Arctic Ice 2009

[J10]

The Arctic web cam is totally misleading though as it moves anywhere from 100 to 500 miles each summer depending on steering currents, winds etc.

Like this comment "Also of course, going into next year there will be more ice greater than one year old, as we are having more ice extent this year." Is correct but is noway the be all and end all of it. We can move ice under 2 years old but less over 2 years than the last year. This distinction is vitally important as it's the ice 2,3 or more years old(to be honest it's the ice 4 years or older which really matter) which is the balwark for the sheet ice to prevent rapid melting.

Many articles I've read have said that although 2007 was a good melt year synoptically wise, it's happened in the past, the difference in 2007 was that alot of the older ice had melted. Polyakov has a similar theory but puts it down to a build up of old ice pushed into a single area which makes the rest of the arctic ice weaker on mass.

If by June it were so clear to you then Jackone then that's fantastic, but a good many reports etc from the major ice centres (many posted on this thread), talked about the possibility of ice extents at or below 2008. The main reason that 2009 didn't meet 2008 was down to synoptics from the middle of August onward, at least IMO, but we will have to agree to disagree.

Your right Doctormog about ice thicknesses and the sparse data (the summer ice thicknesses don't tend to come out much before Oct/Nov time) I believe using the sat data etc it goes back a few years. This is still far from perfect but is the best we have until more surveys like the Catlin survey are done (shame it receieved so much critism on here). However the charts I've already posted on this thread show that ice strength was lower in 2008 than 2007, tbh I don't have the inclination to spend my sunny sunday afternoon digging them out I do alot of research and post alot of it up here, let see what 2009 brings in comparison when it comes out.

I look at the figures from a statistical point of view, and looking at the charts in June it looked as if the central Arctic was stronger than recent years, and I have provided a quote that showed that I did at the time. This was proven to be the case, even if synoptics were "better", it certainly helped ice retention this summer. It also mentioned he island bit, and maybe a bit out there, but not certainly.

The Arctic webcam is evidence is useful in that it does show "actual" data, however it is evidence rather than proof for reasons you point out.

You are right that many analysts predicted figures to be around the 2008 average, and it is good news that they have been shown to be slightly out, although not massively so.

Anyway I'll leave that there now.

However if anyone has got charts and figures and multi year ice and thicknesses, I am more than happy to do an analysis on this, as it provides a more rounded analysis of the figures, ice extent and ice volume, are both important pieces of evidence. I always get suspicious of figures on different websites, that only come out at irregular intervals as it leaves them open to the allegation of cherry picking the figures.

[MR EXTREMES]

indeed jackone heres the latest it the freeze is starting woop woop lol.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

[Iceberg]

Here's some images a bit of data re ice thicknesses in support of what I was trying to say.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/icesat-20090707.html

Below.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Ice! thanks for the dig and info. The length of time that ice thickness has been in decay is only sparsely documented prior to ICESAT and so some folk will find it hard to accept how dramatic the losses have been over the past 50yrs.

The loss of ice from behind Bering must be something that most on here witnessed (in it's final dying flings) back in 05' with the giant polynya opening up in the middle of the pack there (behind the Alaskan side). Still I get the feeling, from some of the posters, that this is merely a 'natural cycle' and not a matter of great concern.

Come feb next year our own Cryosat(2) will be up and operating bringing us further detailed measurements of the pack and it's working. I hope ,for all of our sakes, this will bring further clarity to the situation in the Arctic.

The other point of note is how the Arctic Amplification will impact ice formation this autumn.With the prospect of an El-Nino winter the recent ice max extent figures may not be repeated this spring and this will surely impact the ices abilities to maintain over the summer?

[Iceberg]

I am trying to find more recent ice thicnkesses i.e into 2009.

The below does have some

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/040609.html

Yep , the new cyrosat should be going up in Feb, but it might be further delayed.

As for ENSO, I think the AO will be the predominent player in Winter ice extent again, but am unsure what effect ENSO will have on it.

[MR EXTREMES]

im certain this winter will see a good freeze up around the arctic also would not excite myself over a massive impacting el nino either.

the situation where in,

is yes there has been some dramatic melts over the years but we are seeing a slow and slight recovery.

and i feel we can expect this to continue in the near future as for a decades time or hundred years time nobody knows the answers,

just theories based on if things continued like 2007 then of coarse this would have a big impact.

but its not right now things are better than 2 years ago.

so we could speculate about each side of the fence but nobody realy knows the outcome in the end,

my thoughts would be a recovery then a decline it may well be all ice goes but its very likely it will also return,

this is a cycle and to try to debunk the fact that the melt is natural then is silly.

i see a gain already and also see futher gains through out winter then loses in spring summer of coarse this is normal.

and if the jet plays ball then it could well be that another recovery and a good one next year and so on,

and the moment there are positives to take from the arctic so why look for the negitives all the time.

Edited September 15, 2009 by badboy657

[Iceberg]

There are positives and negatives we should look at both, weigh them up and come to a balanced judgement.

An improvement but still in IC would be my assessment so far. If the older thicker ice has been hit hard(we simply don't know yet) then I would backtack and say that this year hasn't been an improvement. If the older ice has done well then I'd happily say that this has been a good year for arctic ice overall.

