Carinth's Arctic Sea Ice Watch Thread

[Typhoon John]

I'd say that TWS's argument is not at all like that. As it's taken about 200,000 years for humanity to evolve from its origins to where it is now, and it had two arms at the beginning and still has two arms, it seems to me to be an infinitessimally small chance that we will become a 3 arm species within the next 20 years. In fact I'd stake my house, my pension and the lives of my children on it not being so.

The Arctic ice on the other hand has shown a marked decline in extent and thickness in the last 30 years or so and while it's unlikely that the Arctic will become ice free in the next 20 years it's not beyond the realms of possibility.

If 40% of humanity were currently in posession of 3 arms, whereas 30 years ago everyone had two, I'd be agreeing with you rather than with TWS.

Well I think it's comparable.

Considering there's Ice in the Arctic 110 thousand years old I can't see it melting in 21 years.

If it did something else would have killed us first.

[Terminal Moraine]

Well I think it's comparable.

Considering there's Ice in the Arctic 110 thousand years old I can't see it melting in 21 years.

If it did something else would have killed us first.

Having just back tracked and read the link to the article relating to Greenpeace ( which I didn't read this morning as I was in a hurry ) I owe you something of an apology. I interpreted the article as referring to ice in the Arctic ocean whereas it was actually referring to all Arctic ice, including that sitting on Greenland.

I do agree that there's as much chance of all the Greenland ice melting in the next 20 years as of me growing 3 arms and driving up the north east to shake hands with each of your three arms.

[❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️]

I do agree that there's as much chance of all the Greenland ice melting in the next 20 years as of me growing 3 arms and driving up the north east to shake hands with each of your three arms.

If they come from Norfolk there is higher chance of that happening than you think.

[J10]

Pretty good recovery to me:

As per the IJIS figures we are 320,000 above 2008, and more above 2007, but likely to be below all other years.

Further Details in the Arctic Sea Ice thread. http://www.netweather.tv/forum/topic/55299-arctic-ice-2009/page__st__440

[J10]

This is the spreadsheet which was last updated today, and this is based on the IJIS figures.

My belief as stated on the other thread is that a likely finishing point of around 5.0m is likely, so we are likely to be above 2007 and 2008, but below all other years.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Whisper it Fozi:

*TWS is a secret agw fan*

Nay, in fact I made the same mistake as Terminal Moraine- I skin-read the article and thought it referred to the dissipation of Arctic sea ice as opposed to the whole lot including the Greenland ice sheet. A complete melting of the Arctic sea ice by 2030 is possible (though looking increasingly unlikely, as the exceptional melt of 2007 hasn't been repeated in 2008 or 2009). But a complete disappearance of the Greenland ice sheet in 21 years would indeed require such a phenomenal amount of warming that the planet would be close to uninhabitable- something off the scale of even the most pessimistic of AGW scenarios.

This is also why I don't believe the scare stories about Antarctica melting. More likely, higher temperatures will be offset by higher precipitation down there, leading to a fairly stable ice extent.

JACKONE's stats show that the slow recovery of the Arctic ice looks like continuing for another year but the trend remains downward overall. There is little compelling to suggest a long-term recovery but at the same time little to suggest that 2007's rate of melt may become the norm.

[ribster]

If they come from Norfolk there is higher chance of that happening than you think.

And a fair chance of a slap if you live in Wiltshire :lol:

[bloodhound]

Nay, in fact I made the same mistake as Terminal Moraine- I skin-read the article and thought it referred to the dissipation of Arctic sea ice as opposed to the whole lot including the Greenland ice sheet. A complete melting of the Arctic sea ice by 2030 is possible (though looking increasingly unlikely, as the exceptional melt of 2007 hasn't been repeated in 2008 or 2009). But a complete disappearance of the Greenland ice sheet in 21 years would indeed require such a phenomenal amount of warming that the planet would be close to uninhabitable- something off the scale of even the most pessimistic of AGW scenarios.

