Arctic Ice 2009

[Gray-Wolf]

If we consider the amount of perennial still propping up the pack in 05' then the fact that we seem to be tracking that year will show the folk, who don't understand the important role perennial used to play, the difference a few years of extreme melt can bring. There will come a point that in 05' proved a break point as we reached the end of ice that would melt out and were left with perennial melting down (which would not impact the ice extent figures).This year the majority of the ice can 'melt out' and so the melt will continue downwards beyond the point that 05' started to level off.

Ice is correct about the impact of the atmosphere on the melt but in the lower latitudes (not high Arctic) the melt will continue due to the sea temps that the ice sits in.

The pole cam shows what a difference 3 days can make on the look of the pack.

[jethro]

I'm not being facetious, genuine questions....

Does it actually matter how much ice melts every summer? What would be the impact if it did all melt?

[Gray-Wolf]

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

Where should I start?

We now know that ,once sea ice is removed, the heat can travel up to 1,200km inland. If we consider the Northern permafrosts and the Greenland ice sheet we can see that this would be problematic.

With the potential of the CO2/Methane released from the permafrosts (as has been showed to be occurring across the areas once protected by year round ice) to accelerate the warming of the atmosphere (the point in the past that 'warmings' started to show increased levels of CO2) which in turn melts more permafrost which further warms the atmosphere. In my mind we have already added as much GHG to the atmosphere as in many past, natural, warmings and so the addition of 'natures contribution' is a worry for me.

The massive melt figures from Greenland over the past 7 years (just Google 'Greenland melt' and wade in ) show that the removal of sea ice, by the introduction of warmer 'Gulf stream waters' along the east coast and the loss of perennial around the North and Northwest coast, will increase meltwater output (and increase the speeds of the glacial streams emptying the upland ice sheet).

The 'Arctic Amplification' is in it's infancy and I only know of studies showing it's existence (thermal profiles of the atmosphere above the pole) and not how this will interact with the weather patterns further south.We know from recent studies that high melt years have meant less snow for areas further south so this may point to some of the changes we would expect.

We cannot look at polar melt in isolation, though a very visible sign of a warming world, we must look further south to see how these changes might impact the pole.The expansion of the tropics, the northerly shift of the polar jet, the northerly shift of the 10c ocean isotherm, the northerly shift of storm tracks to name but a few of the more 'measurable changes'. The loss of the cold air block to the north would seem to permit an acceleration of the ingress of the warmer airs to the south. If we look at mountain locations that have lost their summer show cap/glaciers we can see this acceleration at work with the change of/loss of plants/species (once the cold adapted critters reach the peaks they have nowhere else to run and so go extinct).

I'm surprised Jethro needed to ask the question but would not be surprised for some folk to need to challenge my interpretation of the answer.

[jethro]

Thank you GW.

Don't be surprised at me asking, I've always found the best way to gain insight into another perspective is to ask questions. It's all too easy to become focussed upon your own ideas to the point you miss valid points from others. You and I have very different views on AGW and Arctic melt, so different that I often wonder if I'm being spectacularly stupid and missing the point entirely. The converse applies also of course

You've obviously spent some time breaking down the details of what you believe will happen, I do find your doom and gloom too much at times but at least you can give clear, concise reasons; demonstrating it's not just a belief system blind to science.

When I have time, I will investigate the details you've given, how else will I discover if I've been blind? If I find information which challenges your interpretation, you know I'll say so but I hope you'll believe me when I say, if I find evidence to support your ideas, I'll accept and post that too.

Have a good day, off to work now, no doubt to get drenched, damn rain!

[Gray-Wolf]

And thank you for your reply Jethro!, I can see the cloud/rainband fast approaching your bit of Britain.

Though I've often posted that I'm not 'comfortable' with my take on things I cannot seem to find a better way of seeing things. As you say I hope I am being totally blind or a bit daft (or both) and that either the planet has damping mechanisms to offset warmings/coolings (above and beyond natural variation) or that my adherence to mainstream science, and it's current understanding of climate shift, is misplaced.

I am not of the "it's all CO2" school of thought, things are far more complex that that, but do see the relationship from past warmings and CO2 levels. An ice free polar sea over summer will be teaming with life (look at the hassles in the Greenland fishing industry now the prawns have moved further north) and so will provide a new 'carbon sink' in an area once carbon neutral. Sadly I do not see this offsetting the net GHG gains that an ice free pole will bring both in it's addition to the atmosphere and the failure of carbon sinks (as plant/tree species fail to uptake as their climate modifies or oceanic sinks fail as the temp increases).

