Arctic Ice 2009/2010

[Devonian]

Open question.

If we see true fragmentation /break up of the pack ice core in the next 20 yrs with more 'drifting off' then the assumption is IJIS could put some 'final spurts' into the equation with far more drift ice reflected into the IJJS figs??.

If the Artic ice becomes more mobile could we see more 18m of fragmented ice end March 2015 drifting off into the Titantic sea lanes ?

....

Sounds unlikely to me since the ice would be thin first year ice? I think icebergs that make it to the area you mention are bits of glacier not actual sea ice, no sea ice is going to get that far south before melting?

[Gray-Wolf]

The edges of the pack that reform over winter will always be seasonal and it is their break up and drift that folk mistake for a 'growth spurt' .Check the IJIS plots for any 'final spurts' at winters end and you'll see them.Seeing as it ties in with the spring tides you'll also note that they differ in timing to correspond with these tidal forcings.

The corruption of the pack ,over the past 2 summers, is a continuation of the tipping point we encountered in 07' with the melt ,slumping and spread of the last big ice islands of perennial (as witnessed last autumn by the Barber mission. If you imagine the same as what occurred to his multi mile chunk of perennial across all of the remnant pack you'll see that there is a lot of room for collapse and spread.

This is of course leading to a point where the ice figures are not 'subsidised' by collapse as that ice will be gone and so we will be left with a thin pack which will just melt away over summer. The new 'mobility' means lots more ice will come into contact with warmer waters as it circulates on the arctic Gyre. With 8 or 9 years of very different ice conditions we should ,by now, be entering a phase where the new extensions of the Pacific water influx ,in through Bering, and the Atlantic, between Sweden and Svalbard, will also make their presence ever more noticeable.

The mixing of the stratified levels of the Arctic also lead to warmer waters at the surface and we have seen open waters on the Siberian side for over 7 years now.Ever wondered why the methane releases on the continental shelf permafrost on that side of the basin have shown such a large increase recently?

With the Arctic ocean 'waking up' and it's waters mixing we would need exceptional and lengthy cold to allow the layers to reform. With the number of storms entering the basin increasing and penetrating further north what are the chances of such calm? With the 10c isotherm shifting ever north what are the odds of 'cold' entering the system?

Folk think that the demise of the Arctic is purely about floating ice but it is so much more and impacts global circulations of atmosphere and ocean. Like a collapsing dam once the cracks form it's a heck of a job stabilising the collapse. The cracks were there in the 1950's (as the sub data shows) and the dam collapsed in the noughties. We can do no more than watch nature re-establish her new equilibrium. If we continue to force temps up then this 'equilibrium' will have moving goal posts.

[Gray-Wolf]

Sounds unlikely to me since the ice would be thin first year ice? I think icebergs that make it to the area you mention are bits of glacier not actual sea ice, no sea ice is going to get that far south before melting?

I think your right there Dev.

If we take on board the recent findings of sub-tropical waters flushing the fjords around Greenland then we will also realise that the glaciers are being melted (up to 100 times faster than above) from below by this 'warm water' . By the time the snout snaps off it is far less of a berg than we used to have prowling the sea lanes.

Folk still imagine the Arctic as it was and it is no longer that place.

Yes!, it's cold ,Yes! it gets icy over winter but it is now a pale shadow of it's former self.

Why are we seeing 14 million year old permafrost in Siberia melting? If we are seeing merely a rythmic swing of conditions there why have we never melted out this old permafrost in past warm phases???

[Baylor]

Sorry, but where did you get the figure pertaining to 14 mya permafrost? Not sure there is any research to suggest permafrost of that age any where in the world (though I may be wrong).

Edited March 4, 2010 by Baylor

[Devonian]

Sorry, but where did you get the figure pertaining to 14 mya permafrost? Not sure there is any research to suggest permafrost of that age any where in the world (though I may be wrong).

It's a good question and I didn't know the answer. So, I've done some digging and the best answer I've found so far is here "Some carbon has been trapped for hundreds of thousands of years in frozen ground. This occurred during a period of Earth's history called the Pleistocene. The Pleistocene period began 1,800,000 years ago, and ended 10,000 years ago. It was an ice age, meaning that more of Earth's water was frozen than today. The oceans contained less water, and ice sheets and glaciers were much thicker and covered a much larger area than they do today. Some of the ground that froze during this period is still frozen."