This is also why I don't believe the scare stories about Antarctica melting. More likely, higher temperatures will be offset by higher precipitation down there, leading to a fairly stable ice extent.

JACKONE's stats show that the slow recovery of the Arctic ice looks like continuing for another year but the trend remains downward overall. There is little compelling to suggest a long-term recovery but at the same time little to suggest that 2007's rate of melt may become the norm.

Snow in Svalbard today check the webcam link.

http://www.svalbard.com/webcam/

[Norway Nut]

Ice pack seems to be bottoming out at approx 5.3 - 5.2 million square km for this year. I'm now looking out for any INCREASE in coverage but not expecting anything noticeable until the end of this month.

It's good to see that the perm ice pack seems to be recovering.

[Mr Maunder]

Ice pack seems to be bottoming out at approx 5.3 - 5.2 million square km for this year. I'm now looking out for any INCREASE in coverage but not expecting anything noticeable until the end of this month.

It's good to see that the perm ice pack seems to be recovering.

On the IJIS site the first seasonal increase in ice extent took place on 4 September, followed by two further days of decline.

It is possible for another two to three weeks of melt to occur, but current forecasts suggest that the trend for the next week at least is "colder" so I agree that a bottom above 5.2 m sq k is looking likely.

In 2005 about a further 0.3m sq k was lost from this point before a final bottom was reached on 22 September. However the Arctic Ocean heat content appears to have been at its peak then and has now dropped back to 2002/3 levels - so combined with more favourable weather conditions this amount of melt looks improbable. However, nothing is guaranteed!

MM

[J10]

The average drop off from now is around 160k, so a final figure of around 5.15m to 5.20m seems likely, although above 5.2m is possible.

[Mondy]

Perhaps this topic should've been added here instead of given its own thread in the climate change/global warming/scare tactic area?

Lets take a look at current sea ice extent first of all.

The red line is what we're looking at. Your thoughts? Not bad for an apparent warming planet, eh? Weather patterns in the Arctic this year were particularly harsh at times on the sea ice(bergs). By harsh, I mean ice extent wasn't nearly as extensive as it should've been. Remember, weather and climate change are two differnt things - or so the warming alarmists keep informing.

So, to the crux. The NE Passage.

It was, of course, open and first navigated in 1878–79 by the Swedish Arctic explorer Baron Nordenskjöld without the help of today's icebreaker(s).

The Beluga Fraternity and Beluga Foresight were very recently stuck in ice up there, and guess what? ..a nuclear Ice Breaker, sorry, two ice-breakers, were required to assist in making sure these Merchant ships could make the passage. One of these ice breakers was the largest ever to be used in breaking ice..not that it's commonly reported.

The open NE Passage has NOTHING to do with so-called warming. It has everything to do with merchant shipping exploiting natural ice break up during the obvious summer melt season.

[Iceberg]

I think it was put in the climate change sector because it's climate change, could be wrong though Mondy.

[Typhoon John]

I think it was put in the climate change sector because it's climate change, could be wrong though Mondy.

But the event has nothing to do with climate change.

Edited September 13, 2009 by fozi999

[carinthian]

Morning all,

Historically the minimum sea ice extent in the Arctic region peaks during the next 10 days. More first year ice has survived this summer that than past two, however the longer term pattern continues to show a loss of summer

ice retention. A major player of distribution of summer sea ice is the Trans-Arctic Drift, which flows from East to West. First year ice that has been flushed out of the Basin has survived better this summer. Where solid ice locks the landmass, such as Northern Greenland, the flow of ice is pushed into the Greenland Basin. The bulk of ice here is in effect first year that is soon to develop into winter ice sheet, which all in all is better news.

C

[osmposm]

.......So, to the crux. The NE Passage.

It was, of course, open and first navigated in 1878–79 by the Swedish Arctic explorer Baron Nordenskjöld without the help of today's icebreaker(s).

