Arctic Ice 2009

[Chris Knight]

You know very well where I get my data Chris it's from NASA, I am delibrately trying to stay away from the other threads due to silly little comments like this. Let's not drag this down as well.

I fully admit that alot of forecasts are going with a continuation of neutral conditions, but the support of NASA for GW's thoughts is well worth mentioning.

WRT to PDO and ENSO, The strongest EL Nino for a negative PDO is 2.1C above normal which occured in the 70's.

An El Nino above this, so early in this negative PDO cycle would be signficant and would start to raise questions around how the negative PDO might get overidden to a large degree by GW.

Hi Iceberg,

I didn't comment on the other thread where you posted the plot of model runs from NASA, that it seemed to overwhelmingly imply a shift to El Nino conditions over the next few months, as I guess you intended it to, even though you admit above to knowing that neutral conditions are forecast by other model ensemble runs. I thought it would be a shame to spoil your fun there, and of course, you, and NASA may be right!

To me higher global temps lead to higher sst's

Now, GW, do SSTs contribute to gridded global temperatures? Or is it that these global temperatures warm or cool the seas?

Let's put it another way. How much do you think the last few years of exposed Arctic Ocean waters has added to the global temperature? I may be misinformed, but don't NASA/GISS include the Arctic in the GISTEMP series, whereas HadCRUT3 doesn't - and thus the fondness of the former if one wants to demonstrate how warm the world has become, or the latter if one wants to compare to the satellite record, without looking silly?

I have no idea what the evaporation rates are over the new 'dark water' but know it would have been negligable as an 'ice desert' so it's impacts are only now being measured. How you can so confidently and quickly come to an understanding of such impacts does have me somewhat bamboozled.

Now who was so fond of showing all the meltWATER pools during last years Arctic Summer? I'll give the Newbies a clue - it was Gray-Wolf!

Does all this water indicate an "ice desert"? If you look up the Alfred Wegener Institute archive reports from the RV Polarstern as it toured the Arctic from August to October (including a NW passage in 4 days (is this a record anyone?)), the major weather problem was fog (you can't see Ice through fog, which is rather important even for Ice-strengthened vessels), and fog is what you get with water saturated air at near zero temperatures. Evaporation rates were as good as they could get, over Icefloes and dark water.

Regarding ice loss. As we all know most of any body of ice is below water (90%?) and so the majority of it's ablation is un-noticed from above. The data released by both American and Russian navies regarding the thinning of the ice since the 1950's must be acceptable.I would find it hard to believe that ,year on year, they 'fluked' on surfacing below progressively thinner ice (independantly).

I think Rothrock found that the (submarine upward sonar) data was rather sparse, due to certain cold war restrictions, and now, mostly lost. The AWI has some interesting reanalyses on ice volumes and thickness over the last half century or so:

http://www.awi.de/en/research/research_div...ments/?type=123

1958 was a fortuitous year to start measurements for those who think that the Ice has been steadily thinning. 5 years earlier, and the trend would have not been so clear-cut.

When we are in a position to 'measure' such mass loss with instrumentation specifically designed for the job I will take great interest in the data produced...

I really hope so.

The thing is Iceberg that the Arctic Situation IS the forerunner of the major impacts of AGW

Or it is the last gasp of some desperate (for some unknown reason) to believe that "we (have) done us all in"!

Aside: C'mon Bill, let's go down the pub and have a pint or two... set the world to rights, let the b*****s freeze up there in't frozen Noorth. :lol:

[Gray-Wolf]

Or it is the last gasp of some desperate (for some unknown reason) to believe that "we (have) done us all in"!

I'm sure you know there have already been many "last gasps" from the folk who we (portions of humanity) have "done in" over our recent past Chris (why not ask Jethro about the impacts of our politico-economics on Africa if you choose not to believe this) or is this too a thing of denial?

If you fail to place any credence in our interventions the planets planets natural state of being (and the impacts we are sowing for our immediate futures) then that is for your conscience to deal with but surely not a thing of levity?.

[Iceberg]

sorry a reasonably large image which shows the entire artic and how it lookes.(i've put on where Greenland, Norway, Russia are but I am sure most people know ! )

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets...2.terra.2km.jpg

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?mosaic=Arctic The main link which is updated each day and will allow realtime watching of what's happening on the ground.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Iceberg

[Chris Knight]

I'm sure you know there have already been many "last gasps" from the folk who we (portions of humanity) have "done in" over our recent past Chris (why not ask Jethro about the impacts of our politico-economics on Africa if you choose not to believe this) or is this too a thing of denial?

