Arctic Ice

[tundra]

The only thing to grasp is that glaziers are growing again the cold is penertrating further north in the southern hemisphere and further south in the northern hemisphere. Sea ice in the arctic come spring will be of greater extent and thicker than last spring.

Its so blindingly obvious whats happening to the climate around the globe and i think the only thing that might change this trend is if the sun suddenly goes into overdrive, but even then there will be a lag effect.

So if i was a global warming enthusiast i would find another hobby or interest because global warming has burnt itself out.

[Iceberg]

That will be why November was one of the top 10 warmest on record then.....According to the satelite record.

[Solar Cycles]

That will be why November was one of the top 10 warmest on record then.....According to the satelite record.

Very dubious claim Iceberg. Not suggesting from you though!

[Iceberg]

We aren't talking about GISS data from NASA though, nor even Hadley data(which we have no reason to believe is incorrect), this is from the darling of the skeptics the satelite record, even Christies sat record UAH is reporting this.

[osmposm]

The only thing to grasp is that glaziers are growing again....

Glad to hear about that, tundra, there's a terrible shortage of good ones who don't rip you off here in South London, and I cracked a window pane carrying a length of timber into my house yesterday.

Edited December 12, 2008 by osmposm

[osmposm]

That will be why November was one of the top 10 warmest on record then.....According to the satelite record

Very dubious claim Iceberg....

That's interesting, Solar. I'd appreciate it if you could tell us your alternative data sources that suggest that November was not.

Thanks, Ossie

[pottyprof]

That will be why November was one of the top 10 warmest on record then.....According to the satelite record.

Its the 7th warmest. 2001 was the warmest. Its now 2008.. Hmm

Probably the only time over the last 20 years the sums actually work..

[Kained]

That was perfect osm.

[stewfox]

We (UK) have been using the Radar on 'Envisat' to measure ice thickness for some time now but it has a 'blind spot' beyond 81.5 degrees north. Later in 09' we'll (European space agency) be putting up a custom designed (Cryosat-2) satellite that'll cover the whole of the arctic and 'plug the gap'.

Earlier this year we had press reports about the 'plummeting' ice thickness;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7692963.stm

here's another from, 1999 logging the reduction in sea ice thickness (as logged by the U.S. Navy) since the 1960's Back then a 40% reduction in ice thickness;

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/...91115145020.htm

so we can see that from 1958 we have a continuous record of sea ice thickness reduction with only minor periods of 'respite' when cold winters bolstered the thinning pack.

To melt out ice it seems obvious that first you need to reduce the thickness and this has been occurring throughout the second half of the twentieth century. We tend to be visited with very short memories and so most of us will only recall the ice extent losses this century (seeing as they were so dramatic) but these were only able to occur because of the melting out of the perennial for the half century before.

The past 5 years has seen the larger part of the remaining perennial ice fragment and float down the east coast of Greenland into the Atlantic or into the shallows off the Siberian coasts where it too melted out completely. At the same time this was occurring we saw the massive reductions in summer ice extent (2005,2007,2008) that a predominantly 'single year' arctic pack allows to occur annually with ,or without, 'favourable conditions'.

When I read of Potty profs 'confidence' that nothing is yet 'known' I have to allow myself a wry smile for we have been plotting the decay of the cryosphere for over 60 years and most of the dramatic losses probably occurred whilst he was still primary school 'potty undergrad'.

Ho-Hum.

So the answer is late 2009 we might start with measuring the mass of the artic ice

The rest of the post is rather irrelevant , however I have included it as it seems a requirement on this thread at present :lol:

In fact a google seems to provide scant research on the ice mass which i thought would be cruicial ??

[osmposm]

....In fact a google seems to provide scant research on the ice mass which i thought would be cruicial ??

You could try "arctic ice thickness", stew, which as I suggested before comes to much the same thing.

(Oh, and I'm with you on the daft reposts of the whole post you're replying to, even when it's 500 words long and immediately above.)

Edited December 12, 2008 by osmposm

[Gray-Wolf]

I could have written it myself eh?

