Arctic Ice

[Chris Knight]

It takes 8-9 years for warm pulses of water to get from the Pacific to the Arctic; the massive 1998 El Nino which led to a pronounced temperature spike in all the temp records, would have reached the Arctic last year - hence the unexpectedly large melt. Nothing whatsoever to do with a warming world - AGW or otherwise.

IMO opinion the key to Arctic ice recovery or further loss can better be judged by looking back at Pacific SSTs than looking at atmospheric temperatures and CO2 emissions.

We may well be entering a natural cooling phase but in fairness you still haven't explained what these cycles are, or when they changed to a cooling phase. If you mean, as I suspect, the PDO flip to negative phase - it only happened a few months ago and as I said earlier, that takes 8-9 years to register in the Arctic.

I am not sure I understand the mechanism you imply here Jethro. Are you saying that the warm tropical surface water from 1997-98 somehow travelled in some subsurface currents to reach the Arctic some 8-9 years later? Does that mean that the rebound La Nina 1999-2001 may lead to significant Arctic cooling, reduction of melt and recovery of ice over the next couple of years?

Edited November 3, 2008 by Chris Knight

[Gray-Wolf]

I thought the Nino/Nina events were to do with an 'equitorial channel' running from Australasia throught othe west coast of southern america driven by upwelling,airpressure reversals and winds.

Submarine gyre like currents running up to the bering straights ,and thereafter into the arctic ,would surely undergo a measure of environmental influence on it's travels and so not truely bring the potential for the temp increases/current extensions that brought the warmer waters into the Arctic. The other thing being the studies on the Greenland coasts and the warm waters now arriving there that were sited as being responsible for the reduction in ice/glaciers there. this surely is not 'Nino'driven too is it??

The northerly move of the 10 degree isotherm and the northerly migration of the polar Jet would suggest another mechanism for driving ever warmer waters into the polar region. The increase in storm tracks acroos the polar region would readily facilitate 'surges' of warmer waters penetrating through Bering and into the Arctic gyre itself (this 'new' water would then readily facilitate the 'flushing out', via Greenland, of the old perennial ice). The same (or similar ) process could just as easily be happening in the North Atlantic helping with the Greenland meltdown.

[BUSHY]

Lets cut the c!!!p and focus on whats actually happening shall we?

[Gray-Wolf]

Further to the above post.

Foramoniferra are often used to 'track' oceanic temp changes as various of the genera have 'snail like' shells which curl in opposite directions for the warm/cool water variants. Had we undergone past long cycle migrations of the 10c isotherm, in a 'cyclical manner, then the oceanic muds would have shown this is their stratigraphy and ,to my limited knowledge, no such records exist to plot such 'migrations. I think it therefore safe to assume that ,as with the end of ice ages, this is a period of warm water extension into more northerly waters with the inevitable results on the cryosphere once the waters start there ingress there (under wind and currents driven by the northerly migrating Jet [placing storm developments ever further north]).

Of course we have to overlay the known cyclical variant ions over this 'trend' but 'trend' it most surely is .If this 'trend' continues unfettered then it's ultimate ends will be the over powering of the current climate/ecosystems in the polar region.

Unless we can ,very quickly, find another equally convincing (to the 4 models used in the paper) explanation driving the changes then we would be incredibly remiss to continue B.A.U. especially in light of the knowledge we now appear hold.

Some changes are 'unstoppable' once set into motion and the positive feedback loops that now appear to be setting up in the arctic make me wonder whether all of this is immaterial and the changes we are now witnessing will ,in time, take the whole of the Arctic.

This in turn will lead to the catastrophic impacts that such a loss would inevitably wreak (loss of 'global thermostat' , increased loss of Greenland ice, loss of permafrost, loss of methane in permafrost leading to accelerated warming leading to loss of Antarctic ice shelves [via rising sea levels and rising temps] leading to loss of Portions of WAIS and most of EAIS and the tens of metres of inundation this would facilitate........).

Do we really need to know if we've gone too far or are we better served (as mature individuals) to ignore it and live out the portions of our lives that will be 'unaffected' without the worry?

