solution to rising sea levels. I would say start planning this regardless of whether or not people think greenhouse gas reductions will solve the climate change issue or even whether or not you think there is an issue, because sea levels could still rise anyway from natural warming, and if they don't, this plan will still work well.

I'm suggesting that the international community spend the necessary billions of dollars to create a massive desalination project in west Africa, using land in northern Mauretania and southern (disputed territory) southern Morocco where the land is quite flat, just above sea level in most places, and almost entirely devoid of human activity or presence today. This landscape could be transformed into large holding reservoirs for sea water (they could be engineered to 5-10 metres depth below sea level) and then this water would be desalinated and used to irrigate surrounding regions in a gradual extending program over time, most of the irrigation would be directed south and east rather than north to take advantage of the best agricultural potential.

As this would be partly a sea-level maintenance program, some of the reservoirs could be left empty and then filled up later if sea levels were rising. The change in global climate from this agricultural production would be negligible because most of the water used would go into the soil and crops, some would evaporate but there would be little additional rainfall anywhere. So the water would effectively be transferred from ocean to land.

This would have to be a massive program to make a difference to sea level. There are other similar concepts we could be exploring in other regions. Parts of the Baja California peninsula could be used for the same purpose, as well as the potential for Australia to look at similar projects. However, we could also be looking at technology that would evaporate large quantities of sea water in some safe location and force it onto land in the form of steam that would condense into holding reservoirs. The cost of all this might turn out to be less than the engineering required to mitigate rising sea levels. It might also expand the full extent of arable land and feed millions as well as providing new regions for immigration of third world populations.

Then again, how much "global" warming is due to damming of huge natural rivers and irrigating what were arid areas before the 1960s? How much of the greenhouse effect is due to the increased water vapour in those areas redistributing the heat throughout the atmosphere where it just radiated away before?

[osmposm]

So that's it. Sea Ice naturally melting has peaked and now it's back to the refreeze. :lol:

Not quite sure where you get the idea that we've already reached the minimum, DXR.

Here's the currrent NSIDC graph:

And the Cryosphere Today one (top line is the amount, bottom is the anomaly):

And the IJIS (AMSR-E):

The brief upwards blip on the second two has now stopped and it's heading down again. On the first (NSIDC) one, even that doesn't show (I think because, I've now discovered, they smooth their line with a 5-day running average**): it's just continuing down, albeit more slowly.

Last year things didn't finally bottom out till the third week of September according to IJIS, so I shouldn't make too many assumptions just yet.

* * * * *

**For those who were wondering, I've now finally heard from NSIDC about the reason for the apparent adjustments to the graph line we have often observed. They didn't reply earlier because my first two emails were intercepted by their spam filter, a problem they had with all AOL emails until a week or so ago. Here's the answer - not only is it not dodgy, it is sensible and even admirable:

NSIDC creates the daily graphs using a near real-time sea ice data set. Our daily time series is smoothed with a 5-day running average, intended to mitigate noise in the satellite data that is largely associated with weather events. The current day posted actually sits in the middle of this 5-day average. Any value two days before the current day is a final processed value which will not change. To get the final 2 days in our 5-day average, we extrapolate values from the previous 5 days. We think this is the most representative 5-day average.

The differences you are seeing in the plots are due to this processing. The last few days in a plot will change slightly as the latest data are acquired.

Let me know if you need further clarification on this process.

Again, I apologize that you did not receive a timely response to your initial emails.

Best regards,

Donna Scott

NSIDC User Services

Edited September 8, 2008 by osmposm

[Iceberg]

A good response thanks for that.

another drop of 50,000sqkm on the IJIS Which matches up pretty well with the NSIDC one, interesting that CT is still dropping as this normally peaks first.

[laserguy]

http://www.dailytech.com/A+Melting+Arctic+...rticle12882.htm

Regardless of the causes of what's happening in the Arctic,what does everyone think of this? Instead of nothing but disaster scenarios,it addresses the benefits of the Arctic being free of ice.

[Gray-Wolf]

LOL Laserguy!!!

