Arctic Ice 2009

[Solar Cycles]

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........

You can't argue with that fact!

Edited July 17, 2009 by Solar Cycles

[Filski]

Do you guys toss a coin about whether to climb out of bed on the off chance the sun didn't rise? Do you feel the need to take out a down jacket and snow shovel in July just in case the weatherman made a wild guess that morning?

No need to be able to 100% accurately model all the minute changeable details that make up the climate over decades and centuries to be able to avoid the need for guesswork.

No guessing here, just educated reasoning. Well for some of us anyway.

[Solar Cycles]

Do you guys toss a coin about whether to climb out of bed on the off chance the sun didn't rise? Do you feel the need to take out a down jacket and snow shovel in July just in case the weatherman made a wild guess that morning?

No need to be able to 100% accurately model all the minute changeable details that make up the climate over decades and centuries to be able to avoid the need for guesswork.

No guessing here, just educated reasoning. Well for some of us anyway.

It would help your cause a little, if we had warmed the previous 11 years. How's that for minute detail? Climate models are hopless, they are continuosly being tinkered with, due to all the unforseen natural cycles, which keep throwing a spanner in the AGW spokes!!

[Methuselah]

Do you guys toss a coin about whether to climb out of bed on the off chance the sun didn't rise? Do you feel the need to take out a down jacket and snow shovel in July just in case the weatherman made a wild guess that morning?

No need to be able to 100% accurately model all the minute changeable details that make up the climate over decades and centuries to be able to avoid the need for guesswork.

No guessing here, just educated reasoning. Well for some of us anyway.

Ah! But Filski, there's a difference: models need to be 110% correct in every detail. 'Unforseen natural cycles', however, need only be talked about...

[stewfox]

This is all pre season chat

The season kicks off tomorrow and last 8 weeks

The betting is Artic ice will end up mid table based on their pre season friendlies

Each week will give the different 'supporters' something to cheer about no doubt

[Solar Cycles]

This is all pre season chat

The season kicks off tomorrow and last 8 weeks

The betting is Artic ice will end up mid table based on their pre season friendlies

Each week will give the different 'supporters' something to cheer about no doubt

Couldn't agree more, it's a game of 2 halfs!

[Iceberg]

If it ends up mid table I'll pay everybody reading this thread 1000 pounds !.

I think the debate is really over whether it's the lowest on record, second lowest, or third lowest on record.

[BARRY]

If it ends up mid table I'll pay everybody reading this thread 1000 pounds !. :lol:

I think the debate is really over whether it's the lowest on record, second lowest, or third lowest on record.

duly noted

[Chris Knight]

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........

You're fact, I'm fact, in fact, we're all fact! and that's a fact!

[laserguy]

If it ends up mid table I'll pay everybody reading this thread 1000 pounds !.

Hey Ice,are you a secret millionaire?

[Gray-Wolf]

If I were a betting man I'd have my shirt on Ice not paying out a penny.

Like most canny bets I've studied the form and like the odds, it's just a shame SC wasn't the bookmaker as I'd have had ever longer odds!

Yes the arctic weather plays a part in all this but now it's the water the ice is sat in that is the major player for the portion of the pack that will melt. Apart from the thin ribbon of perennial the rest of the pack to melt is thin and in warm water.I'd take more than a change in the weather to alter that ,in fact it'll take until October for the water to shed all the heat it's gobbled up in the Arctic summer.

The only comparable years (melt pattern wise) are 07' (which started things off with the massive reduction in perennial) and 08' (which brought us to this point).

The years before this had early Aug as a 'break point' where the rate of loss slowed,07 and 08 were closer to Sept before rates dropped off.

Why do folk think that in a perennial less world things should follow a different pattern from the one's we had previously?

Have a peep down the east coast of Greenland and see how the flush out is going there, does that look like platey single year or does that look like even more of the last dregs of perennial on their way south (the fact the bergs are present so far south should tell you that of course)?

[stewfox]

If it ends up mid table I'll pay everybody reading this thread 1000 pounds !.

I think the debate is really over whether it's the lowest on record, second lowest, or third lowest on record.

You actually mean wether its the 4th or 5th lowest in the last 30 years

Lets expand it to 5 billion yrs and see if its in the highest 10% ever

These 'emotive' words dont help

[Iceberg]

We don't care what it was like 1Bn years ago, 1M years ago or even 100K years ago, that irrelavent, its what it should be now that matters and what it ends up as. Now I do mean 1,2 or 3rd lowest recorded.