Lets cut the c!!!p and focus on whats actually happening shall we?

Northerly migration of the 10c isotherm in both Pacific and Atlantic.

Northerly migration of the polar Jet.

Rapid increase in the number of storm tracks passing over the Arctic over the last 50 yrs.

Now you can tell me the impact that is having Bushy.......and no carp please

[Gray-Wolf]

Lest we forget:

This from Nasa back in spring 2003...........

WARMING OF ARCTIC MAY AFFECT WORLDWIDE CLIMATE

Recently observed change in Arctic temperatures and sea ice cover may be a harbinger of global climate changes to come, according to a recent NASA study. Satellite data -- the unique view from space -- are allowing researchers to more clearly see Arctic changes and develop an improved understanding of the possible effect on climate worldwide.

The Arctic warming study, appearing in the November 1 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, shows that compared to the 1980s, most of the Arctic warmed significantly over the last decade, with the biggest temperature increases occurring over North America.

"The new study is unique in that, previously, similar studies made use of data from very few points scattered in various parts of the Arctic region," said the study's author, Dr. Josefino C. Comiso, senior research scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "These results show the large spatial variability in the trends that only satellite data can provide." Comiso used surface temperatures taken from satellites between 1981 and 2001 in his study.

The result has direct connections to NASA-funded studies conducted last year that found perennial, or year-round, sea ice in the Arctic is declining at a rate of nine percent per decade and that in 2002 summer sea ice was at record low levels. Early results indicate this persisted in 2003.

Researchers have suspected loss of Arctic sea ice may be caused by changing atmospheric pressure patterns over the Arctic that move sea ice around, and by warming Arctic temperatures that result from greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere.

Warming trends like those found in these studies could greatly affect ocean processes, which, in turn, impact Arctic and global climate, said Michael Steele, senior oceanographer at the University of Washington, Seattle. Liquid water absorbs the Sun's energy rather than reflecting it into the atmosphere the way ice does. As the oceans warm and ice thins, more solar energy is absorbed by the water, creating positive feedbacks that lead to further melting. Such dynamics can change the temperature of ocean layers, impact ocean circulation and salinity, change marine habitats, and widen shipping lanes, Steele said.

In related NASA-funded research that observes perennial sea-ice trends, Mark C. Serreze, a scientist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, found that in 2002 the extent of Arctic summer sea ice reached the lowest level in the satellite record, suggesting this is part of a trend. "It appears that the summer 2003 -- if it does not set a new record -- will be very close to the levels of last year," Serreze said. "In other words, we have not seen a recovery; we really see we are reinforcing that general downward trend." A paper on this topic is forthcoming.

According to Comiso's study, when compared to longer term ground-based surface temperature data, the rate of warming in the Arctic over the last 20 years is eight times the rate of warming over the last 100 years.

Comiso's study also finds temperature trends vary by region and season. While warming is prevalent over most of the Arctic, some areas, such as Greenland, appear to be cooling. Springtimes arrived earlier and were warmer, and warmer autumns lasted longer, the study found. Most importantly, temperatures increased on average by 1.22 degrees Celsius per decade over sea ice during Arctic summer. The summer warming and lengthened melt season appears to be affecting the volume and extent of permanent sea ice. Annual trends, which were not quite as strong, ranged from a warming of 1.06 degrees Celsius over North America to a cooling of .09 degrees Celsius in Greenland.

If the high latitudes warm, and sea ice extent declines, thawing Arctic soils may release significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane now trapped in permafrost, and slightly warmer ocean water could release frozen natural gases in the sea floor, all of which act as greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, said David Rind, a senior researcher at NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, New York. "These feedbacks are complex and we are working to understand them," he added.

The surface temperature records covering from 1981 to 2001 were obtained through thermal infrared data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellites. The studies were funded by NASA's Earth Science Enterprise, which is dedicated to understanding the Earth as an integrated system and applying Earth System Science to improve prediction of climate, weather and natural hazards using the unique vantage point of space.

EDIT: Do you think we can dismiss an 'El-Nino' link yet?

