Arctic Ice

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

As Roger says the arctic is flexing its muscles this autumn and i for one have touted even more widespread arctic outbreaks this winter in the NH.

Cap'n welcome back!!

BFTP

[jethro]

Yo Bobbie boy, long time, no see; glad to have you back.

[pottyprof]

I'm done spamming here

Never a truer word spoken..

[Gray-Wolf]

just for DXR, in case the ominous post above proves true

as promised ( and not even in November never mind December!) the 'rate of ice build' is now slowing as the 'extra' available open water is frozen out. From now on it will be the meteorological conditions, and not the anomalous (when compared to the base line ) amount of water available to freeze, that will dictate ice extents.

Late winter ,last year, did see a 'growth' in the ice extent when compared to recent years and if, as forecast, we are in for another cold winter over the Arctic then we may expect the same again.

It will be interesting, for me at least, to see if the young ice/single years ice acts in interesting ways again this year. The Canadian coastguards treated us to the images of those vast channels that opened up last December so you have to wonder whether this will become the 'norm' for arctic winters with fragile ice cover.

[jethro]

I'd say that given the confirmation that the PDO has now switched back to it's negative phase, we'll see a recovery of the ice in future years.

http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Ch...TempChange.html

http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/researchproje...dler%202005.pdf

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/More_on_Th...emperatures.pdf

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Jethro!

Let's hope that this is how it pans out.

Because of the nature of the PDO (multidecadal?) we may find more obvious 'modifications' to it's impact if we truely are in a time of human induced warming.I don't think anyone would expect the growing human influence to completely 'overturn' the larger cyclical drivers but many ,myself included, would expect to see a level of 'modification' in it's impacts as time moves on and the human impacts increase in their scale.

As NASA has shown we are now witnessing a northerly migration of the polar jet and the NOAA have shown both a shift north of the 10c isotherm in both Pacific and Atlantic and also an increase in storm tracks across the Arctic.

Some of these 'alterations' were already occurring during the last flip flop into a negative phase but today , obviously , these impacts are further established.

In some ways this 'slipping' into a 'cold phase' will be the confirmation some are seeking to enable them to accept AGW as if the impacts of the -ve phase are not able to re-impose ice growth/retention and bring a dramatic slowdown to summer ablation rates across Greenland/High arctic then we will have another irrefutable piece of evidence that something extraordinary is occurring within the cryosphere.

The other 'worry' is a strong El-Nino during this negative phase and the impacts that this period of warming would bring to any 'recovery' in the north. Again a strong (98'esque) El-Nino would bring more people to a point of acceptance of AGW as the repeated occurrence of strong El-Nino's interspersed with weak/neutral La-Nina's would be another 'confirmation' that the warming has now fully integrated into the larger atmospheric/oceanic circulation patterns.

Sadly for us we now need to 'wait and see'...........and ,again, I would hope that you are right, though my logic tells me not to hold my breath.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

as the repeated occurrence of strong El-Nino's interspersed with weak/neutral La-Nina's would be another 'confirmation' that the warming has now fully integrated into the larger atmospheric/oceanic circulation patterns.

Sadly for us we now need to 'wait and see'...........and ,again, I would hope that you are right, though my logic tells me not to hold my breath.

GW

AGW doesn't drive ENSO and we won't see repeated strong Ninos Interspersed with weak/neutral Ninas. The opposite is what we will likely see with maybe one or two strong Nino episodes over next couple of decades. ENSO is not AGW driven.

Yes we had witnessed a northerly migration of the jet over recent years....we may well be seeing before our eyes the southerly migration a la GWO.

BFTP

Edited October 30, 2008 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Admiral_Bobski]

Hiya everybody,

Thanks to Blast and Jethro for the welcome - I've decided not to be a perpetual loiterer on these boards any more but rather a hit-and-run artist, only making comments on an occasional basis. I have realised that many of the arguments on here can only be settled by waiting to see what happens - waiting for the ongoing research to turn up something new and so on - and that there's not much point in getting all heated up about it (which will only add to global warming in the long run anyway, eh?!).

I'm not saying we should do nothing until we have an answer - far from it. I'm very strongly of the opinion that we should press on with investigations into sustainable power, and I'm thrilled to see that there are two projects starting up hoping to build working fusion reactors. I am still, of course, strongly of the opinion also that we shouldn't rush into throwing money at "solutions" that are pointless or unrealistic (things like Carbon Trading, for example).

That said, and getting back on topic, I'm not dismissing DXR out of hand - he has raised some good points in the past, and I hope that he will continue to raise sensible points in the future but in a more moderate and relaxed way than of late! There are good reasons to be skeptical of AGW without needing to shout about it and waggle fingers at people.

