Arctic Ice

[Gray-Wolf]

When Russia unveiled their plans for their 'Super Breaker' a few years back it did make me wonder what their intentions were. As soon as we got to the rumblings about and 'ice free' summer arctic things became more settled in my mind. You don't build the biggest ice breaker in the world to traverse an area with no ice but ,flag planting on the arctic sea bed and the hullabaloo about exploration rights across the Arctic? well then it all makes sense. If you have single/2nd year ice as your main concern then winter sailings to re-supply rigs are not a problem.

Shipping may be a problem but what of the pollution from oil/gas exploration? we know the impact that black soot brings from summer sailings up their but what about all winter pumping it out into the high arctic???It would seem to be in someones best interest to aid summer melt and speed the demise of the remaining perennial.

Russia also has a lot of land that will benefit from 'warming'. If you look at how the prairies used to be then look at great swathes of the north of Russia you'll see what I mean.

Either they, or I ,have had too much Vodka.............

Edited December 3, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[osmposm]

Ice extent by the IJIS/AMSRE comparison graph just chugging along in the middle of a fairly tight 2002-08 pack - even '06 & '07 were much closer to the group by this point:

But the longer picture on the NSIDC graph shows it is still around a million square km below the 1979-2000 mean:

So the best you can say is that it's not getting worse just now. We'd need to narrow that gap before you can say it's getting better. At the moment. In my opinion. :lol:

Ossie

Edited December 3, 2008 by osmposm

[Iceberg]

Almost missed this.

December 3 , 2008

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Ice growth slows; Arctic still warmer than usual

Sign up for the Arctic Sea Ice News RSS feed for automatic notification of analysis updates. Updates are also available via Twitter.

The period of very rapid ice growth that characterized October and early November has ended. The rise in ice extent over the past three weeks has been much slower, and should continue to slow until the expected seasonal ice extent maximum is reached sometime in March. Air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean stayed well above average during November, partly because of continued heat release from the ocean to the atmosphere and partly because of a pattern of atmospheric circulation transporting warm air into the region.

[jethro]

Didn't Roger say Hudson Bay is yet to freeze over but is expected to shortly?

[Iceberg]

Yep The Hudson nearly always freezes the last two weeks of November or the first two weeks of December. Depending on synoptics. It's currently a little behind schedule maybe 1 or 2 weeks behind last years freeze up. But it is synoptic based so we can't really take any trends from it. Melting or Freezing.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'd imagine we are now starting to see the 'new' pattern for early in the freeze season with the expected refreeze of the high arctic, which used to be perennial locked, leading to a period of 'apparent' rapid ice growth (as the 'new' open water refreezes).

I do hope that those folk who got carried away with the rates of re-freeze in Oct/early Nov have now got their heads around how/why this should occur as it will continue to be a feature from now on (unless we DO build new 5yr+ perennial in the high arctic) and even after two years it is wearing thin as a 'topic' of discussion.

Surely our main focus should be Ice thickness.......the depth to which the 'new' ice freezes.

Last year saw large areas of relatively thin ice form over large areas of the Arctic which enabled the scale of melt (over a poor summer) that brought us to the second lowest ice levels on record. Any 'good/warm' summer would lead to an early period of open waters in the high arctic and more heat absorption in the seas there leading to more of the high temps we are seeing currently as the waters loose their heat back into the atmosphere.

The nattering over on the 'models' thread are focused on the loss of the 'extended cold' we used to succumb to in past years. A look at the charts makes you wonder about the influence of this new 'heat engine' in the arctic on the polar vortex and the polar jet......and our chances of having a 'traditional winter'.

If we can see an influence over winter then maybe our past two 'wet/warm' summers are also to become a feature of the 'new' arctic regime?

With the PDO turned negative you would expect colder conditions but it would appear that AGW is exerting a stronger influence than the normal 'oscillations' of the climate.Seeing as the poles are supposed to see greater influence from any warming maybe we are seeing just how far the warming can negate the 'natural variability' of the planet?

I feel we would do well to draw parallels with past PDO -ve phases and this current one to see just how 'different' it pans out to be. I do not think we can afford the luxury of waiting to amass more data on this (seeing as the oscillation is so lengthy) and must accept the influence that the 'new' open waters over summer has on things (as we see currently).

If PDO-ve really is acting as PDO neutral then what of PDO+ve? If we do not see a slowing (as predicted) of warming up to 2015 then what of the acceleration in warming predicted for thereafter??

What of the impacts of the next (2009) El-Nino???

We were always told that the impacts in polar regions would be greater than anywhere else but ,at the same time, we were told that the polar regions were the 'thermostat' for the planet.