Edited November 3, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

GW & Chris: I'll try and find the paper where I read the details. Won't even attempt to remember the finer points or try to explain tonight, had a few of these so gibberish would the best I could manage....

But would you be able to tell the difference

Edited November 3, 2008 by jethro

[Gray-Wolf]

I think we can now see the 'growth' of Arctic ice slowing as the available space at high latitudes dissappears. We now enter the period where lower latitude waters start/try to freeze and this may be a measure of both the 'stormyness' at lower latitudes (smashing any areas of new ice so the '30% concentration' isn't reached) but also of the water/air temps there. If we effectively work to a stall by mid december I will be very worried.

Maybe jack1 could work out how rapidly, compared with last year, the high latitudes have reached 'saturation point' this time around.

[kiwistonewall]

Main Arctic Basin anomaly now exceeds 1979-2000 mean. Also East Siberian Sea and Beaufort Sea!

The Canadian Archipelago is exactly at the mean.

This means that in these areas, the ice exceeds the norm!

Arctic:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...om.region.1.jpg

East Siberia

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...om.region.9.jpg

Beaufort Sea:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...m.region.11.jpg

Canadian Archipelago: just on the mean:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...m.region.12.jpg

While some of the surrounding minor areas are still negative, the main ice field is ABOVE the long term mean.

And the rate of freeze has picked up over the last 2-3 days after a few days of go slow.

All this while there are unseasonal snow falls all over the world (Just google snow!)

and while solar cycle 24 fails to fire.

We have certainly reverted back to the weather of more than 30 years agao, and it has happened fast -

Globally, (at both Poles) we are currently at a mean position, (Zero anomaly) but the direction is straight up, meaning, as a whole, we will soon have a lot more ice than normal.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...a.withtrend.jpg

Edited November 7, 2008 by kiwistonewall

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Main Arctic Basin anomaly now exceeds 1979-2000 mean. Also East Siberian Sea and Beaufort Sea!

The Canadian Archipelago is exactly at the mean.

This means that in these areas, the ice exceeds the norm!

Arctic:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...om.region.1.jpg

East Siberia

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...om.region.9.jpg

Beaufort Sea:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...m.region.11.jpg

Canadian Archipelago: just on the mean:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...m.region.12.jpg

While some of the surrounding minor areas are still negative, the main ice field is ABOVE the long term mean.

And the rate of freeze has picked up over the last 2-3 days after a few days of go slow.

All this while there are unseasonal snow falls all over the world (Just google snow!)

and while solar cycle 24 fails to fire.

We have certainly reverted back to the weather of more than 30 years agao, and it has happened fast -

Globally, (at both Poles) we are currently at a mean position, (Zero anomaly) but the direction is straight up, meaning, as a whole, we will soon have a lot more ice than normal.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...a.withtrend.jpg

Nice interesting info.

GW El Nino's are solar linked and yes absolutely nothing we can do about how strong or weak they become.

BFTP

BFTP

Edited November 7, 2008 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Gray-Wolf]

I thought I'd better stick up the NSIDC image to highlight the saturation point that some of the basins are now experiencing. As you can imagine the high arctic would naturally freeze out first but once this reaches the coastal regions (the basin is full) the growth rate falters and slows.

The ice growth around the peripheries needs to wait on temperature/calm periods to extend the ice cover further (out into Bering, south of Svalbard,down the west coast of Greenland etc.) and so from now on the growth will settle into more recognisable patterns.......unless we have the 'mother of all winters' up north of course!

[Gray-Wolf]

GW El Nino's are solar linked and yes absolutely nothing we can do about how strong or weak they become.

though I'd not agree that solar activity is the driver for Nino/Nina you surely must concede that if the base line for the event is shifted up 2c (in line with the most conservative estimates) then the upper levels (i.e. strength) also get shunted up.

Sadly ,I personally, see a time when the outflow from the Ross sea will swamp such events leading to a period of constant 'La-Nina' conditions......just that the cold water upwelling will be from a disintegrating EAIS.

Snow can fall from +2c (ish) down to very low temperatures. Water cannot evaporate from ice. Ice can change directly into water vapour but you need a lot of energy to achieve this.

