Arctic Ice 2009

[londonsnow]

This may be a daft question for a drizzley wednesday. Does a maintained thick ice sheet cool surface air any more than a maintained thin ice sheet?

[Iceberg]

Yet despite that the Arctic Basin Ice area is significantly higher than last year at the same point so any impact is rather limited at the moment:

Mind you I guess it will be another case of every silver ling has a cloud?

Perhaps your predictions will come true, perhaps not.

P.S. Re. Hudson Bay - it's actually a little below average in terms of ice area currently and hasn't really been significantly above at any point:

Those graphs also show that there is more ice than last year across all the regions. Which goes against the Figures that Jackone uses. There have also been a number of problems with the SSMI data and most people are switching or have switched to the AMRSE data in over the last 12 months.

This might or might be relavent though, but it's the main reason why I haven't used SSMI data this year.

The Central Arctic has been cooler than recent years though and I quite understand there being more arctic basin ice. This makes what's happening above Greenland more concerning though, try as I can I can't find any examples of this happening in the past, If anybody can I would be interested to see them.

As to the state of Arctic ice, I am honest enough to say that there are some postives and negatives.

The positives are that temps and conditions are generally good for Arctic Basin ice and also currently for ice around the NW passage.

The negatives are that ice extent is the 3rd lowest on record now and is has recently starting to trend below last year, ice is breaking up which really shouldn't be and that the Russian side of the Arctic is looking very poor.

There is no evidence to suggest that Arctic Ice is going to improve on last years, which was the second lowest on record, unfortunately.

This may be a daft question for a drizzley wednesday. Does a maintained thick ice sheet cool surface air any more than a maintained thin ice sheet?

It's not a daft question, I don't think it will cool the surface any more than thin ice, but the question might be abit of an oxymoron as it's arguable that you can't have a maintained thin ice sheet.

[MR EXTREMES]

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JC005312.shtml

Above is an extract from the "Journal of Geophysical Research" covering a study over 5 years of M.Y. ice and single year ice.

Did you know the remaining M.Y. ice decreased by 42% since 2005??? Pretty awful eh? Single year thickness displayed no changes in thickness over the period but ,as we all know, it's extent varied.

As such the loss in volume is down to the loss of M.Y. ice.......maybe the folk who live by 'ice extent' need to take note of how important the loss of perennial actually is and monitor it's losses more closely.

this is my point i find arctic ice intresting but i dont need to monitor closer because i read the data that is most relevant,

i for one do not over hype any situation.

if there was a dramatic ice recovery like the amount around in the 60s and so on,

then id say it takes years and years to recover to that amount and conditions need to be right.

we are seeing melting happening come on gray wolf did think it would stick around when melts in summer seasons are normal.

yes ofcoarse theres less ice than in the past,

do you really expect after 2007 record melt that it would take 1 year to recover oh please lets not be silly.

or maybe its not silly because it did recover not by a dramatic amount but enough to say a recovery,

also there is nothing at this moment in time to suggest that a 2007 repeat is on the cards infact its all pretty normal still.

iceberg you pictures are great but its normal to see ice break up in a melt season it has been for some years now.

when i see every corner of the science world panicking and every media outlet freaking out about the arctic then i will listen at the moment theres still nothing major to get excited about.

the numbers tell us this.

[Iceberg]

iceberg you pictures are great but its normal to see ice break up in a melt season it has been for some years now.

A Sensible post, but I would love the ice break up where I am looked to be normal or for anybody to let me know when it has ever happened before ?.

[MR EXTREMES]

Even after just 3 days the break up of the ice there is rapid. The pictures below show the ice last night and the ice when I took the last picture 3 days ago.

it would seem thats pretty thinish ice anyway.

[Iceberg]

So it would seem, however all the estimates and experts expected this to be in the area of the thickest ice in the arctic.

See the below diagram I posted a few weeks ago.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Iceberg

[Gray-Wolf]

So it would seem, however all the estimates and experts expected this to be in the area of the thickest ice in the arctic.

See the below diagram I posted a few weeks ago.

Hi Ice!

The image from Feb 09'.You have to remember that a fair proportion of that perennial was on it's way south before the re-freeze and includes the remnants of the shelfs that melted off Ellesmere Isl. last summer. I'm sure you can see that the thick ice down Greenland's east coast is part of the extension of the Arctic Gyre that flushes out into the Atlantic (remember last late Oct. when some folk posted that the ice was growing from Greenland to Iceland and the MODIS images just showed bergs on their way south?) but if you look back to late Aug on MODIS you'll see how clear that channel north of Greenland was back then with only the chunks of remnant perennial in the water.

That huge traditional mass of ice is what occured when the Gyre used to have a lot of perennial ice to play with effectively 'log jamming' from the Archipelago through to Svalbard. This may be the last year we see that as the last of that Perennial shifts down the east coast of Greenland, kinda like watching the sand run out of an egg timer.