Arctic to see first ice-free summer in 2015

rush to exploit will make things worse: expert

Kevin Rollason, Canwest News Service

Published: Saturday, December 06, 2008

WINNIPEG - The ice that has covered the Arctic basin for a million years will be gone in little more than six years because of global warming, a University of Manitoba geoscientist said.

And David Barber said that once the sea ice is gone, more humans will be attracted to the Arctic, bringing with them even more ill effects.

"We'll always have ice in the winter time in the Arctic, but it will always be first-year ice," Mr. Barber said yesterday.

He said he estimates the Arctic sea should see its first ice-free summer around 2015.

"That has got industry very interested in the Arctic," he said. "That will put more pressure there.

"The change is happening so quickly."

Mr. Barber, who will present his preliminary findings at the International Arctic Change 2008 conference in Quebec City next week, was the scientist in charge of the Circumpolar Flaw Lead System Study (CFL), a $40-million Arctic research project.

Almost 300 scientists from 15 countries took part in the nine-month project, based on the Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker Amundsen.

The conference, which runs all next week, will see more than 800 Arctic researchers from around the world convene to discuss the changes in the Arctic and what countries can do about the challenges and opportunities due to climate change there.

Mr. Barber has said before that the Arctic basin would be free of summer sea ice sometime between 2013 and 2030.

But their research about recent changes in the Arctic has allowed them to pinpoint the date even closer: "2007 was a really big drawback year -- it lost a lot," Mr. Barber said.

"In 2008, it recovered a bit, but my research shows there isn't anything to instil confidence in ... we're expecting 2009 will be another year of low ice."

Mr. Barber said that's because the ice that grew back in 2008 is thin -- not the thicker multi-year ice -- so he expects it will disappear quickly.

He said the scientists have discovered that the disappearance of the sea ice won't simply allow humans to travel there easily.

"We study everything in the biological and the physical world to see where it connects," Mr. Barber said, adding they looked at everything from viruses to vertebrates.

"Everything in the marine ecosystem is being affected. We've seen it for years, but the CFL is confirming it.

"We haven't found anything not affected."

Mr. Barber said the scientists will continue to look at the data collected in the Arctic and they expect to have more findings.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...81215091015.htm

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/c...rn-1128197.html

Two interesting articles outlining how extraordinary summer 08' was (even for an average summer!!!)

Strange to think that whilst some quarters were becoming apoplectic about ice extents record high temps were being recorded across the region......strange world eh?

Edited December 16, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[pottyprof]

Interesting read there Ian.

[Gray-Wolf]

Arctic Tipping points.

For many years now climate models have been showing us that there are two signs to look for if we wish to 'spot' the point when a 'tipping point' for the cryosphere has been breached.

When modellers look to sea ice the model shows warming slowly melting the pack but, more importantly (it appears), thinning the ice pack.

When over 80% of arctic ice is <2.5m then the pack is rapidly lost over a 10yr period (enough time for one 'natural' event to overwhelm the pack).

The introduction of satellites measuring ice thickness may well be in it's infancy but we have now accrued a few years worth of data and this shows that most of the ice (apart from north of Greenland and around the Canadian Archipelago) is only about 2.5m thick. This would beg the question "was 2007" the tipping point? instead of the modelled 'warm water' natural event causing the initial ice level crash was it a 'warm air' natural event that was driver?

For many years now the models have shown that once sea ice is removed changes to the atmosphere, most notable over autumn, will occur. These changes are driven by the Arctic ocean acting a a giant 'heat pump' during the autumn as it looses the warmth, soaked up over summer months, back into the Arctic night.

For the past 5 years we have been measuring this taking place and this year the event was the most pronounced yet (even after an 'average summer').

The NSIDC site reports that warm air was also noted even further north than the min ice extent reached this year and one has to wonder whether this would have occurred in past years without this autumnal modification to the atmosphere further south leading to a lessening of the 'environmental modification' the air masses received as they travelled north?

We are now 7 years or so into the Atlantic oscillation being 'neutral' (after the long period it ran 'positive' bringing a 'natural warming' to the Arctic) The Pacific multidecadal oscillation is in it's 'cooling phase' and the same is true of the multidecadal Arctic oscillation so we must wonder (at least) where, over the last 5 years, are the signs of the Arctic cold phase establishing?