If you fail to place any credence in our interventions the planets planets natural state of being (and the impacts we are sowing for our immediate futures) then that is for your conscience to deal with but surely not a thing of levity?.

My conscience deals with life positively, not negatively.

Creating bogiemen where there is nothing to fear, when there are real evils in the world which we can actually do something about is worse than denial of the existence of bogiemen IMO.

Ridicule is one way of dealing with the constant barrage of doom and gloom that comes from some quarters, "Senna the Soothsayer", from "Up Pompeii" springs to mind.

But back to Arctic Ice Thickness. We are observing in detail now what has been hidden in the past. Even the researchers in the link I posted report that estimated total Arctic ice volume over the last sixty years has varied by as much as 6 thousand cubic kilometres in as short a time as 12 years over the period of 1954 to 1966, but they are not naive enough to claim that the accompanying global cooler temperature trend caused the ice growth. Instead, changes in the Beaufort gyre were reported to be responsible, led by wind pattern changes, which in turn led to ice drifting to regions where greater thickness build-up were possible.

These are not indefinite, invented models based on projections from hindcasts. They are analyses of data.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Chris Knight

[Gray-Wolf]

My conscience deals with life positively, not negatively.

Creating bogeymen where there is nothing to fear, when there are real evils in the world which we can actually do something about is worse than denial of the existence of bogeymen IMO.

Ridicule is one way of dealing with the constant barrage of doom and gloom that comes from some quarters, "Senna the Soothsayer", from "Up Pompeii" springs to mind.

I feel that grasping 'reality' is always (however uncomfortable) the best way for any human to maintain healthy growth and emotional development through life.

You would appear to sanction 'another way' and I ,for one, would be very interested hear how this serves you in your day to day living.

Take a look over the Canadian Archipelago and North of Greenland if you would and tell me what you see there (it being the final sanctuary of any 'thick ice' for the foreseeable future).

I see a very wide channel nearly 70% the length of the 'deep water channel' (of the NW Passage) and a similar channel into the alternative route.

Seeing as I've heard mooted that this year the amount of perennial in the deep water channel would negate any possibility of us having a 'clear route' up there over summer I would be intrigued to hear your understanding of both the mechanisms creating such a massive feature (no leader formed chasm I may add) and it's implications on ice movement in the Archipelago this summer.

[doctormog]

I feel that grasping 'reality' is always (however uncomfortable) the best way for any human to maintain healthy growth and emotional development through life.

You would appear to sanction 'another way' and I ,for one, would be very interested hear how this serves you in your day to day living.

Take a look over the Canadian Archipelago and North of Greenland if you would and tell me what you see there (it being the final sanctuary of any 'thick ice' for the foreseeable future).

I see a very wide channel nearly 70% the length of the 'deep water channel' (of the NW Passage) and a similar channel into the alternative route.

Seeing as I've heard mooted that this year the amount of perennial in the deep water channel would negate any possibility of us having a 'clear route' up there over summer I would be intrigued to hear your understanding of both the mechanisms creating such a massive feature (no leader formed chasm I may add) and it's implications on ice movement in the Archipelago this summer.

Can I see the visual imagery for the last 20 years to state that such features are unusual?

Here's a look at the Archipelago data which is directly comparable with climatic means.

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

Area current = normal

The most comprehensive climatic ice data source for the region has not as yet been updated to show anomalies as the area is still for all intents and purposes frozen up: http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/App/WsvPageDsp.cfm

Temperatures in the region remain in the range of -20 to -30 (which is AFAIK around normal for the time of year?).

I see too many predictions and references to pictures and not enough facts. Predictions of record minima based largely on doomsaying and imagery failed to materialise last year, possibly due to the weather int he region. Perhaps a little less confidence in predictions may be more credible?

I don't have any expectations for this suggestion to be heeded, simply insinuations that I don't understand the gravity of what will apparently inevitably happen in coming months and years. Personally as a scientist I prefer to look at the data as fact and prediction as simply possibility. As ever time will tell but current publicly available numerical data and recording in the Arctic region indicate that whilst below the long term climatic average Arctic ice extent and area are not as low as in some recent years. Surely at very least better than being at April 2005, 2006 or 2007 levels, based on this information (rather than imagery or unavailable ice thickness data sets). This is the reality, much of the rest is extrapolation and supposition, based on subjective opinion.

[Gray-Wolf]

I found last years melt as troubling as the 07' melt! More ice was melted than in 07' (seeing as the area at winters end was more than in 07') , more perennial was lost, ice shelfs on Ellesmere Island failed and North shore Greenland saw the greatest melt. All of this in a 'average year'.