[Gray-Wolf]

Sorry, but where did you get the figure pertaining to 14 mya permafrost? Not sure there is any research to suggest permafrost of that age any where in the world (though I may be wrong).

So thought I when I read of it ,which is why the figure sticks in the mind. I thought that the majority of the permafrost was between 11,000 and 2 to 3 million years old but this article quoted Russian scientists studying 14mya old permafrost which was thawing along with the rest of the permafrost.

I know that in Canada ,2 yrs ago , they found a core of very old permafrost that had survived a couple of interglacial but 14mya? that's a long time esp, if it waits until now to begin to melt.

I shall keep looking but I'm off out later so if I don't find it soon It'll be later on. It is only in the past 2 weeks that I came across it so maybe a a quick squizz at the eco news sites will hit gold?

Plenty on the 31% increase in Arctic methane output over the years 03 to 07 though! I wonder what the latest figures there will be?

[stewfox]

I think your right there Dev.

If we take on board the recent findings of sub-tropical waters flushing the fjords around Greenland then we will also realise that the glaciers are being melted (up to 100 times faster than above) from below by this 'warm water' . By the time the snout snaps off it is far less of a berg than we used to have prowling the sea lanes.

Folk still imagine the Arctic as it was and it is no longer that place.

Yes!, it's cold ,Yes! it gets icy over winter but it is now a pale shadow of it's former self.

Out of pure interest.

So what would you expect from IJIS say in 2020

Max at 12m and mins a 2m.

A graph that fits the current pattern but max get lower, mins lower with some variation year to year.

Do you see say in 2030 max 8m (will always get a re freeze) but then maybe 500k or 1m in summer.

One year there is no measurable sea ice at the end of the summer or at least based on IJIS measurements.

We get rapid re freeze but its all thin 1yr ice which will melt more redily in the following summer and we could be ice free in the summer eventually by mid July rather then mid August ??

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Stew! I think by 2020 they will be measuring such things differently (some notion of the running volume of ice?) so max 'extent' will be more of an interest measurement.

If we experience the type of warming the IPCC B.A.U. scenario paints then we would be looking at trans polar warm current penetration so even winter ice figures will be poor with open water and slush over many areas of the high arctic. When the earth has had an winter ice free pole sea temps seem to have been less zoned, (tropical /subtropical/temperate/polar) and more ubiquitous, across the globe giving the Pole positive temps across the planet. In 2 hundred years time this may be the picture up north?

As for summer ice I think your assesment of remnant bits and bobs over late summer is probably about right.

EDIT: http://www.uaf.edu/news/news/20100303192545.html

It seems we have an answer as to how much methane has increased across the Arctic since 07'.

If the Arctic basin is already producing as much methane as the rest of earth oceans and there is a upwards of a 10% spike (above base levels for the Arctic) across the siberian continental shelf then we are already in pretty poor shape.

For those who do not believe that earths positive feedbacks can dwarf human contibutions to climate shift then watch this space!! With Methane being over 21 times more powerful than CO2 then a blanket over the pole is not to be wished for.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[BornFromTheVoid]

Sea ice extent now at 14,294,688 km2. Just 70,000km2 off 2004 and 118,000km2 off 2009. 2003 is still a good distance ahead with about 500,000km2 more.

Won't take much to reach the second highest extent in 7 years. As Gray-Wolf has pointed out though, we won't know the strength of the current pack until around next September, but if it continues the improvement of the last 2 years I think we can start feeling a lot more hopeful.

[stewfox]

Sea ice extent now at 14,294,688 km2. Just 70,000km2 off 2004 and 118,000km2 off 2009. 2003 is still a good distance ahead with about 500,000km2 more.

Won't take much to reach the second highest extent in 7 years. As Gray-Wolf has pointed out though, we won't know the strength of the current pack until around next September, but if it continues the improvement of the last 2 years I think we can start feeling a lot more hopeful.

14,314,375 Km2 upto the 5th March , I fear I might have underestimated the final figure a day or two ago

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

It wont of course have much effect on final out come e.g 2003 but at least no 'winter suprises'.

[Gray-Wolf]

Have you cared to look at the ice recently Stew? I'd refer you back to the last post but you'd ignore it.

Ice is now loose and floating in all the usual places and the ice NW of Svalbard is also on the move (with visible 'clear' between).

And then you wonder about my concerns of folk crying 'recovery' when the pack lets go and melts........