Didn't we have some ''taint happeneing' from the same source in March??? now it's "we always knew it was happeneing 'cos we're in an interglacial''

I did wonder (out loud) only a page or two ago about how the 'naysayers' would cope with accepting the rapid changes to the cryosphere and it would seem we have our answer!

OOOh, all that icy stuff's gone.......wadarwe gonna do????

Lets exploit our new northern territories!!!!

[ghrud]

LOL Laserguy!!!

Didn't we have some ''taint happeneing' from the same source in March??? now it's "we always knew it was happeneing 'cos we're in an interglacial''

I did wonder (out loud) only a page or two ago about how the 'naysayers' would cope with accepting the rapid changes to the cryosphere and it would seem we have our answer!

OOOh, all that icy stuff's gone.......wadarwe gonna do????

Lets exploit our new northern territories!!!!

A true scientist always has an open mind.

[Red Raven]

Here's my preferred solution to rising sea levels. I would say start planning this regardless of whether or not people think greenhouse gas reductions will solve the climate change issue or even whether or not you think there is an issue, because sea levels could still rise anyway from natural warming, and if they don't, this plan will still work well.

I'm suggesting that the international community spend the necessary billions of dollars to create a massive desalination project in west Africa, using land in northern Mauretania and southern (disputed territory) southern Morocco where the land is quite flat, just above sea level in most places, and almost entirely devoid of human activity or presence today. This landscape could be transformed into large holding reservoirs for sea water (they could be engineered to 5-10 metres depth below sea level) and then this water would be desalinated and used to irrigate surrounding regions in a gradual extending program over time, most of the irrigation would be directed south and east rather than north to take advantage of the best agricultural potential.

As this would be partly a sea-level maintenance program, some of the reservoirs could be left empty and then filled up later if sea levels were rising. The change in global climate from this agricultural production would be negligible because most of the water used would go into the soil and crops, some would evaporate but there would be little additional rainfall anywhere. So the water would effectively be transferred from ocean to land.

This would have to be a massive program to make a difference to sea level. There are other similar concepts we could be exploring in other regions. Parts of the Baja California peninsula could be used for the same purpose, as well as the potential for Australia to look at similar projects. However, we could also be looking at technology that would evaporate large quantities of sea water in some safe location and force it onto land in the form of steam that would condense into holding reservoirs. The cost of all this might turn out to be less than the engineering required to mitigate rising sea levels. It might also expand the full extent of arable land and feed millions as well as providing new regions for immigration of third world populations.

Not quite at the right scale but this piece of technology being used in Australia could irrigate every fringe of every continent and produce electricity at the same time. http://www.ceto.com.au/home.php

[PeteG]

Here's my preferred solution to rising sea levels. I would say start planning this regardless of whether or not people think greenhouse gas reductions will solve the climate change issue or even whether or not you think there is an issue, because sea levels could still rise anyway from natural warming, and if they don't, this plan will still work well.

I'm suggesting that the international community spend the necessary billions of dollars to create a massive desalination project in west Africa, using land in northern Mauretania and southern (disputed territory) southern Morocco where the land is quite flat, just above sea level in most places, and almost entirely devoid of human activity or presence today. This landscape could be transformed into large holding reservoirs for sea water (they could be engineered to 5-10 metres depth below sea level) and then this water would be desalinated and used to irrigate surrounding regions in a gradual extending program over time, most of the irrigation would be directed south and east rather than north to take advantage of the best agricultural potential.

As this would be partly a sea-level maintenance program, some of the reservoirs could be left empty and then filled up later if sea levels were rising. The change in global climate from this agricultural production would be negligible because most of the water used would go into the soil and crops, some would evaporate but there would be little additional rainfall anywhere. So the water would effectively be transferred from ocean to land.

This would have to be a massive program to make a difference to sea level. There are other similar concepts we could be exploring in other regions. Parts of the Baja California peninsula could be used for the same purpose, as well as the potential for Australia to look at similar projects. However, we could also be looking at technology that would evaporate large quantities of sea water in some safe location and force it onto land in the form of steam that would condense into holding reservoirs. The cost of all this might turn out to be less than the engineering required to mitigate rising sea levels. It might also expand the full extent of arable land and feed millions as well as providing new regions for immigration of third world populations.