For the 'natural warmers' I'd need to ask why is there are no signs of a 'cool down'? The period of warming in the early 20th century lasted for 20 years (1920 to 1940) and our recent 'warming' commenced in the 1960's (though we have evidence of ice thinning in the 1950's) surely well beyond the cycle we noted earlier and, more notably, overlapping more than one 'cool period indicators' whilst it continues accelerating in it's rate of warming/notable change (since 2000).

Can anyone think of any reason why I should not think that warming is ,in fact, outstripping the current model predictions and that conditions observed on the ground are not in keeping with an advancing 'Arctic Amplification' (i.e. we are beyond the Arctic 'tipping point').

[jethro]

Both the PDO and the Arctic oscillation only changed to negative phase earlier this year; from all I've read, it takes longer than a few months for these impacts to be felt.

[Gray-Wolf]

Both the PDO and the Arctic oscillation only changed to negative phase earlier this year; from all I've read, it takes longer than a few months for these impacts to be felt.

Firstly, is this not their 2nd/3rd cycle since the 1920-40 cycle?

I would agree that even an El-Nino takes time to manifest and ,as such,goes from a La-Nina through neutral into mild El-Nino,moderate and then strong over a period of months/years. Point being that we must have also encountered the PDO/AO 'neutral phases' over the last few years and yet still we saw an acceleration of effect within the Arctic.

A recent presentation by Mark Serreze (NSIDC) touched upon this 'over-riding' of natural cycles as the major reason for why he now has to accept that we are seeing man made climate change within the Arctic and that it is, in fact, moderating 'natural cooling' and augmenting 'natural warming'.

To think that, in as little as seven years, the Arctic has changed so much (in our understanding and our observations) as to change a persons understanding from one of caution as to the reasons for the change to one of confirmation of our part in those changes.

[jethro]

Firstly, is this not their 2nd/3rd cycle since the 1920-40 cycle?

I would agree that even an El-Nino takes time to manifest and ,as such,goes from a La-Nina through neutral into mild El-Nino,moderate and then strong over a period of months/years. Point being that we must have also encountered the PDO/AO 'neutral phases' over the last few years and yet still we saw an acceleration of effect within the Arctic.

A recent presentation by Mark Serreze (NSIDC) touched upon this 'over-riding' of natural cycles as the major reason for why he now has to accept that we are seeing man made climate change within the Arctic and that it is, in fact, moderating 'natural cooling' and augmenting 'natural warming'.

To think that, in as little as seven years, the Arctic has changed so much (in our understanding and our observations) as to change a persons understanding from one of caution as to the reasons for the change to one of confirmation of our part in those changes.

To be honest, I can't remember all the dates, the only one I can recall with any clarity is the PDO; it switched from positive to negative in 1946/47, back to positive in 1976, back to negative this year.

Really haven't the time to read up again, sorry; I've got mountains of holly wreathes and yards of garlands still to make - deck the halls and all that.

I expect your questions can be answered here: http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~igor/

[Iceberg]

Interesting story from the Nsidc.

The graph below is very telling

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7786910.stm

[Gray-Wolf]

Seems big news at the moment (Google arctic ice and check out just how many 'versions' there are!!!) I think the fact that we've now got 5 years of logging the lower atmosphere heat anoms in autumn NSIDC are willing to bring it out of the 'research cupboard'. One of Mark Serezze's comments about the 20's-40's warming was quite telling, apparently the 'impact' can only be found to 75 degrees north and so was in no way as invasive as the changes since the 60's. The change over from human activity being an 'element' of the warming to being the 'main driver' is also very telling.

The biggest fly in the ointment is how advanced the process of melt seems to be when compared to the models. I get the feeling that they must be missing a piece of the jigsaw and seeing as the models can now faithfully reproduce past warming (patterns) it would suggest it is a 'modern' addition to the system. The worry being, of course, that to advance the models by 40yrs or so means it has to be a big impact. Currently we seem to be very concerned about methane releases from the Arctic (with another year of output now logged) so how will this 'advanced warming' impact there???

