Arctic Ice

[osmposm]

GW - they've now updated the North Pole (or formerly N. Pole, before the drift) proper weather station stats. See here: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/weather_data/2008/07100_hdr.wx

Just to show how balanced I am (!), I will point out that they show that when you reported on the old thread that the webcam external temp probe was showing +3 or +4 on 19th July (Day 201), the actual figure was, yes, slightly above zero, but by very little, as I suspected - not even +1 degree. the webcam external temp probe always gives a figure at least 1.5 degrees too high, and often a good bit more (up to 4.5).

Temps since 27th July have been consistently below zero, but again not by much - about -0.5 to -3.0; so presumably melting rather than refreezing is what's still happening up there. Mind you, we don't have a clue what the figures are at the actual North Pole.

[jethro]

Have we, J - when was that? The only figures I've seen say quite the opposite, but I would most genuinely like to see numbers/good estimates suggesting that we've been here before in the last 100 or so years - or 700 years, for that matter.

You'd better PM the link to me, however, rather than showing it publicly, as Bluecon says nobody knows what the ice cover was in 1870 - or presumably before satellite coverage full stop, and I imagine it will only annoy him.

I'll post this here rather than PM you, I'd urge everyone to read this; it's peer reviewed, not marginal sceptic science, accepted by the professionals on the pro side of this debate.

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu:8080/~igo.../50yr/index.php

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu:8080/~igor/

[picog]

GW - they've now updated the North Pole (or formerly N. Pole, before the drift) proper weather station stats. See here: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/weather_data/2008/07100_hdr.wx

Just to show how balanced I am (!), I will point out that they show that when you reported on the old thread that the webcam external temp probe was showing +3 or +4 on 19th July (Day 201), the actual figure was, yes, slightly above zero, but by very little, as I suspected - not even +1 degree. the webcam external temp probe always gives a figure at least 1.5 degrees too high, and often a good bit more (up to 4.5).

Temps since 27th July have been consistently below zero, but again not by much - about -0.5 to -3.0; so presumably melting rather than refreezing is what's still happening up there. Mind you, we don't have a clue what the figures are at the actual North Pole.

How can the ice be melting when the temperature is -0.5 to -3.0C, especially if the webcam external probe always gives a figure that's at least 1.5C above real temperatures. If the webcam probe is reading -0.5 to -3.0C, surely that means the temperature is really -2.0 to -4.5C.

[J10]

Please remember the rule in relation to NO personal attacks, or expect to see your post deleted.

[bluecon]

Personally, here's how I think it will play out in reality.

What I think is going to happen is much simpler.

The economy is going to go in the tank and the climate will be cold this year.

Then people will start questioning why billions of taxpayer dollars are spent to perpetuate this fraud.

[osmposm]

How can the ice be melting when the temperature is -0.5 to -3.0C, especially if the webcam external probe always gives a figure that's at least 1.5C above real temperatures. If the webcam probe is reading -0.5 to -3.0C, surely that means the temperature is really -2.0 to -4.5C.

Sorry, Picog, I obviously didn't make myself at all clear. The recent figures I gave are the true (weather station) ones, updated to 10 am on 29th July when the true temp was -0.2C and apparently rising. The (higher) temps given by the external probe on the webcam can be seen here (select camera 1): http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/index.php?year=2008 - the temp is given in the corner of the image.

This is the image at around noon (the nearest to 10 am) on the 29th July, when the webcam was giving the external temp as +1.5C (true temp about zero):

As to the melting/freezing question, this is sea water we're talking about, not fresh. The freezing process is very complex, but does not start until about -2C. It is more complicated than that, however, because of the partial (and variable) desalination of seawater as it freezes, how much time the frozen-out concentrated brine has had to leach out of the ice and into the seawater below, how much mixing there has been of those seawater layers with different salinities/temperatures, wind and wave conditions etc etc.

But I believe it is true - though I'm very ready to be corrected about this - that at air temperatures only a couple of degrees below zero or so, sea ice would certainly not be forming, and would most probably be melting - especially, of course, in sunshine. Certainly melting in the Arctic Basin itself (see the Cryosphere Today chart here http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM....region.1.html) seemed to begin in earnest this year in mid-May: at the time the North Pole weather station was showing air temps only just beginning to dip here and there below -10C. So it looks to me like it'll be a while before the melt stops, even at very high latitiudes. The lower latitude Siberian/Canadian sectors, of course, are still melting rather faster.

Edited July 31, 2008 by osmposm

[BARRY]

not very summery in barrow,light snow today at 12.30pm with a temp of -1 and loads of sea ice drifting past

[bluecon]

Thanks for that link, Bluecon - no sign there of Delta's "...growing upturn for sure". I shall pop it into my 'favourites' and we can look at it again in a month or two.