This animation is good it shows the older ice moving away from the Russian side.

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090406_animation.gif

[oldsnowywizard]

hey Ice, thanks for finding out the Nasa data.. summer 2007, which wiped out significant multiyear ice and also greatly impacted volume has unfortuantely scewed the norm somewhat... so no surpises that 2008 and prob 2009 will show a little patch of multiyear here and there and be seen as long term downward trend... we are we are though and need to take heart from Mother Natures attempt to rebuild slowly but surely...we need to look at things over the next 3-4 years to see what happens...

as for this winter.. well el nino or not, a nice early start to cold and an increase for 2 days in a row of ice extent growth.. not bad to start off with...

as always i look forward to the debates and ice watch..

PS off topic but i have to say a big congrats to Austria.. i have never seen so many wind turbines! beautiful.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

PS off topic but i have to say a big congrats to Austria.. i have never seen so many wind turbines! beautiful.

I'd say, what an ugly waste of time. I think I'll avoid skiing there from now on...I like a good/beautiful view when I ski :unsure:

BFTP

Edited September 16, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[stewfox]

I am trying to find more recent ice thicnkesses i.e into 2009.

The below does have some

http://nsidc.org/arc...009/040609.html

Yep , the new cyrosat should be going up in Feb, but it might be further delayed.

As for ENSO, I think the AO will be the predominent player in Winter ice extent again, but am unsure what effect ENSO will have on it.

How reliable is this data and is it accepted in the scientific community ? Open question

Its shows a massive loss multi year ice in the last 30 years

How did they take the reading in the 1980s ? I thought ice thickness and its accurate measurement is something we are only now beginning to get measurments on. ?

5,249,844 on the 13th Sept 2009 would appear to be the lowest figure ,this year any chance it going back up ? My punt of 5.249,850 in April doesnt seem far off

Edited September 16, 2009 by stewfox

[J10]

There are positives and negatives we should look at both, weigh them up and come to a balanced judgement.

An improvement but still in IC would be my assessment so far. If the older thicker ice has been hit hard(we simply don't know yet) then I would backtack and say that this year hasn't been an improvement. If the older ice has done well then I'd happily say that this has been a good year for arctic ice overall.

This animation is good it shows the older ice moving away from the Russian side.

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090406_animation.gif

Cheers for that, hopefully we can get similar charts to the end of this summer. I find it surprising that there isn't that much of Arctic ice thickness on the Internet, certainly nowhere near as much as on Arctic Ice extent.

Perhaps this relates to this only being relevant in recent years.

As for Arctic ice extent, perhaps we have bottomed out at around 5.25m. Certainly I would not anticipate much further reduction. Hopefully this gives the chance of a pre 2007 figure being broken next year.

[Iceberg]

How reliable is this data and is it accepted in the scientific community ? Open question

Its shows a massive loss multi year ice in the last 30 years

How did they take the reading in the 1980s ? I thought ice thickness and its accurate measurement is something we are only now beginning to get measurments on. ?

5,249,844 on the 13th Sept 2009 would appear to be the lowest figure ,this year any chance it going back up ? My punt of 5.249,850 in April doesnt seem far off

All the data is from NASA or the NSIDC both pretty reputable really.

As a general comment ice thickness isn't anywhere near as accurate or comprehensive as ice extent I fully agree.

Their are patchy figures from when the US had bases in the Arctic and subs use to go in the ice alot. We only have good figures from this decade, From 2010 onwards we should have some very accurate figures I hope.

However even given the above it would require a leap of faith to assume that ice thicknesses are not historically low.

what I am really after is a daily plot of ice age broken down into yearly measurements, much like extent which than then be plotted, as yet I've not found one, however NASA is normally very open with it's data so maybe an E-mail to them would be best.

[matt44myst]

hi,

I have been following this thread with interest over the summer...however one website i recently checked seems to believe that the minimum ice extent in 2005 was below the minimum extent achieved this year.

But, according to everyone on this thread that is not the case. So would someone be able to set me straight re 2005 and 2009 minimum extents (assuming that the 2009 minimum has been reached).

Thanks,

Matt

[J10]

hi,

I have been following this thread with interest over the summer...however one website i recently checked seems to believe that the minimum ice extent in 2005 was below the minimum extent achieved this year.

But, according to everyone on this thread that is not the case. So would someone be able to set me straight re 2005 and 2009 minimum extents (assuming that the 2009 minimum has been reached).

Thanks,

Matt

All evidence seems to point to 2009 being below the 2005 figure, On the IJIS figures, the current low for 2009 is 65,000 below the final low for 2005.

By the way which website are your figures from as some websites tend to be less than impartial.

[stewfox]

All evidence seems to point to 2009 being below the 2005 figure, On the IJIS figures, the current low for 2009 is 65,000 below the final low for 2005.

By the way which website are your figures from as some websites tend to be less than impartial.

Yes AGW website has the ice extent at 95,000sq km after allowing for trending,seasonal variation and amplitude modification in the sub basin.