[MR EXTREMES]

this is intresting though but although this story had me thinking it still has not convinced me yet that where doomed.

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/200...warming-siberia

also would like to apoligise if its of topic.

but it makes you think how extreme climate or weather can be -60.2 C, or nearly -86 F,and the 32c 90f crazy difference.

also not very good for the permafrost although this was a short lived moment would not be very good if the kept happening maybe just a freak moment then again last winter -60.2 that should be normal but that was rare event aswell.

still im not convinced just yet more time is needed in all the colder areas to see if this continues maybe it wont hope the cold maintains it grip for a fair few winters yet.

after all we do have a deeper solar minima coming for cycle 25 well so they say lol

Edited July 8, 2009 by badboy657

[Gray-Wolf]

It would appear that , over winter, the planet is trying it's best to comply with PDO-ve phase (hence the 'cooling' we've experienced) but come summer all bets are off. To me it appears that something has changed and these 'new' conditions allow such unmodified air masses free ingress to the Arctic.

Surely Iceberg's last post about the failure of the last bastion of perennial ice, coupled with these reports from the other side of the Arctic, has folks interest piqued as to the remainder of the melt season?

Edited July 8, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[tundra]

Arctic ice seems to be holding up very well although i get the feeling this is much to the annoyance of some posters.

The latest update from NSIDC suggest similar weather conditions to that of 2007 but without the substantial melt that took place. They also suggest that as we go through July with a increasingly lower sun angle we will not see a repeat of the same.

This is very, very encouraging as the uptick in summer Arctic sea ice retention could well continue despite similar conditions to 2007 and a lot less muti year ice in the Arctic.

Um strange that.

Still nothing to shout about until August and September are in but still perhaps another pointer towards a cooler climate on the way.

[songster]

Arctic ice seems to be holding up very well although i get the feeling this is much to the annoyance of some posters.

The latest update from NSIDC suggest similar weather conditions to that of 2007 but without the substantial melt that took place. They also suggest that as we go through July with a increasingly lower sun angle we will not see a repeat of the same.

Let's not prejudge that until we get a couple of weeks into July. The increased melt rate GW posted about a couple of days ago seems to be settling in, though we won't know for sure till the middle of the month. Currently it's faster than any year except 2007, meaning that the end-July level will end up somewhere between 2007 and 2008. If we then see the late August melt-out of the thin ice, we could be looking at a very low minimum.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.ku.dk/english/news/?content=htt...ews/sea_ice.htm

Came across the above which is a study from the university of Copenhagen showing that we have less ice between Greenland and Svalbard than at any time over the past 800yrs (the period of the study)

Seeing as this region historically allowed ice to dam the outflow of the Arctic Gyre (into the Atlantic) the recent removal of this perennial ice is now facilitating the change to a seasonal ice pack across the pole (as the remainder of the perennial flushes out into the Atlantic).

Anyone looking at Atlantic SST's will have noted the cool water pool that has flowed out from the NW of Greenland into the central Atlantic whilst an area of +4c anoms established in the area it flowed out from.Is this a meltwater plume?

[MR EXTREMES]

i think fresh water into the north alantic ocean conveyor could be a god send sooner or later for arctic melt.

[Methuselah]

i think fresh water into the north alantic ocean conveyor could be a god send sooner or later for arctic melt. :lol:

That would be true, if it didn't require so much ice-melt to accomplish it??

[Devonian]

My last post that i guess you are referring to was based on the assertions of the NSIDC latest update regarding weather conditions and comparable ice melt to 2007.

Try in future to read other peoples posts clearly and digest what they have written then perhaps needless silly posts as the one above can be avoided.

There is enough rubbish written in this thread as it is.

Cheers.

You clearly did not read the NSIDC report clearly, or digest it and thus made a silly post yourself.

NSIDC do not say (as you claim) "They also suggest that as we go through July with a increasingly lower sun angle we will not see a repeat of the same." they say "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." So, they are not talking about this July, or making a prediction, but describing what happens during July, every July.

[tundra]

You clearly did not read the NSIDC report clearly, or digest it and thus made a silly post yourself.

NSIDC do not say (as you claim) "They also suggest that as we go through July with a increasingly lower sun angle we will not see a repeat of the same." they say "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." So, they are not talking about this July, or making a prediction, but describing what happens during July, every July.

This is the whole paragraph from the NSIDC update.

"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."

[Devonian]

This is the whole paragraph from the NSIDC update.

"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."

Well, you can clearly lead a horse to water but not etc etc

[Iceberg]

Lets have a look at this then.

"This contrast between high and low pressure is broadly similar to the atmospheric circulation pattern that set up in 2007.

Not good news, but tbh there is more cloud than in 2007 and lower temps, as noted by some skeptics on here !

In 2007, that pattern contributed to a significantly accelerated decline in ice extent during July, and a record minimum low in September.