I do not know what kind of 'doom saying' you listened to Mog but didn't the folk who know the cryosphere seemed equally disturbed at last years season.?

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46462

Though only one of the many 'reports' generated by the NSIDC news release, http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/040609.html , of April 6th it touches upon the measurable global weather impacts of a melting pole. :lol:

[Solar Cycles]

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46462

Though only one of the many 'reports' generated by the NSIDC news release, http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/040609.html , of April 6th it touches upon the measurable global weather impacts of a melting pole. :lol:

But is up on this time last year if I am correct!

[Gray-Wolf]

But is up on this time last year if I am correct!

Volume or extent? I believe the 'volume' is the lowest for a maximum and ,though with a negative PDO influencing the normal sectors, extent is well below the 79/2000 average.

The whole of the press release is based upon the recent rapid downward spiral of ice extent/volume at ice min.

We need watch how quickly the single rear ice ablates (July onwards) to have a real measure of the durability of the 'new arctic'.

With the remaining 1/3 of the 'old perennial' now poised behind the Canadian Archipelago/Greenland any prolonged cyclonic conditions pushing in through Bering runs the real risk of accelerating it's 'flush out' into the Atlantic (as it is now 'free floating' and not anchored to the islands/sea bed) and this will be something I will be monitoring over summer.

The loss of Perennial through the early winter months by just this route can be seen on the animation at the base of the NSIDC report. This is probably the largest 'winter loss' of perennial ever recorded. I'd have preferred to hold onto that perennial than have 'swapped it' for the thin single year that replaced it. :lol:

[Solar Cycles]

Volume or extent? I believe the 'volume' is the lowest for a maximum and ,though with a negative PDO influencing the normal sectors, extent is well below the 79/2000 average.

The whole of the press release is based upon the recent rapid downward spiral of ice extent/volume at ice min.

We need watch how quickly the single rear ice ablates (July onwards) to have a real measure of the durability of the 'new arctic'.

With the remaining 1/3 of the 'old perennial' now poised behind the Canadian Archipelago/Greenland any prolonged cyclonic conditions pushing in through Bering runs the real risk of accelerating it's 'flush out' into the Atlantic (as it is now 'free floating' and not anchored to the islands/sea bed) and this will be something I will be monitoring over summer.

The loss of Perennial through the early winter months by just this route can be seen on the animation at the base of the NSIDC report. This is probably the largest 'winter loss' of perennial ever recorded. I'd have preferred to hold onto that perennial than have 'swapped it' for the thin single year that replaced it. :lol:

The problem I have with this report is the moving of goalpost. For the last few years it was all about ice extent, now volume is the new buzzword. When volume recovers ( which it will over time ), where does that leave us?

[Methuselah]

The problem I have with this report is the moving of goalpost. For the last few years it was all about ice extent, now volume is the new buzzword. When volume recovers ( which it will over time ), where does that leave us?

I think that volume is probably a better measure of ice-loss/-gain than is extent - very thin ice can extend over a larger area, yes; but it's its volume that provides the more useful data, IMO: In a warming world, more intense high-latitude snowfall could increase ice-volume whilst at the same time reduce its extent. In contrast, it's difficult to see how a cooling world could produce anything other than a simultaneous increase in both...A testable prediction? :lol:

[doctormog]

Isn't volume a guess/estimate rather than a measurement unlike extent or area?

Volume is a three dimensional measurement and that data is not available (hence the Catline Arctic Survey - and even then they're only covering one area). Yes, you can make assumptions based on ice age but that's all they are. In terms of scientific analyses, it's better to stick to data rather than extrapolation. :lol:

[Methuselah]

Isn't volume a guess/estimate rather than a measurement unlike extent or area?

Volume is a three dimensional measurement and that data is not available (hence the Catline Arctic Survey - and even then they're only covering one area). Yes, you can make assumptions based on ice age but that's all they are. In terms of scientific analyses, it's better to stick to data rather than extrapolation. :lol:

Good point, doc! :lol:

[Solar Cycles]

Good point, doc! B)

Yes good point doc!

[Gray-Wolf]

With the losses we have experienced then I find 'ball park figures' as good a guide as anything in charting a worrying trend.

If we were looking at small fluctuations then I would wait for irrefutable data but, as things are, it would be mere pedantry to demand such before we are willing to accept the changes we have/are witnessing over the past 7 years of 'global cooling'

The fact that the 4 storey high chunks of perennial that used to be the main ice type in certain regions of the Arctic are no longer present needs no 'special' measuring to confirm B)

The use of sat images (across all spectrum's) enables the folk, trained in such, to note the increasing areas of 'dark water' exposed by summers end and I ,for one, do not doubt their findings.