So , where is the water vapour, leading to the snow, evaporating from? If you are pointing us toward a scenario of positive precipitation anomalies then surely this would indicate more energy (heat) in the system to facilitate the same? If not then we must be looking at macro atmospheric circulation changes leading to existing precipitation falling in different geographic locations (not many readings for snowfall amount across the North Pacific eh?). Either way you are looking at change. If it is a reflection of circulation changes then we must surely look to the changes we have already measured (northerly migration of Jet and 10c isotherm) as having impact upon said circulation 'changes'. Then must we not endeavour to find WHY these changes are occurring? (current thinking has them as a direct response to a warming world).

Ice extending further south than is 'normal' may well point to sustained cold but I do not find snowfall over areas with traditionally low precipitation anything but worrying as it would ,to me ,suggest we are much further into our enforced global 'changes' than we are currently perceiving.

Edited November 7, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[The PIT]

t

Water cannot evaporate from ice. Ice can change directly into water vapour but you need a lot of energy to achieve this.

This occurs at any temperature of water between the melting point and the boiling point -- with more evaporation occurring with a body of water that

has a higher average temperature (that is, closer to the boiling point). It can even happen below the freezing point (via sublimation -- when water goes

directly from a solid (ice) to water vapor) and this explains why the ice cubes in your freezer sometimes seem to "evaporate".

Dunno how much energy is in your fridge but probably not a lot.

[laserguy]

Ta-da!

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent..._Ice_Extent.png

Funny,this. I could have sworn that some clown with an agenda of some sort said on a very highbrow programme on a very serious radio station last night,that Arctic Ice was currently melting faster than ever and at low levels not seen since the dawn of time,etc.

[J10]

I think we can now see the 'growth' of Arctic ice slowing as the available space at high latitudes dissappears. We now enter the period where lower latitude waters start/try to freeze and this may be a measure of both the 'stormyness' at lower latitudes (smashing any areas of new ice so the '30% concentration' isn't reached) but also of the water/air temps there. If we effectively work to a stall by mid december I will be very worried.

Maybe jack1 could work out how rapidly, compared with last year, the high latitudes have reached 'saturation point' this time around.

I am more than prepared to do this, but where would the best place to get the information, there doesn't seem to be that much numerical data available except for IJIS whihc doesn't seem to split the ice depending on where it is in the Arctic, or on it's latitude.

[Gray-Wolf]

I just had a thought....very dangerous for me!......due to the cold end to last winter, and the surge in ice extent back then, did we actually find ourselves melting a greater surface area of ice over summer 2008 than melted in the record breaking year of 2007???

serious question by the way!

[Admiral_Bobski]

I just had a thought....very dangerous for me!......due to the cold end to last winter, and the surge in ice extent back then, did we actually find ourselves melting a greater surface area of ice over summer 2008 than melted in the record breaking year of 2007???

serious question by the way!

Hi GW,

It's a good question, and here are the results:

2007 Max - 13,945,625

2007 Min - 4,254,531

2007 Ice Loss = 9,691,094 (Max to Min)

2008 Max - 14,516,875

2008 Min - 4,707,813

2008 Ice Loss = 9,809,062 (Max to Min)

So the ice loss in 2008 was greater by 117,968 km2

It's a valid point, but I wonder how much more first-year ice there was this year and what effect this had on the melt rates. I'll see what I can dig up...

CB

EDIT - BTW, the figures above are taken from the IJIS data: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv

Edited November 12, 2008 by Captain_Bobski

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks for the effort C-Bob!

It had just struck me that the years before 2007/08 winter concerns had been about poor ice recovery and then we had the Feb/March 'rally' this year pushing up ice 'extent'.

The point about 'single year ice' is well made (IMHO).

Perennial ice drifted into 'poor locations' may survive an 'average seasons melt' (this year being ,apparently, average) but single year ice does not. The single year ice surviving from last years refreeze will have done so by remaining in favourable locations for ice retention (apparently above 80 degrees north!) and the same will continue, I imagine, until ice volumes reduce to the point where individual 'rafts' of ice are all that remain by high summer (by that point the surrounding oceans will have had time to absorbs enough energy to 'pick off' these isolated masses).