I would assume that last years studies off Siberia will be ongoing and now we know of the methane releases there will be better able to monitor amounts seeping up from the permafrost on the shelf below. The warmth, and early ice melt in that region this year would hint a a repeat of the past two years if not worse.I have to wonder at the relationship of ice formation (which was poor in that area) and the presence of both dissolved and free methane peculating through the shallows there. I would not be surprised if releases interfered with ice formation by mixing the top and bottom waters there.

The other impact of the melting permafrost is fire. Once the peat at the surface starts to dry then the chances of fire increase and, as in other peat areas, this fire can continue below the surface further impacting the permafrost and releasing both GHG's and particulates into a sensitive region (we all now know the role soot plays in ice melt).

The increase in open water has led to better mapping of the ocean currents in the Arctic basin and these too have been measured impacting further and further into the basin. Eventually, I would think, we will have bottom currents linking the Pacific and Atlantic. The 'old route' around the archipelago would be augmented by a flow through the archipelago now that the NW Passage deep channel provides it a highway to travel through.

Last year's shelf losses from Ellesmere island and the rapid melt of the North coast/uplands of Greenland may be hinting at this process already. As the ice concentration maps show this area was the stronghold of the perennial pack. In 07', once the time lapse video of the melt was released, I remember commenting on the sudden northward jolt of the then perennial pack at the end of the season. I then thought that this would lead to the perennial floating into less friendly waters and melting. This did happen but more perennial was lost by it's basal melting in situ (as ice conc maps show).

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

The trouble is, a day by day, blow by blow account of every breakfast, lunch and tea in the arctic is futile and tells nothing whatsoever of the bigger picture and the longer term. Of course some are inching a summer melt on, to pounce on every groggy long lense shot of what might be a pool of water - but might equally be a sheet of black ice or an ambandoned tent sheeting left from a recent polar exploration.

But treating this issue like waiting for a thundery downpour in the convective thread is not exactly realistic and will tell us nothing about the longer term prognosis. On that basis another melting min will prove nothing - much as the AGW proponents are eagerly waiting for September/October in the hope that this does happen.

It is unfortuante that this topic went 'off on one' on Saturday - and I apologise for my own part in that - but that said, somehow it IS the background feedbacks, their weightings in terms of natural/cyclical vs man made and long term interactions of those and how they play out that WILL determine this issue. The ice patterns in the arctic are very complex - and there are so many factors that influence the seasonal outcomes.

Most of us know that the jet stream has been further north over the last decade or two, and for my part I am confident that this will explain much of the recent trends in the arctic. However, this is nothing new and is a trend that has occured cyclically before. It is back to the same old question of natural cycles and feedbacks and whether or not these have been overriden in any way. In my own mind I believe as much (more) than ever that this IS a cyclical pattern - and people have got so post 1980 something obsessed, that somehow this is a permanent, interminable road to a climate change armeggedon.

Daily watching and dissecting of dawn to dusk in the arctic in summer is like looking for for a train of hurricanes or heatwaves to prove climate change (translates man man global warming)

So in the sense I have described, I don't think the debate over the weekend was quite as OT as it might have appeared - although it certinaly needed to be be more obviously worded with pertinence to the ice situation rather than feedbacks and AGW and natual patterns in general

[Thundery wintry showers]

much as the AGW proponents are eagerly waiting for September/October in the hope that this does happen.

I had hoped you'd moved away from the "lump all proponents of AGW together with the extremists" line. Evidently not.

That said, most of the rest of what you say makes a lot of sense. It is highly likely, indeed, that natural variability has played a greater role in the recent Arctic warming and melt than AGW has, although the relative weighting of the two is unclear. And it does get rather tiresome when we get some people searching for every last detail on Arctic ice just to push a pro or anti-AGW agenda, because what happens one week to the next says little about Arctic ice trends or AGW- what matters is how low the ice minimum gets.

That's not to say that discussing the latest Arctic trends is bad- that's primarily what this thread is for- but rather that it isn't primarily about AGW!

I'm liking the look of that vortex sitting over the pole, essentially the reverse of what happened in July 2007. This should be good for ice retention, and as Iceberg mentioned not too many warm plumes about either.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I had hoped you'd moved away from the "lump all proponents of AGW together with the extremists" line. Evidently not.