EDIT: The other question begged is how does this affect us? I've already mooted an 'Arctic' source driving the Jet/pee poor summers we've been having (our monsoonal bent) and wonder if changes up north are making for a 'revised' jet pattern leaving us with a 'boon or bust' situation of the Jet well north or well south (looks to have been hot,hot ,hot for the places south of the jet ) The other consideration being the PDO, in it's 'current' phase it seems to be doing the same job as continued warming would do (pumping heat up from the Pacific) and I wonder how much is PDO and how much is driven by the warming oceans themselves.

The other thing seem to me to be that the warming from early in the 1900's will now how gone around the deep ocean currents and be re-appearing at the upwelling centres....

Edited December 18, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[Solar Cycles]

Every day we have to read scaremongering stories regarding the impact of CO2 and Arctic ice, why doesn't the media report the amazing recovery, we have experienced this Autumn/Winter. A bit of balance would be nice occaisonally!

[Gray-Wolf]

Every day we have to read scaremongering stories regarding the impact of CO2 and Arctic ice, why doesn't the media report the amazing recovery, we have experienced this Autumn/Winter. A bit of balance would be nice occasionally!

Maybe because we haven't seen one? With ice volumes headed only one way how can we even think of recovery??? Doesn't matter how thin you spread the ice out if there is less mass there then there is less mass (surely only a fool or a 4yr old would find such confusing?)

Tell me S.C. ,what is encouraging about the arctic temperatures this past Autumn? What is Jolly about the heat loss we noted across the areas that were open water? What is so encouraging about the influx of Pacific waters through Bering? What is so unremarkable about the Multiyear still flowing down the East coast of Greenland to it's doom in the Atlantic in early Nov? Why so upbeat about a pack =that is now ,for the first time on record,predominantly first year ice??The pods of Whales doomed by being too adventurous in 'new open waters' come the start of re-freeze? The fate of the Walrus now their 'diving platforms' of ice are now far out to sea and not over their shelf feeding grounds? The poor Caribou from the Northern territories and it's population collapse. The Arctic Fox whose coat isn't keeping it hidden in a snow free tundra?

I'd love for your evidence to reassure me before I retire for Christmas........

[Gray-Wolf]

I take it these are the guys who reported the free methane bubbling into the air from the sea surface. Funny that the AGU Fall meeting pushed the methane issue back onto the 'back burner' though.......maybe after another year of measuring they'll be forced to change their stance on it (as they did with the rate of change in the Arctic in 2005)

Scientists Find Increased Methane Levels In Arctic Ocean

ScienceDaily (Dec. 18, 2008)

— A team led by International Arctic Research Center scientist Igor Semiletov has found data to suggest that the carbon pool beneath the Arctic Ocean is leaking.

The results of more than 1,000 measurements of dissolved methane in the surface water from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf this summer as part of the International Siberian Shelf Study show an increased level of methane in the area. Geophysical measurements showed methane bubbles coming out of chimneys on the seafloor.

“The concentrations of the methane were the highest ever measured in the summertime in the Arctic Ocean,” Semiletov said. “We have found methane bubble clouds above the gas-charged sediment and above the chimneys going through the sediment.”

The new data indicates the underwater permafrost is thawing and therefore releasing methane. Permafrost can affect methane release in two ways. Both underwater and on land, it contains frozen organic material such as dead plants and animals. When permafrost thaws, that organic material decomposes, releasing gases like methane and carbon dioxide. In addition, methane, either in gas form or in ice-like methane hydrates, is trapped underneath the permafrost. When the permafrost thaws, the trapped methane can seep out through the thawed soil. Methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, is thought to be an important factor in global climate change.

The East Siberian Arctic Shelf is a relatively shallow continental shelf that stretches more than 900 miles into the Arctic Ocean from Siberia. The area is a year-round source of methane to the globe’s atmosphere. However, until recently, scientists believed that much of the area’s carbon pool was safely insulated by underwater permafrost, which is, on average, 11 degrees Celcius warmer than surface permafrost.