The measure of the Arctic amplification in late autumn (as the open water sheds heat prior to freezing) is another area of 'data' that highlights change and I do not doubt NASA/NSIDC data on this.

I do (personally) feel that some folk will deny the death even when the corpse is displayed in it's full Gorey!!

Edited April 16, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

The measure of the Arctic amplification in late autumn (as the open water sheds heat prior to freezing) is another area of 'data' that highlights change and I do not doubt NASA/NSIDC data on this.

I do (personally) feel that some folk will deny the death even when the corpse is displayed in it's full Gorey!!

Hi Gray Wolf,

I will admit I've come to this disussion quite late and have only read the previous 2 pages of comments.

The NASA/NSIDC data is not as accurate as the American Military data, which is why the discovery of the underreporting of Arctic ice was reported in February. I cannot dispute that we had a low point in ice in 2007, but I saw that there was a recovery in 2008, and the overall coverage of ice in the winter of 2009 was almost bang on the average for 1979 to 2000. Multi year ice is the current bogeyman, but this is itself a moving feast. I can remember, as a boy in the 1960's being amazed by pictures of Nuclear Submarines at the pole, that means that the ice was AT LEAST thin enough for them to break through, and that was before the current AGW hype that's been running for the last 15 to 20 years. I personally believe that the world will, within 5 years be seen to be cooling to such a degree that it may give us humans other worries, like actually getting food to the table.

The Arctic ice was a subject for concern in the early 1900's before thickening up in the 1940's, it thinned again in the 60's, recovered in the 70's and eighties and has thinned a bit again now.

I do not believe there will be an Ice Free Arctic in the next 200 years, in fact, I believe we may see dropping sea levels as more water it tied up as ice and the planet cools.

gary

[laserguy]

Off Topic.

So there you are,GW! Seems like you've been away for ages and was wondering as to your whereabouts (see politics/agw thread). Things ain't the same without a daily dose of chaos and calamity :lol: !

[stewfox]

Hi Gray Wolf,

....................

I do not believe there will be an Ice Free Arctic in the next 200 years, in fact, I believe we may see dropping sea levels as more water it tied up as ice and the planet cools.

gary

An excellent post

Its a pity that the 'goal posts are moved' to suit certain peoples doom and gloom.

Fact ice cover as at 15th April 2009 is as great as its been for a corresponding time this century. 1,000,000 square kms greater then 2007 at the corresponding time . In fact looking at the 'red line' it looks like sea ice is increasing again

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

Now we can of course talk about volume (which lets face it ,is crucial) but we dont know what the overall volume is now or was in 2007 or 1887. the only measure we have is area of ice.

If that 'red line' goes under 6 million Km2 buy summer end then I'll take note.

If it hits below 4 million Km2 by summer end (2007 level)then happy to be corrected and book my artic open water tour for summer 2022

[Gray-Wolf]

In fact looking at the 'red line' it looks like sea ice is increasing again :lol:

Keep in mind that the way to be included in 'ice extent' is to cover 15% of the ocean surface.

Those areas outside the Arctic basin naturally fragment and drift into the Pacific/Atlantic and so ,for a short while, appear to show growth (spread of broken ice really) .This phenomena should then be replaced by a 'crash' in ice levels as the ice drifts further apart (and melts in the warmer waters) beyond the 15% cover.

EDIT: Looking at the past few years it would seem that ,beyond maximum ice extent for the year being called, the ice has shown this 'growth spurt'. Could this be down to the fact that 90% of Arctic sea ice is now younger ice and breaks apart easier at winters end leading to this 'bloom' in ice extent?

In the past we had leaders running thought the pack but also large areas of perennial in the areas we now see drift/growth in.

The loss of this 'tough' older ice may well explain the changing dynamics of winters end and the start of summer in so far as the patterns of ice extent we are witnessing (remember the hullaballoo on here last spring when similar happened only to then be replaced by the most rapid sea ice loss ever recorded?).

As with ever thing the pattern is only just emerging (past 7 years) and many folk will want to wait the full 30 before drawing any conclusions.......fine if this is cyclical but not so fine if this is the beginning of the end for summer sea ice (and it's ramifications on land in Greenland and across the permafrost regions)

Edited April 17, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[doctormog]

Keep in mind that the way to be included in 'ice extent' is to cover 15% of the ocean surface.

Those areas outside the Arctic basin naturally fragment and drift into the Pacific/Atlantic and so ,for a short while, appear to show growth (spread of broken ice really) .This phenomena should then be replaced by a 'crash' in ice levels as the ice drifts further apart (and melts in the warmer waters) beyond the 15% cover. :lol:

If larger ice extent suggests more melting as discussed above, what would smaller ice extent suggest and based on this is the sea ice extent data irrlevant for looking at patterns.