I'm disappointed that you don't want to discuss the apparently reliable 1972-2000 ice level numbers I carefully extracted, averaged and presented, or your use of the phrase "cold years" to describe 1979-2000.

Pro-AGWers may sometimes look silly when they try and guess the details of the immediate future and say they are certain. The same applies to you.

You'd better PM the link to me, however, rather than showing it publicly, as Bluecon says nobody knows what the ice cover was in 1870 - or presumably before satellite coverage full stop, and I imagine it will only annoy him.

The ice levels you extracted have nothing to do with the current climate and do nothing to show that the facts do not match up to the predictions of the AGW crowd.

At this point all the AGW proponents are starting to look rather foolish. Huge increase in manmade CO2 and a cooling Earth. You need to be a real diehard to cling to the AGW theory.

No thinking person would believe that such flimsy evidence could be used to tell what the level of the ice cover in the Arctic was back to 1870.

[jethro]

The ice levels you extracted have nothing to do with the current climate and do nothing to show that the facts do not match up to the predictions of the AGW crowd.

At this point all the AGW proponents are starting to look rather foolish. Huge increase in manmade CO2 and a cooling Earth. You need to be a real diehard to cling to the AGW theory.

No thinking person would believe that such flimsy evidence could be used to tell what the level of the ice cover in the Arctic was back to 1870.

Bluecon, have you had a chance to read through the stuff I posted yesterday? I think you'll find it interesting.

[osmposm]

The ice levels you extracted have nothing to do with the current climate and do nothing to show that the facts do not match up to the predictions of the AGW crowd............No thinking person would believe that such flimsy evidence could be used to tell what the level of the ice cover in the Arctic was back to 1870.

Um, the numbers I extracted and presented in the post you are replying to - as you surely would have noticed if you had read it - were for the satellite years 1979 - 2000 and then on to the present - with the possible addition, if you would allow it, of the years from 1953 (when direct and full observations were made by other other means). I had already stopped arguing the case for the older years' data since you would not accept them as anything other than fabrications. That's right, Bluecon: in debating terms you won a major concession from me, but failed to notice.

So, lets get this right. Are you now saying that the satellite data of the ice coverage since 1979 have nothing to do with the current climate? If so, then obviously the discussion is pointless: surely we've got to have something to compare the present with, or there's nothing to talk about? I am in any case mystified since it was you who just talked about the ice coverage being half way back to the levels of 1979-2000. Which years will you permit me to talk about, please let me know?

As for no thinking person believing the part-reconstructed data back to 1870: well, as I've said, I won't wave them at you any more, but plenty of "thinking" people do believe them (with qualifications), many of them a great deal more intelligent, experienced and knowledgeable than you or me. In debate it is generally more effective to argue why people who disagree with you are mistaken, rather than just dismissing them as stupid - especially when they are so patently not. They may be wrong, they may be biased - some may even be corrupt: but it is pretty feeble just to say they are people who do not think.

Edited August 1, 2008 by osmposm

[bluecon]

What I am saying is the Earth has been cooling for ten years the Arctic ice has greatly increased this year and the AGW crowd with the help of their allies in the MSM point out the loss of 7 square miles of ice as though it is the end of the world while ignoring reporting the truth about the huge increase in ice cover in the Arctic. The AGW argument is no longer put forward with science but is solely based on fear tactics.

[osmposm]

But Bluecon, I have never mentioned the Ward Hunt or any other ice shelf in any of my posts. You keep answering my specific points and questions by referring to a recovery from just one extreme year, and then padding it out with general statements about GW and attacks on the media and people who believe in AGW.

All I have been attempting to point out is that, yes, we probably have a slight recovery from the alarmingly low Northern Hemisphere minimum ice coverage of last year. But the overall trend since satellite data began in 1972 (not 1979 as I mistakenly said in my last post) is inexorably downwards. I repeat that in 1972-78 the mean was 9.78m sq km, in 1979-2000 (the period you have talked about) it was 8.81m sq km, and in 2001-2006 (i.e. excluding the ultra-low 2007) it was 8.10m sq km. And if you go back to 1953 the drop is even longer and further - 10.08m sq km was the mean in 1953-1971.

So from 10.08 to 9.78 to 8.81 to 8.10m sq km in the 54 years from 1953-2006 - an apparently accelerating loss of nearly 20% of minimum summer ice. Or if you won't accept the 1953-1971 figures, a loss of over 17% since satellite coverage began in 1972. Both figures exclude 2007, which should be to your advantage in the argument.

Do you accept these figures, and if so would you like to comment on them? If you don't, could you point me in the direction of any available alternative figures?

