Arctic Ice 2009

[pottyprof]

If posts are missing, It's because I've removed them.. and you know why they've been removed...

Anyone wanting a 14 day holiday or permanent ban from this area, please feel free to follow the route you've been heading down..

Ta muchly..

[MR EXTREMES]

if warming and the wrong type of anomalies where to continue then maybe it could well be fairly bad.

although global changes happen and its normal,

so anything could happen arctic melt could increase futher,

but the recovery could happen its all in the balance.

so i cant argue with any side really although i like the cold path and still feel something is apon us in other words changes are afoot. <_<

but then i might be wrong

[tundra]

Tundra, I don't think you have to guess what I was referring to, since I quoted it in full. Anyway, keep cool: I was merely pointing out (I thought with gentle humour) that you have previously maintained that it's pointless to speculate on the summer state of the arctic ice - whatever evidence you may have - until later in the season. That is certainly what you have said to others on several occasions, including the one I quoted.

However, it seems that what you really mean is that it is pointless to speculate on the subject if you think (with evidence) it's looking bad; but it's fine to do so if you think (with evidence) it's looking good.

As for silliness in posts, I do think that suggesting that those of us who are deeply concerned - rightly or wrongly - about the state of the Arctic Ice are somehow "annoyed" that the melt isn't (according to you) happening as fast as we feared, is about as silly as it gets.

Oh, and we're still waiting, incidentally, for your explanation of oceanic/atmospheric thermodynamics as requested by Jethro over in the Global Cooling thread a week ago, here http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...t&p=1558490

Ossie

PS Solar, can I cautiously suggest that a person who ends a post with 'Matter closed' and three "d'oh" smilies may be at least as guilty of being "not willing to engage in open debate" as Dev?

What i wrote was a reasonable reflection on what the NSIDC up date was saying, if some posters on here find it hard to understand the English language then perhaps a open university coarse or further college coarse in English may help.

Just an idea. :lol:

[osmposm]

Ossie your wrong, I admit AGW as had an effect on the temperature rises we experinced, it's just the amount of warming that I dispute. For me their are far to many warmists, who are not prepared to look at natural cycles being the main driver. Either this is because it goes against the mainstream of science, which they feel is the only science to be believed! Or they have hidden agendas and ideologies, or a combination of both! Which do you fall into Ossie?

Solar, I have already PM'd you about this, but my apologies for not making myself clearer. I was not getting at you, or suggesting you are closed-minded (which you have recently been showing you most certainly are not). In fact, the tone and content of your recent posts has immeasurably helped the quality of discussions on here of late: Thank You.

I was only suggesting that your assessment of Dev's...um...forthright conviction in his rightness should perhaps be balanced by a similar one of Tundra's. And on the whole I think that Dev's tends to be rather better argued, and less often gratuitously insulting....but then I would, wouldn't I?!

As for me, I don't think I am as closed-minded as you suspect. I tend, it is true, towards believing the worst about Climate Change and certainly future Arctic Ice levels - at the moment. I have little real scientific understanding, and still less knowledge - something I am happy to admit unlike some on here. But I read and listen and try to learn, and often shift my position subtly (now and again majorly).

It's very like my position on God. I call myself an open-minded atheist rather than an agnostic; that is to say I firmly believe there is no god, but maintain that I am genuinely open to any convincing evidence that there is - in fact at my time of life I would warmly welcome it! In exactly the same way I would very warmly welcome evidence that persuades me that the Arctic Ice is indeed heading for recovery, and/or that the planet's climate is not heading into alarming territory - and that we are not responsible for at least a significant part of those problems (as I see them).

What i wrote was a reasonable reflection on what the NSIDC up date was saying, if some posters on here find it hard to understand the English language then perhaps a open university coarse or further college coarse in English may help.

Just an idea. :lol:

A course on "The Art of Coarse English", perhaps? :lol:

Edited July 10, 2009 by osmposm

[J10]

Time for the latest updates,

On the IJIS figures, the rate of ice loss has risen to 95,000sqkm per day over the past week. We are still above the 2003-09 average by around 15,000sqkm.

On the IJIS figures we are the fourth highest of the series, below 2003, 2004 and 2005, but above all years since that, we are now around 50,000 above the figures in 2008, which despite the large increase in fall is only 10,000 less comparatively than last week. We are now some 565,000 above the comparative figures in 2007 and around 395,000 above the same value in 2006.