The Beluga Fraternity and Beluga Foresight were very recently stuck in ice up there, and guess what? ..a nuclear Ice Breaker, sorry, two ice-breakers, were required to assist in making sure these Merchant ships could make the passage. One of these ice breakers was the largest ever to be used in breaking ice..not that it's commonly reported.

The open NE Passage has NOTHING to do with so-called warming. It has everything to do with merchant shipping exploiting natural ice break up during the obvious summer melt season.

Some of what you've mentioned I pointed out in the thread, Mondy. Not quite sure why you're replying here instead of there, except to make a point. It's exactly information and opinion such as you've provided that I was asking for, in order to assess whether it was significant or not.

Thanks, Ossie

PS I'd be grateful for a link to the source that they were stuck in the ice until the breaker(s) got there - as I understood it they were accompanied by it/them all the way, perhaps at the Russians' insistence on a precautionary basis. Indeed I specifically asked for info on the question of whether any ice-breaking was needed or not. If you have that I'd very much like to know. I suggest, though, you reply in the thread to avoid us getting into the wrong sort of discussions on here - something Carinthian has understandably asked us to avoid.

Edited September 13, 2009 by osmposm

[masheeuk]

Well, it is a 'recovery'; there's no-doubt about that, Ice...Even better with all-but the last three years' ice-extents removed??

I think what would be needed to confirm this recovery would be the winter max getting back to a higher level as well the last two maximimums were quite poor.

[carinthian]

I think what would be needed to confirm this recovery would be the winter max getting back to a higher level as well the last two maximimums were quite poor.

Winter ice always locks the Arctic Rim countries ( Alaska, Northern Canada, Northern Russia and Siberia) and usually at a fairly quick pace by the start of winter (Dec 1st), so maximum levels are always attained here.

Real recovery has to be shown in the open Arctic waters of The Barent and Greenland Seas. The past 25 years has recorded the polar southward ice limit to be much less than expected. It is here that we have to watch for improvements this coming winter.

C

Edited September 14, 2009 by carinthian

[MR EXTREMES]

its funny when icebreakers get used because surely this causes more problems than good,

you think if you break ice so it can drift about then surely it more likely to melt.

and add in leaked oil and what ever else more polution aiding melting.

Edited September 14, 2009 by badboy657

[oldsnowywizard]

a further increase shown...clearly in past years early rises have been recorded, wouldnt it be nice if it just kept going north from here though..

[Mondy]

Red line looks good!

I wonder if the thread starter (Carinthian) has come across this gem before?

Edited September 16, 2009 by Mondy

[carinthian]

Red line looks good!

I wonder if the thread starter (Carinthian) has come across this gem before?

Hi Mondy,

Not heard of that before. Where did you obtain that information from? Looks like an old journal.Temperatures that low would hold very little moisture, so fog would not likely to form. Imported warm air is more likely to create "foggy conditions with rime on the ice. So, my reading of the article is open to doubt. Sea ice can never become very cold since the water below is at about 29F and ice is a good conductor of heat. Most of the ice covered Arctic Ocean is under the influence of a shallow high pressure zone and low pressure circulation or upper cold vortex of extremely low temperatures starts at around 6,000 feet.

C

[Mondy]

Not heard of that before. Where did you obtain that information from?

Hi C

Popular Mechanics Sep 1957 !

Quite simply I read it here and thought of interest

[carinthian]

Hi C

Popular Mechanics Sep 1957 !

Quite simply I read it here and thought of interest

thanks Mondy,

Solar cycle 24 group discussion looks interesting. Are you a member ?

C

[carinthian]

Evening,

Looks like a good retention of summer sea ice in the Upper Greenland Sea. This will be a mixture of first year ice and older ice flushed out from the Arctic Basin by the trans-Arctic drift. Temperatures dropping fairly quickly at the moment, so I expect some locking and growth in the area over the coming days. I noticed on the Svalbard web-cam

the first snowfalls to sea level this morning. Winters on its way for some !

C