It appears that more ice extent in your words suggests more fragmentation. Presumably less ice extent would mean more melted ice.

Bearing in mind the ice extent data is measured in the same way as it has been since these data records began is the suggestion that at this time of the year larger ice extent has always been a sign of more melting and is actually a "bad" thing?

[Thundery wintry showers]

I find it hard to fathom how the recent sea ice recovery is even likely, let alone certain, to herald the start of a continued growth trend. 2007 had the lowest sea-ice extent on record, and 2008 had the second-lowest. A recovery like that is certainly an encouraging sign, after the fears in late 2007/early 2008 that the ice would continue to shrink dramatically every year from then onwards. But the synoptics over the pole in 2007 were exceptionally conducive to ice melt, and those of 2008 rather more favourable for ice retention. The evidence thus points to natural variability on top of what is a downward trend in ice extent. This downward trend is probably due, in small part, to the rise in global temperatures, but changes in atmospheric circulation and ocean currents may well be larger factors.

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

Keep in mind that the way to be included in 'ice extent' is to cover 15% of the ocean surface.

Those areas outside the Arctic basin naturally fragment and drift into the Pacific/Atlantic and so ,for a short while, appear to show growth (spread of broken ice really) .This phenomena should then be replaced by a 'crash' in ice levels as the ice drifts further apart (and melts in the warmer waters) beyond the 15% cover. :lol:

EDIT: Looking at the past few years it would seem that ,beyond maximum ice extent for the year being called, the ice has shown this 'growth spurt'. Could this be down to the fact t

If you look at the maps at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ you'll see, that at least at this time of year there is very little ice outside the arctic basin. The record melting of 2007 was due to some very unusual, persistent, wind conditions, the sea ice in 2008 was well above that minimum. Temperatures so far this year in the Arctic are well below the 20 year average, with estimates of the ice thickness close to the Catlin expedition (from NOAA buoys) is about 4 metres (13 feet if you are a dinosaur like me)

Other data I've seen in the last fews days shows that Albedo has increased by 2% in the last 12 months, that satellites in low orbit are suffering less drag indicating that the 30 hPa pressure level has lowered significantly. That means the upper atmosphere is smaller and therefore intercepts less extreme UV.

The UV that is intercepted is re-emitted as black body radiation, s a significant part of that would be directed downwards towards the surface. final point here is that the actual level of Extreme UV has dropped by 6%. So we have less UV being intercepted by a smaller atmosphere and therefore less heat approaching the surface.

Everything, apart from the media, points to a decrease in global temperature, not an increase.

As a final point, if 15% ice is considered frozen, then we should revise our definition, however, that would muddy the data even more that it is now.

[Gray-Wolf]

If you look at the maps at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ you'll see, that at least at this time of year there is very little ice outside the arctic basin. The record melting of 2007 was due to some very unusual, persistent, wind conditions, the sea ice in 2008 was well above that minimum. Temperatures so far this year in the Arctic are well below the 20 year average, with estimates of the ice thickness close to the Catlin expedition (from NOAA buoys) is about 4 metres (13 feet if you are a dinosaur like me)

Other data I've seen in the last fews days shows that Albedo has increased by 2% in the last 12 months, that satellites in low orbit are suffering less drag indicating that the 30 hPa pressure level has lowered significantly. That means the upper atmosphere is smaller and therefore intercepts less extreme UV.

The UV that is intercepted is re-emitted as black body radiation, s a significant part of that would be directed downwards towards the surface. final point here is that the actual level of Extreme UV has dropped by 6%. So we have less UV being intercepted by a smaller atmosphere and therefore less heat approaching the surface.

Everything, apart from the media, points to a decrease in global temperature, not an increase.

As a final point, if 15% ice is considered frozen, then we should revise our definition, however, that would muddy the data even more that it is now.

You sound solid in your position and , as such, I will be asking for your opinions on this years melt season come sept 28th (or there about's) and why ,in the conditions you have outlined ,we have lost so much ice cover this year and even more perennial.

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

You sound solid in your position and , as such, I will be asking for your opinions on this years melt season come sept 28th (or there about's) and why ,in the conditions you have outlined ,we have lost so much ice cover this year and even more perennial.

I will enjoy discussing it with you in September. I don't think both of us can be right, so either you or I will have to have a different view to where we are now.

I am willing to be proved wrong, but I fear I will be right. If I am, it presages a harder time ahead than if AGW is true