Contrasty we are now over 400,000 below both 2003 and 2004, and it seems highly unlikely that we will be above these figures again during Summer 2009.

July's recent average (2003-2008) was 870,000 below the longer term average.

Latest update which replaces the update on Sunday, however the following Sunday update will be back on Sunday 19th July.

On the IJIS figures, the rate of ice loss has risen to 110,000sqkm per day over the past week, as there was a period of very sharp dropping over the past week, this has subsided a little but the drops are still quite high and above average.

We have fallen behind the 2003-09 average by around 65,000sqkm.

On the IJIS figures we are the fourth highest of the series, below 2003, 2004 and 2008, but above all 2005-2007.

We have fallen sharply below the 2008 figure around 128,000 below last year, we are 490,000 above 2007, in line with predictions that we would increase the "surplus" over 2007 over the past 12 days. We are also 400,000 above the 2006 figure. We are pretty much on a par with 2005, being 12,000 above. We are continuing to fall further behind 2003 and 2004 and these figures are long gone and we will not be above these figures again during the melt season.

IMO the figures over the past fortnight have been disappointing and hopefully the next update will be more positive.

[Gray-Wolf]

An' another thing about that ICESAT study on ice thickness. If no increases were noted in the first year ice over the period (whilst perennial thickness crashed) then what happened when the first year ice became second/third year ice (as the 'recoverists' were eager to point out earlier in the year) has this also remained static (not grown in thickness). The old term perennial covered ice over 7 seasons old and included blocks the size of 3 storey buildings. If we are only witnessing thinning of that pack and stasis for all the 'new ice' (formed and maintained over the period of the study) then wouldn't this hint at even bigger changes occurring within the Arctic pack?

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/...,634629,00.html

And , of course, there's always the Greenland ice sheet.....

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...90612092741.htm

Edited July 10, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[tundra]

The very simple point i was trying to make was that judging by the latest NSIDC update they do not expect a repeat of 2007.

Below is a paragraph from their update, i posted this before but unfortunately it got lost amonst the rubbish that followed.

"This contrast between high and low pressure is broadly similar to the atmospheric circulation pattern that set up in 2007. In 2007, that pattern contributed to a significantly accelerated decline in ice extent during July, and a record minimum low in September. Will the same acceleration in ice melt occur this year? If so, a new record low minimum extent becomes more likely. So far, an acceleration has not been observed. As July progresses, the Arctic sun gets lower on the horizon, incoming solar energy decreases, and the chances of such a rapid decline become less likely".

Why are some posters finding this so difficult to understand?

I am not the one arguing. Cheers.

Edited July 11, 2009 by pottyprof

[MR EXTREMES]

polar field certainly reflecting a lack of tropical activity - take a look at the AO index for June - most negative in the 58 year time series..

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/prec...ent.ascii.table

hope gp does not mind but i took this from the model output post today

but does this have significance on the arctic cycle?

as i said before there some strange climate and weather going on around the world.

but i do think that although we may be above the 2007 melt by september,

i strongly reckon that the arctic ice build will happen early this year.

:lol:

[Gray-Wolf]

Anyone care to speculate as to the nature of the 'dark patches' we can now see in the latest image?

Sorry B.b. but if the rate of ice loss stays roughly constant we will be through the 07' min by mid Aug.

If we are to believe the ICESAT data then the 'new' ice is all of a similar thickness and should disappear very rapidly once it all becomes just a skim. If the dark patches on the polar cam are indeed meltwater pools (or worse sea water penetration) then this process is completing even in the high arctic.

My guess is a further acceleration in ice loss (we still have chunks of Hudson Bay to succumb yet!) through July with a steadying of ice loss through early Aug. Only my guess on my interpretation of the data before us of course!! :lol:

Edited July 11, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[tundra]

Anyone care to speculate as to the nature of the 'dark patches' we can now see in the latest image?

Sorry B.b. but if the rate of ice loss stays roughly constant we will be through the 07' min by mid Aug.

If we are to believe the ICESAT data then the 'new' ice is all of a similar thickness and should disappear very rapidly once it all becomes just a skim. If the dark patches on the polar cam are indeed meltwater pools (or worse sea water penetration) then this process is completing even in the high arctic.