It would certainly require some big holes to be dug. About 70% of the planet surface is water covered, or about 360 million sq km. Even allowing for some of this to be inland lakes, to lower the sea level by 1cm would need the removal of some 3500 cu km of sea water. That would fill a hole the size of the Black Sea to a depth of around 8 metres.

[Roger J Smith]

That brings up another concept, and I have no engineering background so it all seems quite speculative to me, I wonder if it would be safe to blow away large formations in the sea bed somewhere well away from commercial fishing grounds to lower the foundation of the oceans. We could probably handle a 50 cm sea level drop in the next ten years, then wait to see if it is likely to come up further than that in the next fifty.

I still think the desalination project would be good on a number of levels, and the amount of water removed would be greater than the amount in any reservoirs at a given time because of the process and removal to irrigation on land.

So perhaps a body of water the size of the Black Sea to 2-4 metres would be sufficient, or a body half as big to 6-8 metres. That is pretty big but if we could engineer to 30 metres then we'd be talking about something more like the Irish Sea in area.

By the way, there may be some enthusiasm in Russia for opening up new northern lands, but in Canada, I think this issue has zero public traction, for one thing it would be howled down by the dominant factions in our media and politics, but even with such persons as might entertain the idea, we know that there are very few places where there is suitable soil in place in some frozen or semi-frozen condition, most of our subarctic and arctic are over top of barren granite shield, full of large and very cold lakes (and that would not change), and while a slight warming might make it easier to get around in the summer, it would reduce the ice-road season (ice roads are the main way into some northern communities) and make the permafrost melt problem worse. So there is not much enthusiasm here for "benefits" of arctic warming, the navigation season might lengthen through the NWP but this has not been a big issue with icebreakers available.

Of course, we have to keep in mind that a bigger melt in the Arctic Ocean would be a very unpredictable scenario and could trigger a climatic cooling as easily as further warming. As you can see, that open water off Ellesmere Island has not prevented a cooling trend and snow over the northern islands recently, and larger leads of open water might continue to increase this autumn snowfall, which could only lead to colder winters further south as time goes on, at least up to a certain point before the Arctic Ocean warmed up to some permanent 3-6 C sort of condition, then the climate might shift back to a warmer phase, but whether it would get that chance before cooling further south affected the oceans remains to be seen.

Also, Obama says he will have everything fixed by March 15th of his first term, so nothing to worry about.

Edited September 9, 2008 by Roger J Smith

[J10]

Latest Update as promised, the levels of ice drops are starting to fall, so it seems likely that last years minimum will not be broken but not by that much, (but nothing is certain), and remember the low figures are now based on the fall in 2005, as the fall then was greater at this period in the year.

However the figure is now below the mid point between 2005 and 2007.

Next update on Saturday

[Android]

The cryosphere today sea ice area graph shows only 4 pixels difference between last year's minimum and current ice area. It dropped 4 pixels over the course of about a week, so by this particular measure it seems remotely possible last year's minimum could be beat within the next week.

[trevw]

The cryosphere today sea ice area graph shows only 4 pixels difference between last year's minimum and current ice area. It dropped 4 pixels over the course of about a week, so by this particular measure it seems remotely possible last year's minimum could be beat within the next week.

also, has anyone noticed that the main chart on cryosphere is lagging behind the actual date all of a sudden? It seemed to get stuck at the start of september for a time and never caught back up.. It also appears that all the sub-area graphs are ahead of the main graph by a few pixels with pretty much all of them showing a downwards movement..

I wonder if they are doing as much verification as they can before calling it?

Perhaps area wise we have allready passed last years min?

Trev

[Gray-Wolf]

With the last 4 'records ice lows' being in the last decade the 'trend' for summer ice seems set. As we have seen this year pretty 'normal' conditions up there will lead to massive ice loss when most of the ice is 'single year'. At the same time Ellesmere Island's north coast has shed 23% of it's remaining ice shelfs (one as big a /Manhattan Island is now free floating , and now being counted as 'sea ice' in the Arctic ocean) so it isn't an issue as to whether we have exceeded last years min. or not but how quickly the last of the perennial will go in consequent years.