Edited August 1, 2008 by osmposm

[Gray-Wolf]

Bluecon, how thick , on average, was the section of Ward hunt we just lost and how thick is the single year ice you speak of? I would suggest that if you 'stretched out the section of lost ice so that it was as thin as the single year ice you'd find that it would cover quite a vast area. Conversely if you piled up you 'gains' to the thickness of the chunk of shelf loss you find there was only a teensy weensy bit of extra ice present. you cannot mix apples and pears my Friend and you do seem awfully keen on doing just that

Edited August 1, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[bluecon]

Bluecon, how thick , on average, was the section of Ward hunt we just lost and how thick is the single year ice you speak of? I would suggest that if you 'stretched out the section of lost ice so that it was as thin as the single year ice you'd find that it would cover quite a vast area. Conversely if you piled up you 'gains' to the thickness of the chunk of shelf loss you find there was only a teensy weensy bit of extra ice present. you cannot mix apples and pears my Friend and you do seem awfully keen on doing just that

The ice flow of a glacier is caused by the accumulation of snow and ice. It is a normal occurence and will not cause life on Earth to halt. Go out to Lake Louise in the Summer and watch the glacier. It routinely drops large chunks of old ice.

[bluecon]

But Bluecon, I have never mentioned the Ward Hunt or any other ice shelf in any of my posts. You keep answering my specific points and questions by referring to a recovery from just one extreme year, and then padding it out with general statements about GW and attacks on the media and people who believe in AGW.

All I have been attempting to point out is that, yes, we probably have a slight recovery from the alarmingly low Northern Hemisphere minimum ice coverage of last year. But the overall trend since satellite data began in 1972 (not 1979 as I mistakenly said in my last post) is inexorably downwards. I repeat that in 1972-78 the mean was 9.78m sq km, in 1979-2000 (the period you have talked about) it was 8.81m sq km, and in 2001-2006 (i.e. excluding the ultra-low 2007) it was 8.10m sq km. And if you go back to 1953 the drop is even longer and further - 10.08m sq km was the mean in 1953-1971.

So from 10.08 to 9.78 to 8.81 to 8.10m sq km in the 54 years from 1953-2006 - an apparently accelerating loss of nearly 20% of minimum summer ice. Or if you won't accept the 1953-1971 figures, a loss of over 17% since satellite coverage began in 1972. Both figures exclude 2007, which should be to your advantage in the argument.

Do you accept these figures, and if so would you like to comment on them? If you don't, could you point me in the direction of any available alternative figures?

That is a few years into the past that agree with your theory. I find it hard to believe that you are trying to use the old hockey stick theory to prove the AGW theory. That was one of the first of the AGW myths to be discredited.

Ten years of cooling and a huge increase in manmade CO2 emmissions. Kinda blows a large hole in the AGW theory.

[J10]

As predicted yesterday, posts have been deleted for personal comments.

[laserguy]

As predicted yesterday, posts have been deleted for personal comments.

Nice one. I was just previewing my post (which contained nothing personal),but was totally relevant and in response to the deleted posts but in their absence is now irrelevant!!

[Mondy]

That is a few years into the past that agree with your theory. I find it hard to believe that you are trying to use the old hockey stick theory to prove the AGW theory. That was one of the first of the AGW myths to be discredited.

Ten years of cooling and a huge increase in manmade CO2 emmissions. Kinda blows a large hole in the AGW theory.

Please don't use capital letters when using the term "agw" - it's not worth pressing your capslock button for!

Things which are important are often capitalized..

[osmposm]

That is a few years into the past that agree with your theory. I find it hard to believe that you are trying to use the old hockey stick theory to prove the AGW theory. That was one of the first of the AGW myths to be discredited.

Ten years of cooling and a huge increase in manmade CO2 emmissions. Kinda blows a large hole in the AGW theory.

Bluecon, I'm getting more and more bewildered by some of your posts. I haven't mentioned the "hockey stick" graph, why do you think I am trying to use it? I haven't even been talking about temperatures (which the h/stick graph shows - or doesn't). I'm talking about the extent of summer ice.

The two main planks in your theory that progressive climate change is nonsense are (i) that global temps have latterly stabilized or fallen, and (ii) that northern hemisphere ice reduction is now reversing. To keep thing simple I have taken just one of these planks, the ice. I have tried to discuss with you and others whether the ice extent can really be said to be reversing on the basis of a very short period of slight slowing in the reduction compared with last year. The figures I keep giving you would seem to show that the summer ice coverage reduced dramatically for at least the 53 years from 1953 to 2005, that 1979-2000 was not a cold period as you suggested, and that ice cover in even the early 2000s was way below the historical norm of 50 years before.