Quick point for Gray-Wolf (Hi GW!) -

the 'rate of ice build' is now slowing as the 'extra' available open water is frozen out. From now on it will be the meteorological conditions, and not the anomalous (when compared to the base line ) amount of water available to freeze, that will dictate ice extents.

I'm not sure about this "extra" available water you speak of - I appreciate that the further south you come the warmer the waters are, but on the flip side water adjacent to ice is more likely to freeze than open water. So the greater the ice extent, the greater the amount of water adjacent to that ice and so the more water is available to freeze. I'm sure there is a sort of sliding scale whereby the benefits of more adjacent ice are overridden by the increasing warmth of the oceans, but I wonder where that point is. As ever, time will tell just how long this "extreme" ice growth will continue - I suspect you may be right, GW, but I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning.

Peace out!

CB

[J10]

The growth of the ice after making a very rapid advances to reach the past couple of years ice extent is now growing at a slower rate, mote in line with recent years in growth. Also as 2007 was entering its peak growth rate at this time, the amount of extra ice compared to last year is now below 1,000,000sqkm2.

[Gray-Wolf]

Quick point for Gray-Wolf (Hi GW!) -

I'm not sure about this "extra" available water you speak of - I appreciate that the further south you come the warmer the waters are, but on the flip side water adjacent to ice is more likely to freeze than open water. So the greater the ice extent, the greater the amount of water adjacent to that ice and so the more water is available to freeze. I'm sure there is a sort of sliding scale whereby the benefits of more adjacent ice are overridden by the increasing warmth of the oceans, but I wonder where that point is. As ever, time will tell just how long this "extreme" ice growth will continue - I suspect you may be right, GW, but I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning.

Peace out!

CB

If 'ice growth' is the amount (area) of new ice formed over a day then ,obviously to me, the more 'open water '(area) that the summer provides then the greater the area available for 'refreeze' over autumn/winter so the 'bigger' the growth rate appears.

If we had 4 square metres of area of which 2 square metres is already covere in ice (perennial ice) then ,come autumn/winter the area available for freezing is just 2 square metres ,this will then freeze as the cold sets in . If we now 'melt out all of the 4 square metres then ,come autumn/winter there will be 4 square metres to freeze The rate that it 're-freezes at will be the same as last time but the 'growth' of ice will appear to be twice as fast. Lay this 'growth rate' over a graph showing the previous years years 'growth rate' and you will see a doubling in the speed that 1 square metre of open water is turned into ice.

In a period of time when ice minimums are so low compared to previous years it can appear, as the 'extra open water' freezes out, that something fantastic is occuring when you look at the 'growth rate' figures but ,as I've tried to explain above, in reality something very mundane/normal is happening......just over a wider area.

If, come late December, the ice extent plots are well above the rolling average then it will show that something different is happening, something that must be linked to the climate and not just the physics of the situation.

I hope I've explained mysef well enough.

[stewfox]

The growth of the ice after making a very rapid advances to reach the past couple of years ice extent is now growing at a slower rate, mote in line with recent years in growth. Also as 2007 was entering its peak growth rate at this time, the amount of extra ice compared to last year is now below 1,000,000sqkm2.

Why so poorly lable and why use two reds for 2005 and 2008 ?

Any better sites ?

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.physorg.com/news144593037.html

"Conclusive proof that polar warming is being caused by humans"

Not often you see folk being so 'definate' but the folks at 'East Anglia Uni' are using the phrase.

Debate over?

[Mondy]

http://www.physorg.com/news144593037.html

"Conclusive proof that polar warming is being caused by humans"

Not often you see folk being so 'definate' but the folks at 'East Anglia Uni' are using the phrase.

Debate over?

Well, I am pre-mod thanks to a few complainers so won't expect this post to appear immediately.

The above link and the same BBC link on the other thread proves nothing.

All it "proves" is that a model was used, and we all know how wrong they can be, or if you like, a model was used so it must be true. I don't see what's conclusive about it.

Ciao

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

http://www.physorg.com/news144593037.html

"Conclusive proof that polar warming is being caused by humans"

Not often you see folk being so 'definate' but the folks at 'East Anglia Uni' are using the phrase.

Debate over?

Nowt conclusive in there at all.

BFTP

[jethro]

Debate over?

In your dreams perhaps, some of us are just warming up........

[Thundery wintry showers]

As I posted on the other thread- the only people who are bleating on about "conclusive proof" are the media who are intent on getting attention with eye-catching headlines.

The study does provide considerable evidence for the notion that human activities may be contributing to (note, not causing) the changes that are currently occurring over the polar regions. It is, indeed, subject to the reliability of the climate models that it's based on, and again, until we can get those near foolproof, we can't talk about "conclusive" evidence, only likely evidence.

The scientists in question are most likely aware of all of this, but the article isn't. Not the scientists' fault there, I'm afraid.