Semiletov said this year’s expeditions used both chemical and geophysical measurement techniques, a first in the area. He also noted that while the high-arctic ocean readings were surprisingly high, on par with those from high-arctic lakes, they are still much lower than is being found in subarctic regions.

“That means we cannot extrapolate the subarctic data to the entire Arctic,” he said.

Semiletov, as associate research professor at IARC, leads the International Siberian Shelf Study, which has launched the multiple expeditions to the Arctic Ocean to collect data on methane release of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. The ISSS includes 30 collaborating scientists from five countries. The project, which gained momentum during the International Polar Year, established more than 1,000 oceanographic stations in the Arctic and performed a few million measurements of methane mixing ratios of the Arctic atmosphere in the last five years. It is part of UAF’s work during IPY, an international event that is focusing research efforts and public attention on the Earth’s polar regions.

Semiletov is a chemical oceanographer who has studied carbon cycling in the arctic atmosphere-land-shelf system with emphasis on carbon dioxide and dissolved methane from both terrestrial and oceanic sources since the early 1990s. He joined the International Arctic Research Center in 2001. Since 2004, he has collaborated with IARC scientist Natalia Shakhova to develop the methane study at IARC.

International Siberian Shelf Study collaborators University of Alaska Fairbanks: Igor Semiletov, Natalia Shakhova, John Kelly, Vladimir Romanovsky, Gleb Panteleev, Sergei Marchenko, Dmitry Nicolsky, Alexander Kholodov; FEBRAS: Oleg Dudarev, Anatoly Salyuk, Irina Pipko, Viktor Karnaukh, Alexander Charkin, Denis Kosmach, Nina Bel’cheva, Svetlana Pugach, Nina Savelieva, Vladimir Iosoupov, Valentin Sergienko; Stockholm University: Orjan Gustafsson, Per Andersson, Jorien Vonk, Laura Sanchez-Garcia, Christoph Humborg, Vanja Alling; Gotheburg University: Leif Anderson, Goran Björk, Anders Olsson, Sara Jutterström, Sofia Hjalmarsson, Irene Wåhlström; Swedish Museum of Natural History: Per Andersson; Utrecht University: Celia Sapart, T. Roeckmanm; Institute of Atmospheric Physics RAS: Georgiu Golytsin, Irina Repina; Moscow State University: Nicolai Romanovskii, Vladimir Tumskoy; University of Manchester: Bart van Dongen; Luleå University of Technology: Johan Ingri, Fredrik Nordblad, Johan Gelting; Oxford University: Don Porcelli.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[stewfox]

Maybe because we haven't seen one? With ice volumes headed only one way how can we even think of recovery??? Doesn't matter how thin you spread the ice out if there is less mass there then there is less mass (surely only a fool or a 4yr old would find such confusing?)

I'd love for your evidence to reassure me before I retire for Christmas........

Happy to reassure you. Your post the other day said we cant as yet measure the ice mass north of 81.5 degrees . So where are you getting your ice mass data from ?. Im older then 4 and find your posts confusing ? B)

-------------------------------------------

We (UK) have been using the Radar on 'Envisat' to measure ice thickness for some time now but it has a 'blind spot' beyond 81.5 degrees north. Later in 09' we'll (European space agency) be putting up a custom designed (Cryosat-2) satellite that'll cover the whole of the arctic and 'plug the gap'

-------------------------------------------

[Gray-Wolf]

We are left using the 'old methods' for the gap up from 81.5 north. the MODIS suite of sats (and others) have full coverage so we know that the ice across the pole is 'new' ice due to the continuous movement of the pack around the arctic Gyre. The 'bulk' of the perennial is well in view being to the north of Greenland/Canadian archipelago so the rest of the 'skimpy stuff' is across central regions and over on the Siberian side. Measures (last year) show poor thicknesses of the single year and it is this ice that now resides in the 'blind spot'. B)

[Gray-Wolf]

I don't think this is what we need to be seeing around solstice! I can only imagine that we are having the edges nibbled away by storms moving through the regions as some areas should still be actively growing at present.