I don't know how much more simple I can make this: I am not primarily discussing global temperatures on here, I am discussing summer ice cover. And that is because this is the thread where we discuss northern hem ice - the clue is in the name 'Arctic ice'. If you wish to have a discussion (or sound off about) global temps and AGWers, then there are plenty of more general threads in this sub-forum where you can do so.

Meanwhile I await your comments on my posts about Arctic Ice.

Edited August 1, 2008 by osmposm

[bluecon]

So are you saying pre SUV the Arctic has never seen such a low level of ice?

Or do you think the history of the Earth begins in the 1950's?

This isn't the first time this has happened and won't be the last.

Now enjoy the new cool spell the Earths climate is entering.

[Gray-Wolf]

bluecon, with the greatest of respect you didn't come close to answering mt question above. I'll answer it for you and you may ,if you choose take issue where you feel necessary.

to paraphrase, you feel the 7 mile strip that calved last week as insignificant. the 'single year ice that built last year was, on average, a mere 3 to 4 ft thick, Ward Hunt was 134ft (give or take 10ft) thick. slice up that 7 mile strip into 4ft thick chunks and then tell me how 'big' the resulting floe would be. once you have done that tell me again how 'insignificant' it is.

Glaciers and ice shelves calve at their leading edges and when you can see the terminal moraine in front of the ice wall (either on sea bed or glacier front) you know it is in retreat. Google Ward Hunt to see just how much it has 'shrunk' throughout the 20th century. Please do not attempt to tell me this normal ,cyclical behaviour without presenting me with a raft of studies proving such.

Another point being, why does the Antarctic peninsula seem to be shedding as much as the arctic (think Wilkins here)? I thought when one pole warmed and contracted the other grew. Any suggestions as to what could be driving such a global phenomina?......oh yeah, of course, global cooling (tee-hee)

[Mondy]

I thought when one pole warmed and contracted the other grew. Any suggestions as to what could be driving such a global phenomina?......

This: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/torsional.html

In other words, the North pole of the Sun has a South pole orientation and vice versa!

There's always an explanation. Just so happens this one is not agw induced, or scary!

[bluecon]

bluecon, with the greatest of respect you didn't come close to answering mt question above. I'll answer it for you and you may ,if you choose take issue where you feel necessary.

to paraphrase, you feel the 7 mile strip that calved last week as insignificant. the 'single year ice that built last year was, on average, a mere 3 to 4 ft thick, Ward Hunt was 134ft (give or take 10ft) thick. slice up that 7 mile strip into 4ft thick chunks and then tell me how 'big' the resulting floe would be. once you have done that tell me again how 'insignificant' it is.

Glaciers and ice shelves calve at their leading edges and when you can see the terminal moraine in front of the ice wall (either on sea bed or glacier front) you know it is in retreat. Google Ward Hunt to see just how much it has 'shrunk' throughout the 20th century. Please do not attempt to tell me this normal ,cyclical behaviour without presenting me with a raft of studies proving such.

Another point being, why does the Antarctic peninsula seem to be shedding as much as the arctic (think Wilkins here)? I thought when one pole warmed and contracted the other grew. Any suggestions as to what could be driving such a global phenomina?......oh yeah, of course, global cooling (tee-hee)

Right where I am sitting there was miles deep thickness of ice not to many thousands of years ago. Hundreds of thousands of square miles of that ice existed.(probably millions of square miles of the ice existed worldwide) It melted and life went on. And it wasn't the first time that happened. And you are predicting the end of the World when a 7 sq mile section breaks off? 3.5 by 2 miles of ice? There has been much greater climate events in the pre SUV history of the Earth.

Edited August 2, 2008 by bluecon

[The PIT]

Right where I am sitting there was miles deep thickness of ice not to many thousands of years ago. Hundreds of thousands of square miles of that ice existed.(probably millions of square miles of the ice existed worldwide) It melted and life went on. And it wasn't the first time that happened. And you are predicting the end of the World when a 7 sq mile section breaks off? 3.5 by 2 miles of ice? There has been much greater climate events in the pre SUV history of the Earth.

It's true that some try to use as ultimate proof records from say 1970 that the climate is warming. The climate of this planet has been changing for millions of years and will do so until the sun expands and desolves it. A mere billionth of a second of a record of the planet neither dictates nor disproves that climate is being change by man or is just a natural change in the order of the planet. I think one of the problems is that some people think too much in a small way.

[laserguy]

Right where I am sitting there was miles deep thickness of ice not to many thousands of years ago. Hundreds of thousands of square miles of that ice existed.(probably millions of square miles of the ice existed worldwide) It melted and life went on.

And collosal changes will occur long after we are all gone and are nothing but the briefest of blips in the history of Earth. All we are seeing now are sideshows,completely normal parts of the interludes between the big ones,and nothing we can do to either instigate or eradicate.