That said, most of the rest of what you say makes a lot of sense. It is highly likely, indeed, that natural variability has played a greater role in the recent Arctic warming and melt than AGW has, although the relative weighting of the two is unclear. And it does get rather tiresome when we get some people searching for every last detail on Arctic ice just to push a pro or anti-AGW agenda, because what happens one week to the next says little about Arctic ice trends or AGW- what matters is how low the ice minimum gets.

That's not to say that discussing the latest Arctic trends is bad- that's primarily what this thread is for- but rather that it isn't primarily about AGW!

I'm liking the look of that vortex sitting over the pole, essentially the reverse of what happened in July 2007. This should be good for ice retention, and as Iceberg mentioned not too many warm plumes about either.

I'm not lumping everyone together. I am just simply reflecting the sentiments made, evidently, by some people of the forum. I am aware that people like you and others do not necessarily eshew those views in quite the same way.

I agree with you that it does work both ways - the encouraging resurgence of ice growth last autumn equally meant nothing in terms of long term trends. Also agree about current atmospheric patterns and what they might mean for this summers prognosis. But there is some way to go yet -as last August showed.

[Gray-Wolf]

I agree with you that it does work both ways - the encouraging resurgence of ice growth last autumn equally meant nothing in terms of long term trends. Also agree about current atmospheric patterns and what they might mean for this summers prognosis. But there is some way to go yet -as last August showed.

Hi NSSC! the past two years of clamour for ice re-growth over the winter months has shown us that some of the coldest winters we've suffered across the Pole for many years do not interfere with the loss of ice over summer and the continued loss of ice volume.

Last year was an 'average summer' across the pole and so the record low volumes of ice at the end of summer must infer that 'weather' alone is not enough to dampen the rates of ice loss. I am cautious in accepting any major impact from the current synoptic outlook.Our 'peeps' at the polar web cam will show how things progress there but the bulk of losses are further south at the edges of the pack and the ice to the rear of this (as it relaxes out into the newly opened up areas).

The winds that accompany L.P. systems should also not be disregarded in their ability to both drive ice before them and also drive surges before them.I've heard it mooted that the northerly drift of storm tracks over the past 50yrs are partly responsible for the warm water ingress into the Arctic Basin and the initial basal melting of the 'old style' perennial (as noted from the submarine logs).

To me it would seem that we have gone far beyond the 'normal' cyclical fluctuations of ice thickness/extents and their impacts on the surrounding areas.

Surely there would be both physical and anecdotal records of past events (since the end of the last glaciation) if they existed? Newly exposed soil/peat from the permafrost shows sign of past melting and subsequent bacterial activity since it was initially frozen so why now? The study of the ocean sediments (and the ploughed furrows grounded bergs driven by the wind/currents) show clearly that the areas where this is now becoming a permanent summer feature have not seen similar since the end of the last major glaciation, how can this be in a 'natural/cyclical' scheme? We have very little shelf ice left in the Arctic but the sediments for those recently lost show that they too are ancient.If we are seeing them melt today in this 'natural/cyclical' scheme then why can we not see where it has happened before?

These are some of the stumbling blocks I face whenever I try and kid myself that all these things are part of a 'long cycle' coming together of both terrestrial and solar forcings. Another being our introduction of GHG's into the atmosphere (which have not been present before at such concentrations when such synchronisity occurred) and the impact that this must have on climate (if we look to past warming epochs as our guide).

Edited July 13, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

Sorry, I just realised how clumbsy I have been in the last para of the above post. I do only mean 'kid myself' in the way of trying to find an alternative way of me seeing things :lol:

[stewfox]

Sorry, I just realised how clumbsy I have been in the last para of the above post. I do only mean 'kid myself' in the way of trying to find an alternative way of me seeing things B)

I see all is well

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

[Gray-Wolf]

I see all is well

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

???

The predicted 'slowdown' in melt doesn't seem to be occuring yet and from the link you've posted it looks like we've left the 05' line behind giving us only 08' and 07' to cross.

Seeing as 08' had a big extent to start with and 09' had an even bigger extent to start with I find this telling. How can we 'rebuild' the pack when even the colder winters (and greater initial extents) mean nought?

[doctormog]

???

The predicted 'slowdown' in melt doesn't seem to be occuring yet and from the link you've posted it looks like we've left the 05' line behind giving us only 08' and 07' to cross.

Seeing as 08' had a big extent to start with and 09' had an even bigger extent to start with I find this telling. How can we 'rebuild' the pack when even the colder winters (and greater initial extents) mean nought?

Isn't it 2006 and 2007 lines we need to cross? (2008's more extensive/prolonged melt occurred later in the season) Nothing too dramatic or significant to report at the moment.