[stewfox]

My dog swimming in the icy sea of Essex on wednesday

"Conclusive proof that polar warming is being caused by humans"

Debate over?

Hardly :lol:

[J10]

Why so poorly lable and why use two reds for 2005 and 2008 ?

Any better sites ?

This is produced in Excel 2007, and the reds used are very clearly distinguishable, however I do not know it looks in previous versions of Excel, in any case I have changes the red in 2005 for black, so this should be much easier to see. If anyone wants the versions in Excel 2007, please PM and i will send them out by e-mail.

The Charts were only quickly drawn up and I have now improved the layout of these, so they do look far more professional, the data used is from IJIS Arctic as I don't think there is other daily data readily available on the internet.

I would be very interested in obtaining data from the Cyrosphere sites, as the graphs that they produce can easily be improved upon.

Any other constructive criticism is welcomed.

Arctic_Ice_Autumn_2008.xls

The up to date figures show that Arctic Ice extent in 2008, is now higher than each of the years 2003 to2007, although only just for most of these years.

[Mondy]

Something you won't see reported on BBC:

Highest Ice Extent on Record! B)

[Roger J Smith]

One thing in that East Anglia study was true for sure, there is one way to a flat stomach, and that is losing weight.

However, as to "proof" that the "warming" is "man-made," I would have to see more than this to go for that.

I have said, however, that I think a slight man-made warming is possible through albedo changes rather than greenhouse gases. The main question really is, how much of a warming has there been, really? The data are a bit inconclusive on that, both in Greenland and the Canadian arctic, it would appear that a peak in temperatures in the 1990s was not significantly different from one around 1930, and moreover, this peak is now being replaced by a return to at least more normal readings if not an outright cold spell.

Still working on the flat stomach.

[Gray-Wolf]

One thing in that East Anglia study was true for sure, there is one way to a flat stomach, and that is losing weight.

However, as to "proof" that the "warming" is "man-made," I would have to see more than this to go for that.

I have said, however, that I think a slight man-made warming is possible through albedo changes rather than greenhouse gases. The main question really is, how much of a warming has there been, really? The data are a bit inconclusive on that, both in Greenland and the Canadian arctic, it would appear that a peak in temperatures in the 1990s was not significantly different from one around 1930, and moreover, this peak is now being replaced by a return to at least more normal readings if not an outright cold spell.

Still working on the flat stomach.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~nathan/pdf/ngeo338.pdf

Thank you Chris Knight for digging /linking the paper. Much more interesting than flat tums in here and well worth you're comments once you've digested it.

Nobody ever said that human input was the sole driver but, and it's an important 'but', in such a finely balanced system any added forcings will lead to the round of positive feedbacks we are now experiencing.

The Arctic summer this past year was nothing special and the winter preceding it finished on a 'cold' note yet still the impacts of 2007 led us to the second lowest ice extent of recorded history and the lowest 'ice mass' ever recorded.

We hear lots about 'global cooling' and ,even if in one of the 'normal' phases of cooling, we do not seem to be able to escape the impacts that our 'warming phase' , with humanities 'novel ' input, completely.

I believe that we will have another 'cool' winter but I also understand that this will not have the level/scope of impacts we have grown accustomed to expect. I would go as far as to say we have indeed passed some important 'tipping points' and that it is this ,and not the short-term climate, that will drive the cryosphere in the immediate future.

Once again I would expect low ice mins next summer ,once again I would expect record outflows off Greenland, once again I would expect mass loss from the ice cap itself. Surely this cannot be right in a 'cooling phase'?

Edited November 3, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[BUSHY]

Once again I would expect low ice mins next summer ,once again I would expect record outflows off Greenland, once again I would expect mass loss from the iice cap tself. Surely this cannot be right in a 'cooling phase'

?

Errm - its your own expectations your are questioning.

[Nick L]

?

Errm - its your own expectations your are questioning.

I think it was slight sarcasm, he believes that we are not in a cooling phase. (Before I get slated, I am not saying that this is right or wrong!)

[Gray-Wolf]

No sarcasm intended nick, just a plea for reason from the folk who 'push' the 'everything is as it should be ' line when they know full well we were fully expected to be entering a 'cooler' phase in the northern hemisphere.

Because it is a natural 'cycle' that is driving it we have plenty of available observations logged to guide us as to how things should progress as we enter and pass through the phase. Should we only experience the mildest of these 'symptoms' then surely it adds more weight to the fact that we have altered the temperature 'baseline' upwards and so are unable to get the extreme cold of yesteryear.

This is a 'blip' in the greater scale of things and I fully expect the horrible changes in the high Arctic to continue throughout this 'cool down' period . Maybe this will give those folk who will not believe even more reason to 'rethink' their stances?

[jethro]

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.