Carinthians Latest Arctic Ice Reports

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi shiny bot!

No record for 'ice extent' (2nd lowest) but less mass of ice than ever recorded before due to huge (up to five stories high!!!!) blocks of perennial ice melting out completely to be replaced by 1-2m thick single year ice. 56% of perennial now gone sine we started recording it .

[ribster]

Most of our planets history was ice free but is that the issue here?

It is the issue. This planet is an iceball then its not, nature did that. This time it must be man even though cyclically the timing is right regards to where we are and how the planet is climatically. Concerned? Yes its going to get very very cold.

BFTP

Couldn't agree more, GW again makes assumptions about what the net result will be and has only listened to those quarters that tell him the result that he wants to hear. Far from proven, and there are plenty that have a completely different view point.

Edited September 17, 2008 by ribster

[Gray-Wolf]

Sorry Ribster but I have always read widely around the subject and then formed the opinion that my personal level of intellegence allows me to. I'm very sure that mine is an oversimplified projection but 'hey' even the boss guys keep being shocked by the impacts up there!

Do believe me when I say I wish none of this were occuring.

I have a family and one of my little 'uns is highly dependant on our present levels of health care to survive. Any breakdown in our current way of 'being' in the UK today, for however short a period, will be the end for him .

[jemtom]

Couldn't agree more, GW again makes assumptions about what the net result will be and has only listened to those quarters that tell him the result that he wants to hear. Far from proven, and there are plenty that have a completely different view point.

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to give us the benefit of your viewpoint on the subject then Ribster, rather than simply decrying others who are brave enough to nail their colours to the mast.

[Iceberg]

GW, how do you explain the predominance of years when the earth has been ice-free in the past? In most of these ice-free periods the average global temperature has been some 10-12C higher than right now. What causes these huge temperature changes? What causes the temperature to fall back, as well? It's almost as though the earth "operates" between a global average temperature of 12C and 22C. A rise in global temperatures of 10-12C would be considered disastrous for humankind, and yet this has been the cyclical nature of the climate. We just happen to be in one of the cool phases right now. Whether we are just about to warm up, or still to cool a little further in the natural cycle remains to be seen.

The difference to past geological time frames are huge, The position of the landmasses effects things greatly, When land is not at the poles there tends to be alot less ice and vice versa.

Temperature in the past has varied due to massive hydrate releases, Milankovich cycles etc. As well as crustal activity etc.

None of the above is causing the current ice melt (at least not to an ounce of evidence I've ever seen).

Currently it's though that if you make the Globe 5-7C warmer the ice will melt.

[carinthian]

Not very often do you see the NE passage open and clear of any summertime ice. The NE passage links the North Cape ( Norway ) into the Arctic Basin and along the North Coast of Asia. Note the ice sheet is now well off the coast of the Taymyr Peninusula, the most Northern part of mainland Russia . Shipping is free to pass the whole route, saving time and money on routes from Northern Europe to Asia. The same passage was used by Captain Cook travelling through the Bering Straights as far as the North Cape. Even last summer ice plagued parts of the North Land away from the Eaast Siberian Sea.

C

[oldsnowywizard]

come on people play nice... im sure theres a mod here somewhere...

we dont want this thread to be filled with posts like some i have read.. keep to the facts please

i thank you xx

[tundra]

Arctic sea ice minimum 9% above last years which is very good news considering a large area of the ice was first year ice to start with.

[connlach]

Hi

I dont post much as I dont understand the technicalities, however I am an avide reader. I am sure that everyone has an opinion about global warming, however I don't think this thread is for it.

Can I ask what is probably a silly question. If there is 10% more ice this year on the surface does that mean it is likely to be a colder winter?

[Anti-Mild]

Hi

I dont post much as I dont understand the technicalities, however I am an avide reader. I am sure that everyone has an opinion about global warming, however I don't think this thread is for it.

Can I ask what is probably a silly question. If there is 10% more ice this year on the surface does that mean it is likely to be a colder winter?

It'll be a colder winter for somewhere, but maybe not here.

I don't think there is any link between preceding ice minimum and the subsequent winter temperature.

[Gray-Wolf]

Arctic sea ice minimum 9% above last years which is very good news considering a large area of the ice was first year ice to start with.

I think it would prove more 'useful ' to use the 30yr rolling average as a measure and not a 'freak' year. We have enough of that on the AGW thread with the current record 'high' global mean temp being paraded to prove 'cooling'.

If we use the rolling average then we are still in very bad shape up North

[Typhoon John]

I agree that long term that we should be comparing to an average. At the moment we've just passed minimum and after all we've heard this year about ice extent going to be lower than 2007 and the ice free pole I think a comparison to last year is relevant. 9% higher is very good news for now and makes you wonder how/why these scientists were making such wild predictions.

Overall we are still in a poor situation regarding ice extent, but if 2009 sees an increase over 2008 then that can only be seen as a good thing. I think it's crazy to think we could suddenly jump back to average in one year.