My guess is a further acceleration in ice loss (we still have chunks of Hudson Bay to succumb yet!) through July with a steadying of ice loss through early Aug. Only my guess on my interpretation of the data before us of course!!

Nearly mid July and still no melt pools in sight. Obviously the Arctic is cooler this year.

Well to most people that is.

[pottyprof]

Several Posts have been binned and a few have been moved.

This thread is to discuss ARCTIC ICE. Other discussions are elsewhere..

I really am surprised at a few of you guys. If it happens again, I will close the thread.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Anyone care to speculate as to the nature of the 'dark patches' we can now see in the latest image?

Yes it was water in 2007. Looking cold up there

BFTP

[Devonian]

Anyone care to speculate as to the nature of the 'dark patches' we can now see in the latest image?

Yes it was water in 2007. Looking cold up there

BFTP

Up there you basically get ice/snow or you get water/slush - one is light, the other darker. I suspect the darker patches are distant open water/slush - but what else could they be?

Re 2007, actually, at around this date back then there were only a few patches of open water. Of course, a lot also depends upon where the camera has drifted to each year.

Edited July 12, 2009 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

jump between the two images

[Devonian]

jump between the two images

Indeed...

There are clear pools of melt water in the latest image. I really don't see this as a surprise - it happens every year. The question (still to be answered until around September) is what the minimum of ice will be.

Edited July 12, 2009 by Devonian

[MR EXTREMES]

might be worth reading lastnight,s GP model output post.

although this by no means 100% cert but seems that differences in our climate are taking charge at this moment,

whether this continues well have to wait and see.

and its correct to say melt pools are very common in melt seasons but this does not mean doom and gloom time will tell,

but things are very intresting within whole climate system from the arctic to the tropics from the alantic to the pacific.

[pottyprof]

Indeed...

There are clear pools of melt water in the latest image. I really don't see this as a surprise - it happens every year. The question (still to be answered until around September) is what the minimum of ice will be.

And if it is less than last year or even 2007, what does this prove? It means that it has melted and still doesn't prove anything either way.

Looking at the synoptics, then I'd say it could be close to the record minima.

[jethro]

What would be the knock on effects if it all melted?

[weather eater]

And round and round we go. It matters not whether we break the ice loss of 2007, because the only relevant factor is that we are constantly seeing record or near records of Artic sea loss, year in year out and as yet there is little or no support in regards improved summer ice retention or for a cooling world, coming from the Artic, at least not this year, period as they say in America.

[Devonian]

And if it is less than last year or even 2007, what does this prove? It means that it has melted and still doesn't prove anything either way.

Indeed - I've not suggest anything else have I?

Looking at the synoptics, then I'd say it could be close to the record minima.

We'll see, it's not impossible.

What would be the knock on effects if it all melted?

I think the Arctic would change a lot if, instead of multi year ice, all the ice melted one year and all there would be subsequently is single year ice and a ice free pole in summer. I hope it doesn't happen in my time.

[MR EXTREMES]

What would be the knock on effects if it all melted?

no one really knows to be honest.

but its correct if we have another 2007 melt it dont mean much at all but,

if it where to exceed 2007 and this continued a trend then this would mean no summer ice sooner or later.

but all this said its still far to soon and is not easy to predict.

[stewfox]

And round and round we go. It matters not whether we break the ice loss of 2007, because the only relevant factor is that we are constantly seeing record or near records of Artic sea loss, year in year out and as yet there is little or no support in regards improved summer ice retention or for a cooling world, coming from the Artic, at least not this year, period as they say in America.

What you mean is 2007 was the worse in 30yrs we dont have accurate records before that.

The current year is looking very average for this century

It is probably getting very frustrating for those who were hoping for a artic free of ice in the summer by 2012 but can we stick to the facts as they are now.

[pottyprof]

Indeed - I've not suggest anything else have I?

I think, for now at least, I am finding myself agreeing with a lot of what you are saying Dev. B)

[Iceberg]

Arctic ice melt had took a bit of a breather atm. Cloud and a lack of warm plumes has reduce melt rate.

Looking at the models this will likely stay a breather for a few days yet, from Thursday onwards there are signs that the the ice melt conditions will worse, allowing the rapid fall again in ice extent.

Still something to be thankful for atm and over the next few days.