[BornFromTheVoid]

Is the Baltic sea taken into account for N Hemisphere sea ice on the IJIS or Cryosphere Today sites?

[guitarnutter]

Yes

[Gray-Wolf]

And the ice around the northern China archipelago is included too! Because of the cold that some continental U.S./Eurasia has suffered we have more coastal ice in some areas than is common.

You can see from the IJIS plot that we are seeing 'something' occurring at the moment.

With the light nights now upon us and warmer temps arriving at the southernmost areas of the Arctic region you'll need to ask yourself 'where' this rapid growth can be occurring (seeing as the basin is 'full').

[Thundery wintry showers]

I saw a graph of NH summer minimum ice extent in the Guardian last week- it suffices to say that if the slight recovery continues for another couple of years we will be right back on the trendline of NH ice extent depletion that the IPCC predicted in their most recent Report. This in itself suggests that some people may have been premature in insisting that their projections were well wide of the mark- there is still time for this to change.

[jethro]

Trouble is though, it doesn't actually say a great deal about AGW at all. The predominant factor influencing ice extent is the Arctic Oscillation; both the drastic loss of ice a couple of summers ago and the warmth up there this winter is a direct result of the AO.

Too much is read into the Arctic when it comes to AGW in my opinion, amount of ice isn't, never has been and never will be a reliable measure of AGW. It's probably one of the biggest red herrings in this entire debate.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Trouble is though, it doesn't actually say a great deal about AGW at all. The predominant factor influencing ice extent is the Arctic Oscillation; both the drastic loss of ice a couple of summers ago and the warmth up there this winter is a direct result of the AO.

Too much is read into the Arctic when it comes to AGW in my opinion, amount of ice isn't, never has been and never will be a reliable measure of AGW. It's probably one of the biggest red herrings in this entire debate.

Absolutely what I was thinking. A melting Arctic may be indicative of a warming world, but it says absolutely nothing as to the causes of that warming. I have seen this kind of conclusion drawn even in scientific papers; that somehow proof of a warming world is proof of man-made warming.

Drives me potty!

CB

[Thundery wintry showers]

I have no arguments with either of the above two posts- indeed in the past I've occasionally raised the same point myself.

Re. the scientific papers, I think when they link ice melt to AGW they use climate models to simulate patterns of ice melt, one set with anthropogenic focings included, and one with them excluded, and then show that according to the models, the rate of melt can only be accurately reproduced with the AGW included. Thus we can link it with AGW if the models are simulating the atmosphere and Arctic ice response correctly, and aren't reaching the correct answer by accident, but given the large extent of short-term variability due to the AO, plus additional forcing from aerosols etc, it's quite a big "if" in this case.

There was certainly one paper from early last year relating to Antarctica warming up and this only being explicable with the inclusion of AGW, which upon scrutiny was full of confirmation bias, cherry-picking timeframes which showed warming over Antarctica and masking the overall long-term trend which is far less clear-cut. Unfortunately I can't remember exactly which one- there have been quite a few on this subject over the last couple of years, reaching differing conclusions.

[Gray-Wolf]

So , we have a block of 'old perennial 10m by 10m by 7m thick and it shatters into 2m by 10m by 7m slabs due to basal attack by warmer sea water and pneumatic hammering by new wave action.

How much more 'extent' does the rotten ice now cover?

I think by the time Dr Barbers new maps of the arctic are produced and new algorithms are devised to distinguish between rotten and old perennial we'll see the type of 'recovery' we have been undergoing these past 2 years.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

So , we have a block of 'old perennial 10m by 10m by 7m thick and it shatters into 2m by 10m by 7m slabs due to basal attack by warmer sea water and pneumatic hammering by new wave action.

How much more 'extent' does the rotten ice now cover?

I think by the time Dr Barbers new maps of the arctic are produced and new algorithms are devised to distinguish between rotten and old perennial we'll see the type of 'recovery' we have been undergoing these past 2 years.

Aren't you basing that on really rather large presumptions?

[Gray-Wolf]

Aren't you basing that on really rather large presumptions?

So if we meet half way where does that place your assumptions?

It does make me a little frazzled to read all I read of the changes up there when I then meet with folk who talk of 'recovery'. Do any of you really know the resource we have watched disappear over the past 7 years with the loss of the central core perennial?

I am a bear of very little brain and it scares the bejeebbers outa me!