Though I tend to rise to the debate (shame on me, slapped wrist) the recent move from predominantly perennial to predominantly single year in the arctic is ,for me, the sign that the 'end game' is not far off. The energy now absorbed by 'open water' over the summer months is sure to degrade the remnants of the old 7 year plus perennial leaving us with a period of only 'recent perennial' (less than 5 years old) and this ,due to it's composition, does not persist as well as 'old perennial'. If we continue with a trend of 'unfavourable wind/current/temps' then we will loose summer ice in the high arctic (again, IMHO).

Edited November 12, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

Seems to be a bit of a stall at the moment. Does anyone know of any major storms delaying the ice formation?

[SNOWPLOUGH]

Seems to be a bit of a stall at the moment. Does anyone know of any major storms delaying the ice formation?

there seems to be a similar stall at the same time last year

SP

[Roger J Smith]

Stall is probably caused by ice passing south end of Foxe Basin past three days, now the freeze proceeds more slowly into Hudson Bay which is larger and warmer, freeze there typically proceeds from west coast to east coast in haphazard stages often broken up by strong winds. Same logic applies to Bering Strait, which is next to freeze in that sector, that will require at least a month to see much progress. Looking at current ice margins, in general, there are no easy zones ahead. The weather in these marginal zones remains quite conducive for freezing, however. The 5-10 day outlook for Hudson Bay is much below normal. Some recent GFS charts for northern Europe give optimism for rapid spread of ice there too, so a more extensive ice season than recent averages may lie ahead, with plenty of time left for expansion.

Do they count freezing of large lakes in the total, because Great Bear Lake is probably close to freezing very soon?

[Chris Knight]

Stall is probably caused by ice passing south end of Foxe Basin past three days, now the freeze proceeds more slowly into Hudson Bay which is larger and warmer, freeze there typically proceeds from west coast to east coast in haphazard stages often broken up by strong winds. Same logic applies to Bering Strait, which is next to freeze in that sector, that will require at least a month to see much progress. Looking at current ice margins, in general, there are no easy zones ahead. The weather in these marginal zones remains quite conducive for freezing, however. The 5-10 day outlook for Hudson Bay is much below normal. Some recent GFS charts for northern Europe give optimism for rapid spread of ice there too, so a more extensive ice season than recent averages may lie ahead, with plenty of time left for expansion.

Do they count freezing of large lakes in the total, because Great Bear Lake is probably close to freezing very soon?

Following on from earlier posts, we are not only looking at the greatest annual areal melt, but the greatest annual areal refreeze, for two years in a row now!

[Roger J Smith]

Well, we all realize that climate can switch gears very suddenly, perhaps that's what we are witnessing here.

I think it would be the supreme irony if a major cooling trend came at us just when the U.S.A. finally elected a president who thinks global warming is a crisis.

Oh well.

He said he wanted change.

[Chris Knight]

Well, we all realize that climate can switch gears very suddenly, perhaps that's what we are witnessing here.

I think it would be the supreme irony if a major cooling trend came at us just when the U.S.A. finally elected a president who thinks global warming is a crisis.

Oh well.

He said he wanted change.

I think Obama has a few surprises in store for us - not only the first female president, but one of ethnic mix too!

[West is Best]

I note that global ice levels remain above the 1979-2000 mean. Really interesting that ice seems to be following the trend in weather patterns.

A cold winter or two and we should start to see the AGW argument getting thoroughly unpicked in the media ... that's if it's wrong of course.

[Iceberg]

Interesting WIB as I can't find anywhere that says that global ice levels are above average, the best I can find is close to but below average after a period of being below average.

I also can't find a single temperature series that indicated that global temperatures are below average ?

But this is the arctic ice thread so I think I stick to that and i think the graph GW posted shows this up very well.

I think we have to remember that we had a record October AO, which unsurprisingly has led to a large ice growth that month. Still a rapid rise in artic ice, but the real test is whether we can keep a big chunk of this during the summer to prepare us for a synoptically good melting summer.