So we have to go through July to see if we get the significantly accelerated decline.

Will the same acceleration in ice melt occur this year? If so, a new record low minimum extent becomes more likely.

So they think that a record low minimum is a serious possibility otherwise they wouldn't say it

So far, an acceleration has not been observed.

This was written 6 days into July, so plenty of time for the July acceleration to occur then !

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."

If it is going to happen it's more likely to happen sooner rather than later.

Now lets look at how much ice was lost in July in 2007 and compare with 2009 up until yesterday to see if we can see that accelerate ice loss yet.

2007 = 833906 km2 lost.

2009 = 771250 km2 lost.

No not quite is the answer but it's very close. But it's much closer to 2007 than the losses in 2008 which were only 599531 at this point in July.

So the fantastic news is we are not quite yet looking at a record low minimum for Arctic ice but it's early days, BUT that we are looking worse than 2008 almost day by day and 2008 was the second lowest ice extent on record.

So lets continue this, we are not looking at a rebuild or arctic ice.

[osmposm]

My last post that i guess you are referring to was based on the assertions of the NSIDC latest update regarding weather conditions and comparable ice melt to 2007.

Try in future to read other peoples posts clearly and digest what they have written then perhaps needless silly posts as the one above can be avoided.

There is enough rubbish written in this thread as it is.

Cheers.

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?

Edited July 10, 2009 by osmposm

[Thundery wintry showers]

I actually think Iceberg's latest post is quite a fair assessment- it looks like we could be in for the second lowest minimum ice extent on record, maybe third or fourth lowest at a push, or lowest on record if we have a particularly warm pool up there during late July.

[Solar Cycles]

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?

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?

[Gray-Wolf]

I actually think Iceberg's latest post is quite a fair assessment- it looks like we could be in for the second lowest minimum ice extent on record, maybe third or fourth lowest at a push, or lowest on record if we have a particularly warm pool up there during late July.

I think we all need to factor in the ice thickness percentages. In the past the final min has had up to 40% perennial in it (which was never going to melt out being perennial thickness) we now have 10% perennial in the mix. Come Aug the ice will still be melting out and maybe at quite a fast rate if July thins it down sufficiently. Each year we lose perennial means the follow on year will need less energy to melt out to the same level (as we saw in 08' where an 'average summer' brought us to the second lowest extent and the lowest ever 'volume' of ice).

09' seems to be warmer, in areas, than last year and though we hear of polar temps remaining a 0c for the longest in 100yrs (in other areas) it does not seem to have impacted the rate of ice loss to date and if it has it is a good job it has!!!

[Gray-Wolf]

Ossie your wrong, I admit AGW as had an effect on the temperature rises we experienced, 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?

I would think that the majority of folk accept the part that the 'natural drivers' play in global climate. Even the organisations who measure and predict future AGW impacts accept that climate will fluctuate twixt hot and cold but ,and this is the important part, the underlying global temperature trend will be upwards (above and beyond natural variation).

As you know I feel that we should look more to the worst case scenario of the IPCC to get a feel for the changes we are to accrue. No matter what the politicians spout it will be B.A.U., in so far as global outputs of GHG's, and so we are faced with a planet groaning to rapidly adjust to the new GHG concentrations in the atmosphere (as the planet has done in the past when nature has conspired to push huge amounts of GHG's into the atmosphere).Past warmings have started (due to combinations of natural cycles) without CO2 increases but ,after a lag, natural feedback mechanisms have then increases the GHG levels.

This time around humans have hoodwinked the planet into thinking it is already in the second phase of warming (when the CO2 levels rise naturally enhancing temp increases) where as in reality we still have nature's load of GHG's to add into the increases we have implemented (methane levels should prove interesting this Nov as an area of bog the size of France and Germany soaks up 32c heat in northern Siberia).

Edited July 10, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[MR EXTREMES]

to be honest i dont really want to post this and by no means changes my view on wether future ice recovery is not possible because i feel it is also the story does show melt over a 4year period which could be jumping the gun a little anyway heres the link.

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009...olume_lo_1.html

wether we choose to listen to nasa or not then thats also open to debate because solar activity goal post movement springs to my mind and this suggests they not always correct.

infact gray wolf i think my link suggests more that it is natural well thats what the mighty nasa says anyway.

quote:The research team attributes the changes in the overall thickness and volume of Arctic Ocean sea ice to the recent warming and anomalies in patterns of sea ice circulation.

Edited July 10, 2009 by badboy657

[Iceberg]

I think it's a very accurate piece and you won't find many that disagree with it.

"The research team attributes the changes in the overall thickness and volume of Arctic Ocean sea ice to the recent warming and anomalies in patterns of sea ice circulation"

As you point out the above sentence says it all a combination of warming and circulation changes.

i.e a mixture of Polyakov and AGW. Feel free to replace AGW with whatever you like as I am not trying to start an arguement, but that's certaintly my opinion.