[karyo]

I agree that long term that we should be comparing to an average. At the moment we've just passed minimum and after all we've heard this year about ice extent going to be lower than 2007 and the ice free pole I think a comparison to last year is relevant. 9% higher is very good news for now and makes you wonder how/why these scientists were making such wild predictions.

Overall we are still in a poor situation regarding ice extent, but if 2009 sees an increase over 2008 then that can only be seen as a good thing. I think it's crazy to think we could suddenly jump back to average in one year.

I totally agree! After all, it was single year ice and the fact that some of it survived and lead to this increase is very important. It would have been unrealistic to expect a massive recovery.

Let's take one step at a time.

Karyo

[Iceberg]

Yes we hope for 8 more years of this rate of increase, with conditions to allow more and more winter ice, and cooler conditions during the spring to encourage the ice to stay longer and maybe we might be back at average.

But this is rather a long shot me thinks.

The other thing is that although the ice extent was slightly up the ice that has remained is in a worse state than 2007.

[osmposm]

.......after all we've heard this year about ice extent going to be lower than 2007 and the ice free pole I think a comparison to last year is relevant. 9% higher is very good news for now and makes you wonder how/why these scientists were making such wild predictions.

Fozi, the trouble with reading the press reports (and worse still internet comment on press reports), instead of the original releases is that we get to believe that reputable scientists were making "such wild predictions". As far as I am aware, very, very few were, and certainly the most respected organisations that make statements each spring were not.

Here is what the NSIDC actually said in April: "Although natural variability in the atmospheric circulation could prevent the ice pack from breaking last year's summer record, a closer look at sea ice conditions indicates that the September 2008 minimum extent will almost certainly be well below average." Later they said "Even if more first-year ice survives than normal, the September minimum extent this year will likely be extremely low." Nothing there about a new record.

Their May release was more pessimistic, certainly, and talked of what would have to happen (in terms of first-year ice retention) "to avoid beating the September 2007 record low". But nowhere did they predict that it would be beaten, and they balanced their pessimistic analysis (based on historical ice melt rates) by quoting the conclusions (reached by analyses of different factors) from two other highly-regarded sources:

(1)"Sheldon Drobot at the Center for Astrodynamics Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder and colleagues have developed a sophisticated forecasting technique. The forecast considers sea ice extent, ice age, summer and winter temperatures, cloudiness, the phase of the Atlantic Oscillation, and climate trends as predictors.....Drobot predicts a 59% chance of a new record minimum this year." That's right, 59%....a bit over 50:50 - it is NOT a prediction that it will happen, not even a confident suggestion that it is very likely to happen. If you made that sort of prediction 100 times, and said it was definite, you would be wrong 41 times! Read what the scientists actually say, it's important.

(2) "Ronald Lindsay of the University of Washington's Applied Physics Laboratory and collaborators recently published results from their own ice prediction system, based on a retrospective analysis of the modeled state of the ice and ocean system.....for 2008, the model implies a very low, but not extreme, sea ice minimum." So this was an even less extreme view - just as the NSIDC April analysis had done, UOW plumped for a probable non-record, though still bad.

NSIDC also asked the rhetorical question: Could the North Pole be ice free this melt season? Their answer was "Given that this region is currently covered with first-year ice, that seems quite possible." By the time you were reading about it on the net, that had mutated to "Arctic ice-free this summer, say scientists". Note, however, that they were talking about the thinly-covered Pole area itself, not the whole Arctic. As to the chances they were talking about, if you have a friend in the army going to serve in Afghanistan, and you ask me "Could they be killed by a roadside bomb?", I might well answer "Given the dangers of the place, that seems quite possible." But that would not mean I think they will get killed, or even that I think the probability is high. Just....possible.

Here are the two original press releases:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/040708.html and http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/050508.html

Edited September 19, 2008 by osmposm

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks for that osmposm!

If anyone googled 'Arctic ice news' they'd be paraded with the pre 07' predictions in ice loss. They may then realise how extreme last year was (and ,in reality, ow 'extreme' this years loss was).

We cannot continue to take 'freak' exceptions as baselines (be they global temps or ice 'extents') without looking foolish/unenlightened.

We smashed the 'volume of sea ice' record this year but I see but myself holding up this record as a frightening stat.

Is it not all about how much ice there is up there or is it all about how thin you can spread it out???

[Typhoon John]

Osmposm, I take your point about alot of the claims not coming from scientists, perhaps in hindsight I shouldn't have mentioned them. However, you can take that comment out and the rest still stands. I think an increase in extent from last year is a positive sign and a relevant comparison.

The volume of ice over all is down but to me (and tell me why I'm wrong if I am) a greater extent of ice should allow for a quicker recovery? Then if next year we can see a melt less than this winter's gains then surely we will be no worse off than the current minimum.

[osmposm]

....I think an increase in extent from last year is a positive sign and a relevant comparison.