[osmposm]

Yes, that's right, Doc - G-W you're getting your wires (or lines, anyway) crossed again.

I should be careful: if it happens a third time we could start thinking your data assessments are systematically confused, and the conclusions you draw from them suspect. You wouldn't - perish the thought! - be suffering from confirmation bias, would you?! B)

Edited July 15, 2009 by osmposm

[Gray-Wolf]

Oh the shame!!! Yup , my bad.

[stewfox]

Oh the shame!!! :huh: :lol: Yup , my bad.

Half time at present 0-0 all to play for

I cant see the 10-0 white wash happening but we will see.

8,478,438 km² (July 14, 2009) of ice in mid July blows your breath away :lol:

London measures 52km2 to put that in prespective

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

There was a very brief reduction but this looks to have ended with the last two days losing over 200,000sq km and some classic melt condition on the Canadian side.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data...t.7.13.2009.gif

If we look at the temps at the edge of the pack we can see that there are plenty of anom's up to the ice edge.I would expect this to be projecting under the pack and melting the base of the pack irregardless of the weather above.

The melt in 07' left us with a very thin pack (as 08' melt shows) so we might expect the same type of melt pattern to 08'.Seeing as we sit below 08' on the IJIS plot this might suggest we end with 2nd lowest or lowest volume if things plod on as they are.

Edited July 16, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

. Of course some are inching a summer melt on, to pounce on every groggy long lense shot of what might be a pool of water - but might equally be a sheet of black ice or an ambandoned tent sheeting left from a recent polar exploration.

[MR EXTREMES]

this winter will once again see a good recovery infact more than last winter, i reckon.

if this winter overall gives a excellent recovery then id say its safe to say things will be ok with the ice for now.

it seems its easy to talk about melt season but why focus on just melt,

what about about the comming winter just as important nobody could predict how cold it would be here in the uk over winter 08/09,

so big melt or not who cares could be record breaking recovery after a high melt.

[Gray-Wolf]

this winter will once again see a good recovery infact more than last winter, i reckon.

if this winter overall gives a excellent recovery then id say its safe to say things will be ok with the ice for now.

it seems its easy to talk about melt season but why focus on just melt,

what about about the coming winter just as important nobody could predict how cold it would be here in the UK over winter 08/09,

so big melt or not who cares could be record breaking recovery after a high melt. :huh:

With the Arctic amplification the larger the melt ,the larger the area of dark water ,the more heat the water soaks up, the longer it then takes to shed the accrued heat come summers end and so a later refreeze start date.

When we are ice free in the summer across the arctic it will still freeze over winter, it gets very cold without the sun you know, but the environmental 'damage' is done over the summer months in terms of Greenland ice sheet melt and permafrost melt/methane releases.

I was also musing what happens if the NW Passage Deep channel starts to provide a link from the Pacific to the North Atlantic. Will this spice up the cold bottom water N.A.D. current and speed up the warm water gulf stream above?

[Solar Cycles]

With the Arctic amplification the larger the melt ,the larger the area of dark water ,the more heat the water soaks up, the longer it then takes to shed the accrued heat come summers end and so a later refreeze start date.

When we are ice free in the summer across the arctic it will still freeze over winter, it gets very cold without the sun you know, but the environmental 'damage' is done over the summer months in terms of Greenland ice sheet melt and permafrost melt/methane releases.

I was also musing what happens if the NW Passage Deep channel starts to provide a link from the Pacific to the North Atlantic. Will this spice up the cold bottom water N.A.D. current and speed up the warm water gulf stream above?

Speculation hey! I often muse over the idea of glaciers advancing, ice sheets moving south. How would man survive such extremes. GW as much as you like to speculate the outcome of arctic ice, the fact remains, that no one knows what the hell is going to happen

!

[Filski]

the fact remains, that no one knows what the hell is going to happen

I dispute your use of the term 'fact'.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'd agree with Filski that there are plenty of 'facts' around pertaining to the recent ice melt. If this showed a cyclical nature to retreats and advances since the end of the last ice age this would be a good thing.

Seeing as (and this includes the loss of ice shelfs in Antarctica) the 'facts' show that this is a novel event (since at least the end of the last ice age)and so I have concerns over why it is happening now shadowing mans industrialisation.

[pottyprof]

There are plenty of facts that we fully understand. There are other facts that we are starting to understand....

The main fact is, we don't fully understand the systems at play and therefore we don't know what the hell is going to happen..

.................... We can guess tho and that is a fact........