[Gray-Wolf]

You actually mean whether its the 4th or 5th lowest in the last 30 years

Lets expand it to 5 billion yrs and see if its in the highest 10% ever

These 'emotive' words don't help

Gaaaahhh!!!

If I'm being a little too McEnroe I apologize but "You cannot be serious!!!"

What the chuff do we want to know about the surface 5 billion years ago??? The amount of incoming satellites probably still had us with a mainly molten surface (no crust yet) so how the frig would you expect any type of cryosphere (apart from the ice comets impacting) to exist? We spend eons discussing the atmospheric mix so you tell me the mix 3.4 billion years ago and how we can compare surface conditions then to todays???

We have friggin' knacked the global air conditioner and though it may be a little 'dead man walking the green mile' we are not going to escape the drop.

Tell me why we have no data of this type of ice loss in the recent (past 110 thousand years) across the arctic? Tell me why the permafrost (and it's guest Mammoths, Woolly Rhino's,giant Elk haven't 'gone off' in past melts if this is 'cyclical in nature? why no microbial activity in either permafrost of entombed guests if this is a regular (and not novel to this time ) event??? Tell me why and I'll think about shutting up and not mentioning the millions , if not billions that are to be condemned if we sit back and pretend it (Bart-esque) that 'it wasn't us'.

[noggin]

Gaaaahhh!!!

Tell me why we have no data of this type of ice loss in the recent (past 110 thousand years) across the arctic? Tell me why the permafrost (and it's guest Mammoths, Woolly Rhino's,giant Elk haven't 'gone off' in past melts if this is 'cyclical in nature? why no microbial activity in either permafrost of entombed guests if this is a regular (and not novel to this time ) event??? .

Is it not conceivable that these things did happen, but there was no-one around to record the happenings, or even to witness them? Population and communication has not always been as it is now.

As always, a genuine question. B)

[J10]

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.

This is the latest update back on the Sunday morning for easy comparisons.

On the IJIS figures, the rate of ice loss has fallen back to around 80,000sqkm per day over the past week, this rate of ice loss is around average for this time of year, we are the 5th highest of the series, below 2003-2005 and 2008, but above all 2006-2007, having fallen below 2005 over the past week or so.

We are currently still around 65,000sqkm below 2003-08 average, 730,000 above 2007, 215,000 above 2006 (this surplus is likely to drop over coming weeks as 2006 did well from now on), 50,000 below 2005 and just under 100,000 below 2008.

Of course remembering that the 2003-08 average is well below 30 yr averages.

At the start of August, 2007 was well out on its own at the bottom of the range, 2005/6/8 close together in the middle, with 2003-2004 much higher, it will be interesting how 2009 compares to the middle trio when we come into August.

[Solar Cycles]

Is it not conceivable that these things did happen, but there was no-one around to record the happenings, or even to witness them? Population and communication has not always been as it is now.

As always, a genuine question.

That's a very good point noggin, one which the warmists cannot answer. But that won't stop them assuming though!

[Gray-Wolf]

Lets stay with the permafrost thingy eh? Why are there no traces of past microbial activity within the upper horizons of the permafrost across the Arctic if we have had similar 'warmings' over the past 10-100,000yrs? Once thawed microbial action starts to 'rot' both the plant matter and the critters buried within (and release our beloved Methane) so our cores would show us this past 'activity' in the upper levels/horizons of the northern permafrosts and they do not.

The easiest way for me to explain this is by surmising that there have been no past thawing episodes and so today's thawing is above and beyond past 'cyclical temp variation across the region.

[MR EXTREMES]

nothing to really get excited about if your waiting for a record ice melt like gw.

ofcoarse the arctic region has been ice free before and i could be again but not this year .

However, some research indicates that a sea area north of Greenland may have been open during the Eemian interglacial 120,000 years ago. Evidence of subpolar foraminifers (Turborotalita quinqueloba) indicate open water conditions in that area. This is in contrast to Holocene sediments that only show polar species. ^[5]

Edited July 19, 2009 by badboy657

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Lets stay with the permafrost thingy eh? Why are there no traces of past microbial activity within the upper horizons of the permafrost across the Arctic if we have had similar 'warmings' over the past 10-100,000yrs? Once thawed microbial action starts to 'rot' both the plant matter and the critters buried within (and release our beloved Methane) so our cores would show us this past 'activity' in the upper levels/horizons of the northern permafrosts and they do not.