If we have 'knocked out' our thermostat then surely the impacts on lower latitudes will be far greater than our 'forced warming ' alone. Past epochs show just how far a 'balanced planet' can warm without our messing with the controls.

Nothing happens in isolation, mess with one thing and it impacts the next,and the next, and the next.....

We are permanently asked 'What an ice free arctic means' maybe we are getting our answers?

[Roger J Smith]

I can recall recent winters when Hudson Bay was still somewhat ice-free in early January, so this year is not a slow freeze-up by recent standards, and the basin is now surrounded by very cold air masses, so ...

Hudson Bay will be frozen over quite soon in the pattern that is projected over 5-10 days, perhaps the most interesting feature of the freeze so far is how close the Greenland ice is coming to northwest Iceland. I'm not sure when the last contact was, this was a fairly regular feature that allowed polar bears to wander across and become a nuisance in Iceland in days gone by.

I continue to view this winter season as a robust start for very cold air masses and some big things probably lie ahead this ice season and resulting winter weather season around the hemisphere. Whether it's a trend-breaker or just a one-season wonder remains to be seen.

I haven't been very active in these climate threads recently because I sense people are trying to speed up the evolution of the debate and basically we're very much in a wait and see situation, nothing is resolved in either direction. That's about all I've taken from it at any rate.

[Iceberg]

Have to disagree Roger, Going back through the archives, both AMSR and SSI have Hudson frozen up by the end of December in all of the last 10 years. In 8 of the years it's frozen up by the 15th except for a couple of small pockets. with 98 and 99 being the odd ones out.

[Gray-Wolf]

The last time lapse I saw showed that, even in late october, perennial was still being floated down the east coast of iceland in the direction of iceland. We even had a post further up the thread noting the 'ice bridge' to the NW tip of Iceland but the Sat images showed no such thing. I'll go and have another root about and see how things 'look'.

[Gray-Wolf]

Yup! even over the winter freeze we still hemorrhage perennial down the coast of Greenland and out into the Atlantic.......Ho Hum.

[Roger J Smith]

I see you're quoting Obama in your signature line, GW ... he knows less about global warming than anyone on this thread, don't forget. And I wouldn't be surprised if he knows less about economics too.

The next four years could prove to be a very expensive and disastrous lesson in the shortcomings of the globalist and global warming perspectives. But the revolution is obviously about to begin, let an unsuspecting (American) nation beware and recall the results of other revolutions in history.

Edited December 8, 2008 by Roger J Smith

[Jack Wales]

It is worth noting that at present, ice concentrations in the northern hemisphere are over 1,000,000 sq km greater than at this time last year...

[Optimus Prime]

I see you're quoting Obama in your signature line, GW ... he knows less about global warming than anyone on this thread, don't forget. And I wouldn't be surprised if he knows less about economics too.

Same bloke that said the hurrican earlier this year was going to be one of the biggest disasters to ever hit America? What a load of hyped up rubbish that was although was probably said to shift people.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Yep this thread is trying to be sped up in one direction. Re the US, they'll get the president and administration they deserve.

BFTP

[osmposm]

It is worth noting that at present, ice concentrations in the northern hemisphere are over 1,000,000 sq km greater than at this time last year...

Duly noted, Jack, as it was 5 days ago (subject to some variation according to the method of calculation). But it was also noted there that the extent was and remains 1m km ² below the 1979-2000 mean on the NSIDC chart - or a smaller (but still large) deficiency on the Cryosphere Today one.

Ossis

[jethro]

How much will Hudson add to that figure when it freezes over?

[osmposm]

But the revolution is obviously about to begin, let an unsuspecting (American) nation beware and recall the results of other revolutions in history.

Um, Roger, I could have sworn that last time you mentioned a revolution it was in positively glowing terms......you know how the fine, self-reliant people of America "fought a war for independence, created a landmark constitution, enabled the liberty and democracy of millions who could not count on the good graces of a British aristocracy and noblesse oblige as their chief guarantees for justice or freedom..." But your distaste for Democrats in general and Obama in particular is probably not the best starting point for the continuation of our discussion on the state of the Arctic ice.

So back on topic, did you see Iceberg's comment a few days ago about the Hudson Bay re-freeze schedule? You had written "I can recall recent winters when Hudson Bay was still somewhat ice-free in early January, so this year is not a slow freeze-up by recent standards...." Iceberg replied "Have to disagree Roger, Going back through the archives, both AMSR and SSI have Hudson frozen up by the end of December in all of the last 10 years. In 8 of the years it's frozen up by the 15th except for a couple of small pockets. with 98 and 99 being the odd ones out." Which is right, do we know? Or perhaps you meant something a bit longer ago than 10 years when you wrote of "recent winters"?

[osmposm]

How much will Hudson add to that figure when it freezes over?