[oldsnowywizard]

Jackone hate to be a prude but could we add the weekly updates for sea ice back to the Carinths sea ice thread? this one is a general discussion about climate change... ta muchly..

[J10]

On the 13th Sept, the ice extent fell back to 5,249,844sqkm, Since then there have been 2 rises and 1 fall, and we are now back to 5,291,094.

Has the low point been reached well quite possibly,

I will do a summary at the end of September, as by then we should confirmed figures of the low point of the ice extent.

[stewfox]

On the 13th Sept, the ice extent fell back to 5,249,844sqkm, Since then there have been 2 rises and 1 fall, and we are now back to 5,291,094.

Has the low point been reached well quite possibly,

I will do a summary at the end of September, as by then we should confirmed figures of the low point of the ice extent.

As at 18 sept 5,332,188 km² , so i guess 5,249,844 sq km is probably going to be the lowest extent this year. It might drop back a bit but I cant see it droping 83,000

[Admiral_Bobski]

More problems in the Arctic:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/melting_ice_caps_expose_hundreds?utm_source=a-section

CB

[pottyprof]

More problems in the Arctic:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/melting_ice_caps_expose_hundreds?utm_source=a-section

CB

:lol:

[parmenides3]

More problems in the Arctic:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/melting_ice_caps_expose_hundreds?utm_source=a-section

CB

Tres drole.

What does this tell us about sea ice?

[doctormog]

What does it tell us? Nothing new? The ice is signifcantly greater than the last two years the rest of the data is the same as it has been.

It tells us about the past but what does it tell us about the future? Time will tell.

[parmenides3]

What does it tell us? Nothing new? The ice is signifcantly greater than the last two years the rest of the data is the same as it has been.

It tells us about the past but what does it tell us about the future? Time will tell.

Hi Michael. What abouth this? http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html

:)P

[doctormog]

Which part?

I'm not sure it says anything new to be honest. The summary states that there was more ice this year than the last 2 ecause of cooler conditions. Based on the laws of physics it's no surprise. Neither is there any surprise that the thinner ice melted at the same rate as before again according to the laws of physics so there will be less than there would be if the starting base line had been higher. The starting baseline will be higher at the start of next season so if we get similar conditions to this year the minimum may be a little higher once more. If we get anomalous warmth we'll get anomalous melting. If we get anomalous cold it cannot barring some unforeseen global/climatic disaster go above the 30 year average in one season alone IMO (as the foundation has been eroded).

To say this is not a recovery rules out conditions similar to this year in coming years as they would most likely increase the minimum each time they occurred (unless interrupted by a 2007-like year). As for future trends they will be determined by furture temperatures in the region - AGW or not if the Arctic is cool (compared with average), even if the rest of the world is warmer than average the ice extent won't drop. Based on past evidence money would be on the trend to continue slowly downwards. I'm not 100% convinced that we should put 100% confidence in extrapolations and climate models and disregard other options. Future-telling is not my strong point, there are just too many unknowns.

[parmenides3]

Which part?

I'm not sure it says anything new to be honest. The summary states that there was more ice this year than the last 2 ecause of cooler conditions. Based on the laws of physics it's no surprise. Neither is there any surprise that the thinner ice melted at the same rate as before again according to the laws of physics so there will be less than there would be if the starting base line had been higher. The starting baseline will be higher at the start of next season so if we get similar conditions to this year the minimum may be a little higher once more. If we get anomalous warmth we'll get anomalous melting. If we get anomalous cold it cannot barring some unforeseen global/climatic disaster go above the 30 year average in one season alone IMO (as the foundation has been eroded).

To say this is not a recovery rules out conditions similar to this year in coming years as they would most likely increase the minimum each time they occurred (unless interrupted by a 2007-like year). As for future trends they will be determined by furture temperatures in the region - AGW or not if the Arctic is cool (compared with average), even if the rest of the world is warmer than average the ice extent won't drop. Based on past evidence money would be on the trend to continue slowly downwards. I'm not 100% convinced that we should put 100% confidence in extrapolations and climate models and disregard other options. Future-telling is not my strong point, there are just too many unknowns.

Hi Doc.,

When you refer to the starting baseline, are you suggesting that there will be more ice, or more second-year ice? I agree (it is self-evident) that if next year is like this year, we'll have a similar amount of ice at the end of the Summer.

So far, I haven't said this is not a recovery, but I will now. Repeating what has been said many times before, the thing that matters is the trend. If we continue along the trend line, in 2019 we'll have another drop of 8.7% of levels. To suggest that this is a recovery is like suggesting that losing a football match 6-0 the week after losing one 8-0 is a recovery. It's optimistic.

Last thought; most Cryosphere specialists do not expect sea ice levels to return to the long-term average for a long time; they expect the trend to continue. They are concerned that, as the trend continues, we will reach a point where the equilibrium has been so unbalanced that recovery won't happen for thousands of years (OTBE). Some think this point has already been reached; some think it is close and will inveitably be reached, some aren't convinced yet that the cryosphere cannot recover at some point.

If you were a bookie, what odds would you offer, based on the trends and the summary, on there being more sea ice in September 2019 than there is this year? Ands what would the odds be on there being less?