Fozi, it is of course of interest, and relevant in a limited sense. But unfortunately one small rise for one year does not necessarily mean that the minimum will continue rising (though of course it may). Have a look at this chart from Cryosphere of NH ice area since 1978:

From the bottom points of the graph line you can see that, for example, the 1992 minimum was higher than than that of 1991, 1994 was higher than 1993, 1996 was higher than 1995, 2001 was higher than 2000 - and there was actually a two year increase from 2002 through to 2004. But each of those increases was subsequently reversed, and the overall longer trend continued down. The movement between two years, up or down, means very little. And in my opinion, the likelihood of a longer term rise is even lower now because of the high proportion of thin, vulnerable, single-year ice after 2007's melt.

If the climate in the arctic is genuinely set for a substantial cooling for a while then we may see further gains - though of course we don't know how important a contribution ocean temperatures make to the melt, let alone whether or not they will fall too. If it does not cool significantly, then in my opinion we will not see a continued increase - indeed, if I were a betting man, I would be putting money on the minimum record being broken again within the next five years, and perhaps sooner than that. If we get two more rises - i.e three in all - on the trot I will seriously reconsider my opinion. And if we pass the five-year mark with the 2007 record still intact I will gracefully - and with genuine happiness - admit that I was wrong!

Ossie

Edited September 20, 2008 by osmposm

[The Eagle]

Last winter's maximum Ice was well ahead of 2006/7 - this year we can expect more of the same with the record being avoided by a not unsubstantial amount. Now I think it is time Gray Wolf, who has lectured us through the summer, acknowledge that he was wrong and that a re-evaluation of his stance on GW relating to the artic needs to be examined again. The fact is that Ice pack is now growing - or shall we call it 'Climate Change' to avoid the upfront criticism. I wonder will he take it like a man or use weasel words to get out. Fact is Fact.

So GW have you the capacity to acknowledge that I and others were right and you were wrong?

A simple yes and no is called for - no BS.

Edited September 20, 2008 by Darkman

[osmposm]

Can I assume, Darkman, that you haven't read my post immediately above yours, showing how unwise it is to assume any longer trend from just one year's ice cover?

A...um...simple yes or no is called for.

Or perhaps you've read it, but don't agree with it: in which case I'd be interested to know where my observation or conclusion was flawed. As you can see from the graph, the maximum goes up and down like a yoyo as well as the minimum. Can you really be so sure already that "The fact is the Ice pack is now growing"? (I assume you're referring to a longer trend, not just the normal growth as we move towards winter.)

Ossie

Edited September 20, 2008 by osmposm

[The Eagle]

Can I assume, Darkman, that you haven't read my post immediately above yours, showing how unwise it is to assume any longer trend from just one year's ice cover?

A...um...simple yes or no is called for.

Or perhaps you've read it, but don't agree with it: in which case I'd be interested to know where my observation or conclusion was flawed. As you can see from the graph, the maximum goes up and down like a yoyo as well as the minimum. Can you really be so sure already that "The fact is the Ice pack is now growing"? (I assume you're referring to a longer trend, not just the normal growth as we move towards winter.)

Ossie

Thank you for your post but: Are you 'Gray Wolf'? No? - I want yes or no answer from him - no one else.

It is very simple - yes or no.

Im not ignoring your post but this guy has been at us for years and now is the time to face up to truths - expect weasel words.....ie I agree with you but...

Gray Wolf a yes or no please. No rubbish about long term ice. You are either right or wrong.

Edited September 20, 2008 by Darkman

[carinthian]

Morning all,

Careful Boys ! This thread is primarily about conditions as it. Assumptions are made and trends questioned. There are a lot of good posts on this thread. I will not allow this thread to degenerate into improper reports that are not in accordance with fact. There is a lot of passion and concerns about the beauty and wilderness of our frozenland and don't let this thread turn into a personal slanging match.

thanks

C

Edited September 20, 2008 by carinthian

[Polar Continental]

Morning all,

Careful Boys ! This thread is primarily about conditions as it. Assumptions are made and trends questioned. There are a lot of good posts on this thread. I will not allow this thread to degenerate into improper reports that are not in accordance with fact. There is a lot of passion and concerns about the beauty and wilderness of our frozenland and don't let this thread turn into a personal slanging match.

thanks

C

Morning Carinth,

I notice the temperatures are still well above average in Svalbard, very little snow, even at the higher elevations all courtesy of the anticyclone over Scandinavia and the British Isles pumping very mild air in that direction, current surface temperatures around 6c. All due to change by Tuesday though as the orientation of the high changes, which will allow much colder air from the Greenland shelf to spill towards the islands.

Paul

Edited September 20, 2008 by Polar Continental

[Gray-Wolf]

Agreed Carinth.

D.M., NO

Enviro thread....laters

[The Eagle]

Agreed Carinth.

D.M., NO

Enviro thread....laters

So you ignore the facts....thanks for admitting it. Quite an eye opener.