J, Hudson Bay is said to be 1.23m km² in area, though the Cryosphere Today graph implies they count a somewhat larger area under that title - perhaps 1.28m km². Reading approximately from the CT graph, currently about 0.3m km² of the Northern Hemisphere deficiency against the 1979-2000 mean is accounted for by the Hudson.

I don't know numerically how much more frozen it was by this time last year, but the comparison images on CT suggest it was about ??75% covered last year as against the approx 25% of this year. So you could, I suppose, say that IF Hudson were as frozen now as it was last year - and every other NI Ice area were the same as they are now - then the deficiency vs the 1979-2000 mean for the whole NH would be little if anything. In fact we might even be above average for the date. But that wouldn't be indicative of anything, since last year Hudson re-froze faster than average, I think (while other areas didn't)!

By the same token, if you made those same assumptions, you could (a bit pointlessly) say that this year's ice extent as of today would be (v approx) an extra 0.6m km² above 2007's. But that really would be the cherry-picking of all cherry-picking!

For the overall season and its maximum extent, I don't think the freezing of Hudson alone can materially change how the total NH ice area compares with either 2007 or the 1979-2000 mean, since I think it always freezes completely eventually, doesn't it?

[Gray-Wolf]

I think maybe if we looked at 'ice mass' instead of 'ice extent' we find ourselves looking at an even lower figure when compared to the 79-2000 figure.I think that we would find ourselves with a lower 'ice mass' than the same time in 2007 and yet still we hear tales of 'recovery'.

The changes happening in the Arctic present themselves over the summer melt, not through the winter season.

Everybody knows that without sunlight the arctic WILL freeze over.

Everybody knows that some years a cold season WILL allow ice to push further south than it would in a warmer winter.

The worry is that over an 'average summer' we can still produce the lowest ice volume recorded. That we will see the north coast of Greenland produce the most rapid melt, that such a poor year can finish off over a third of the total area of Arctic ice shelfs remaining.......surely this is the story here?

We cannot kid ourselves that things can improve in the Arctic without many continuous years of below average temperatures and above average ice retention and still then another 07' will undo this in one season.

It must be time to fall in behind the experts and expect an ice free summer arctic within the near future. It must be time to explore the implications for humanity of the 'new conditions' to the north so we may best prepare for them.

I don't think I could name one member whom I thought did not wish to see the cryosphere stabilise and 'rebound' to the 1900's average levels but this thread is not a 'wish tree' it is a thread concerned with current ice trends and the implications these have for humanity and it's continuance as is.

Is it down to poor me to expand the picture of what an ice free arctic may mean or will anyone else put forward their 'understandings' of the knock on effects for the planet as we loose our thermostat?

[pottyprof]

The worry is that over an 'average summer' we can still produce the lowest ice volume recorded. That we will see the north coast of Greenland produce the most rapid melt, that such a poor year can finish off over a third of the total area of Arctic ice shelfs remaining.......surely this is the story here?

But 2007 wasn't an average summer up at the top.. I mean the synoptics made for a rather interesting melt season. The heat from the pacific added to the mix.

Now if everything had been average then i'd be very concerned.. but it wasn't..

[Iceberg]

No it wasn't an average melt season, it should have been a below average melt season given the conditions. With SST's lower than in previous years, less radiative melting and synoptics that allowed less warm pooling.

[jethro]

J, Hudson Bay is said to be 1.23m km² in area, though the Cryosphere Today graph implies they count a somewhat larger area under that title - perhaps 1.28m km². Reading approximately from the CT graph, currently about 0.3m km² of the Northern Hemisphere deficiency against the 1979-2000 mean is accounted for by the Hudson.

I don't know numerically how much more frozen it was by this time last year, but the comparison images on CT suggest it was about ??75% covered last year as against the approx 25% of this year. So you could, I suppose, say that IF Hudson were as frozen now as it was last year - and every other NI Ice area were the same as they are now - then the deficiency vs the 1979-2000 mean for the whole NH would be little if anything. In fact we might even be above average for the date. But that wouldn't be indicative of anything, since last year Hudson re-froze faster than average, I think (while other areas didn't)!

By the same token, if you made those same assumptions, you could (a bit pointlessly) say that this year's ice extent as of today would be (v approx) an extra 0.6m km² above 2007's. But that really would be the cherry-picking of all cherry-picking!

For the overall season and its maximum extent, I don't think the freezing of Hudson alone can materially change how the total NH ice area compares with either 2007 or the 1979-2000 mean, since I think it always freezes completely eventually, doesn't it?

Not even trying to cherry pick, just trying to figure out the figures.

Yes, I think Hudson does always freeze, I think the fact it hasn't, thus far this year is immaterial. I think if we assume it will freeze, take that extra mass into consideration, then perhaps we may be able to gauge just how much more overall ice cover we will see this year.