If (and yes it's an 'if') we have been watching the collapse of the final island of perennial and calling the mess a recovery then what?

Dr Barbers 'heads up' and the new maps will show us who is correct in their concerns /lack of concerns but I fear that the results will be all to obvious over this summer.

[jethro]

So if we meet half way where does that place your assumptions?

It does make me a little frazzled to read all I read of the changes up there when I then meet with folk who talk of 'recovery'. Do any of you really know the resource we have watched disappear over the past 7 years with the loss of the central core perennial?

I am a bear of very little brain and it scares the bejeebbers outa me!

If (and yes it's an 'if') we have been watching the collapse of the final island of perennial and calling the mess a recovery then what?

Dr Barbers 'heads up' and the new maps will show us who is correct in their concerns /lack of concerns but I fear that the results will be all to obvious over this summer.

My only assumtion is that Arctic ice is never constant.

I see no meaningful benefit in scrutinising the loss/growth of seasonal ice and then interpreting the figures as a measurement of AGW. It isn't.

Global temperatures are the only real measure of a warming world; extrapolating that warmth and then assigning each change, (in an ever changing environment such as the Arctic), as representative of AGW is not only unscientific but fraught with gross inaccuracies.

To me, it makes as much sense as saying the NH has had a cold winter, so the world must be cooling.

[Gray-Wolf]

My only assumption is that Arctic ice is never constant.

I see no meaningful benefit in scrutinising the loss/growth of seasonal ice and then interpreting the figures as a measurement of AGW. It isn't.

Global temperatures are the only real measure of a warming world; extrapolating that warmth and then assigning each change, (in an ever changing environment such as the Arctic), as representative of AGW is not only unscientific but fraught with gross inaccuracies.

To me, it makes as much sense as saying the NH has had a cold winter, so the world must be cooling.

But it isn't that is it J? The seasonal flux of the ice has it's own interest (in terms of it's current reducing trend) but the larger scale changes , year on year, are what are important.

We have to ask the difficult questions like why are we changing the makeup of ice across the pole (young ice now over 60% as opposed to the traditional 60% of perennial ice) , lost ice shelfs along Ellesmere island coast, glacier and ice sheet alterations in Greenland, permafrost melt and erosion, changes in sea temp, changes in atmospheric circulations, changes in ocean PH, changes in ocean stratification.

If we know all the above have remained stable for , in some cases, over 1.4 million years then what drives the changes we are measuring? What is the logical conclusion of the changes we measure. How will that impact us globally?

I do adhere to the notion that Polar regions playing a major role in global climate so changes there will impact the whole globe over time.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[sunny starry skies]

But it isn't that is it J? The seasonal flux of the ice has it's own interest (in terms of it's current reducing trend) but the larger scale changes , year on year, are what is important. We have to ask the difficult questions like why are we changing the makeup of ice across the pole (young ice now over 60% as opposed to the traditional 60% of perennial ice) , lost ice shelfs along Ellesmere island coast, glacier and ice sheet alterations in Greenland, permafrost melt and erosion, changes in sea temp, changes in atmospheric circulations, changes in ocean PH, changes in ocean stratification.

If we know all the above have remained stable for , in some cases, over 1.4 million years then what drives the changes we are measuring? What is the logical conclusion of the changes we measure. How will that impact us globally?

I do adhere to the notion that Polar regions playing a major role in global climate so changes there will impact the whole globe over time.

I think I agree and disagree in equal measure to both G-W and Jethro here. Arctic ice chagnes are a consequence, not a cause of warming, but they are part of the albedo feedback, and so rapid losses are a more serious issue. Global temperatures are the most important measure of a warming world, but not the only one. Ice measures of change are perfectly valid if they are time-integrated, which I think is relevant for the changes in old multi-year ice, the loss of old ice shelves, and the recession of glaciers. Each of these systems has a response time of years to decades, and so is not just responding to one or two random hot years. Trends in short-lived as well as long-lived ice are also important. They do just tell us about the region, not the globe, and we have to then make the assessment of how that pattern fits in with what we expect of AGW or any proposed altrernative theory.

sss

[jethro]

You have to take into account the impact black, sooty deposits have had on albedo reduction though - it's gauged to have been THE most important factor. I know they're not natural and can come under the umbrella of AGW as we're responsible, but it's not a measure of a warmer world or warmer oceans, which is how ice loss is always portrayed.

SSS, are you familiar with the Arctic studies from Polyakov?