The easiest way for me to explain this is by surmising that there have been no past thawing episodes and so today's thawing is above and beyond past 'cyclical temp variation across the region.

GW

Go and speak to Paeleoclimatologists and geologists and see if they agree with your 'findings'. Oh and remember, the land/sea masses haven't always been as they are now and won't be in 100s of thousand years time.

BFTP

Gaaaahhh!!!

If I'm being a little too McEnroe I apologize but "You cannot be serious!!!"

What the chuff do we want to know about the surface 5 billion years ago??? The amount of incoming satellites probably still had us with a mainly molten surface (no crust yet) so how the frig would you expect any type of cryosphere (apart from the ice comets impacting) to exist? We spend eons discussing the atmospheric mix so you tell me the mix 3.4 billion years ago and how we can compare surface conditions then to todays???

We have friggin' knacked the global air conditioner and though it may be a little 'dead man walking the green mile' we are not going to escape the drop.

Tell me why we have no data of this type of ice loss in the recent (past 110 thousand years) across the arctic? Tell me why the permafrost (and it's guest Mammoths, Woolly Rhino's,giant Elk haven't 'gone off' in past melts if this is 'cyclical in nature? why no microbial activity in either permafrost of entombed guests if this is a regular (and not novel to this time ) event??? Tell me why and I'll think about shutting up and not mentioning the millions , if not billions that are to be condemned if we sit back and pretend it (Bart-esque) that 'it wasn't us'.

You really must calm yourself. You think we have knackered the climate but that is your own assumption. For its worth what has happened in the past is of the UTMOST importance because we have been warmer than now. Rather OTT i think. You told us that he Antarctic and Greenland were about [imminently] to collapse into the sea...well I'm still waiting.

BFTP

Edited July 19, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Methuselah]

GW

Go and speak to Paeleoclimatologists and geologists and see if they agree with your 'findings'. Oh and remember, the land/sea masses haven't always been as they are now and won't be in 100s of thousand years time.

BFTP

Hi Fred,

If I understand what Ian is saying, correctly (?); for the permafrost to have had cyclically melted and then refrozen over time, there would be layers of microbial activity observable in drilling cores...Where are those layers? is a fair question to ask.

And, Fred, I think you may have your timescales a bit out? Plate tectonics manifest themselves over million-year spans not thousands (c 2-5 cm/year??).

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Hi Fred,

If I understand what Ian is saying, correctly (?); for the permafrost to have had cyclically melted and then refrozen over time, there would be layers of microbial activity observable in drilling cores...Where are those layers? is a fair question to ask.

And, Fred, I think you may have your timescales a bit out? Plate tectonics manifest themselves over million-year spans not thousands (c 2-5 cm/year??).

Yes 100s thousands, millions then 100s of millions, billions, trillions, quintillions...but what I mean is that the surface has changed and is changing. Question he should ask the experts or the drilling co.

Fred

Edited July 19, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Admiral_Bobski]

Perhaps the permafrost has melted in places before, but not in places where cores have been drilled. If this is the case then the melting of permafrost becomes a local phenomenon, and we all know that local phenomena are, taken individually, fairly meaningless.

CB

[Methuselah]

Perhaps the permafrost has melted in places before, but not in places where cores have been drilled. If this is the case then the melting of permafrost becomes a local phenomenon, and we all know that local phenomena are, taken individually, fairly meaningless.

CB

Perfectly possible...

[Gray-Wolf]

C-Bob. What we are witnessing at the moment is the melting of all the northern permafrosts. The remnants in N. China are now thawed to a number of metres below the levels in the 1950's.

Were similar to have occurred over humanities span on the planet then any core you logged would show the past melting. What you are trying to push as 'feasible' is that every core taken from around the arctic circle has been able to miss this 'melt record'. I would think this is stretching things somewhat, wouldn't you?

The point of concern about the reduction/loss of the cryosphere are the impacts this will promote throughout the global climate system.If folk can reassure me that these impacts will be negligible (in terms of mans continuance and the continuance of our fellow inhabitants) then (unlike the arctic over summer) I will be able to chill.

Though none of us 'know' what will happen surely we have enough information on this novel event to pique our interests and raise some concerns as to their impacts?