Earlier today Ossie said " extent was and remains 1m km 2 below the 1979-2000 mean on the NSIDC chart " - Hudson as yet still unfrozen, at your estimate of 1.23 km, accounts for that discrepancy.

[Roger J Smith]

Re Hudson Bay, I am willing to accept Iceberg's stats at face value, my comments were more subjective and probably are influenced partly by mild winters back around 1987-92 when I have a recollection of slow and incomplete freeze up seasons lasting into January on Hudson Bay. Normally Hudson Bay freezes over from west to east and there are two or three episodes of strong winds shifting some of the ice cover around, so there is definitely nothing odd going on this year, it looks fairly normal to me and extreme cold is in the model forecasts for the next 5-10 days without very strong winds, so I would expect large parts of Hudson Bay and most of James Bay to be frozen fairly soon.

I'm very concerned about Obama, and yes revolutions can be a good thing, I suppose some are a lot better than others, the analogue I had in mind was 1917, there is a bit of a desperate feel to American politics these days, and a really sharp divide now between right and left. On the other hand, Americans value bi-partisan approaches more than Canadians, we have a severely divided political situation here at present, and even so, the conservatives are basically afraid to criticize the global warming lobby because that lobby controls most of the media and the academic realm.

It looks as though severe cold is coming to much of western Canada soon, and milder weather to Ontario, so this will only get the usual shrill debate up and running again, when it's the other way around most of the skeptics live in the west and realize half the time it is mild here, the other half it isn't, but when it warms up in the east, about two days into any given mild spell you are sure to get a rash of media stories showing melting ice, red suns setting behind oil wells, pathetic pictures of polar bears jumping into the cold arctic sea, and academics hand-wringing for the benefit of some terribly concerned young media intern whose experience of the weather runs back to about last Thursday.

I mean, why would anyone ask a guy who has studied these matters all his life and can remember weather events in detail for half a century? I'm sure this knowledge would be irrelevant to important political questions of the modern age.

Viva la revolucion.

[Gray-Wolf]

But 2007 wasn't an average summer up at the top.. I mean the synoptics made for a rather interesting melt season. The heat from the pacific added to the mix.

Now if everything had been average then I'd be very concerned.. but it wasn't..

Potty, we all accept 07' was a 'perfect storm' up in the arctic and provided us with a min ice extent way below the 05' previous record min. The 'average summer' that brought us lowest ice volume was 08'.......but your still not concerned???? Isn't it about the 'amount' of ice left in the arctic or is it all about albedo??

[osmposm]

Not even trying to cherry pick, just trying to figure out the figures.

Yes, I think Hudson does always freeze, I think the fact it hasn't, thus far this year is immaterial. I think if we assume it will freeze, take that extra mass into consideration, then perhaps we may be able to gauge just how much more overall ice cover we will see this year.

Earlier today Ossie said " extent was and remains 1m km 2 below the 1979-2000 mean on the NSIDC chart " - Hudson as yet still unfrozen, at your estimate of 1.23 km, accounts for that discrepancy.

J, I think you may have misunderstood a few of the (very confusing!) figures I came up with - even assuming you mean 'extra extent' rather than the 'extra mass' you say you want to consider (which would relate to thickness as well as extent, and by which comparison we are massively below average, as G-W says):

(1) Hudson is not "unfrozen", it is a bit over one-quarter frozen. The average (1979-2000) by this date (or yesterday's when I did the sums) would be half-frozen or so. The current shortfall for Hudson below that same average for this date is 0.3m sq km, not 1.23m sq km.

(2) Removing the Hudson "discrepancy", whatever it is, from the current Northern Hem shortfall doesn't tell you anything useful. The freezing rates in different places vary year to year, some higher than av, some lower, and they also have a meteorological inter-connection. You can't choose the higher-than-average ones from (as now) Bering or Chuckchi, but then say I don't like the below-mean Hudson or Barents figures, so we'll use the 1979-2000 av for them. You have to look at the whole picture. It's a bit like saying "If I disregarded the first 100m of a runner's 800m race, and substituted his time for 100m run on its own as a sprint, he might break the world record for 800m!" That's what I meant by 'cherry-picking'.

(3) I can't see how adding the still-to-be-frozen area (c 0.92 sq km) of Hudson to the current NH ice area will help us gauge anything about what's to come at the maximum for the N Hemisphere. Arctic Basin, Laptev, E Siberian, Chuckchi, Beaufort and Canadian Archip are all already near their seasonal max - but who knows what will happen to Bering, St Lawrence, Baffin, Greenland, Barents, Kara or Okhotsk in the next three months?

Ossie