Arctic Ice 2009/2010

[Gray-Wolf]

People can cry wolf only so many times and of course this could mean its too late if/when the wolf comes.

Anyway back to 'spin'

I have NEVER seen the arctic ice RECOVERY have such a steep upward curve this century? Amazing recovery. (See redline)

http://www.ijis.iarc...aice_extent.htm

Leave the Wolf outa this!!!

Yes, quite a steep line ant the moment,long may it continue eh?

As for the overall condition of the ice ? well, I think we may have different views on this Stew

[stewfox]

Leave the Wolf outa this!!!

Yes, quite a steep line ant the moment,long may it continue eh?

As for the overall condition of the ice ? well, I think we may have different views on this Stew

All joking aside.

I think someone posted about 50 posts ago the real tests will be march/april re max ice extent and next September re min.

The rest is spin.

One thing I did find interesting is, if the ice does become more fragmented then the ijis I believe im correct in saying measures sea areas with greater then 15% ice cover ?.

Their figs might hide the true nature of the ice and its robustness?

[oldsnowywizard]

you might want to look at 2006 in Oct... now that was the steepest upward curve :blink:

[Skiwi]

I apologize I wasn't taking the Mickey I was making comment on your spin (I apologize to any polar bears who were offended as well).

The problem with alarmist reporting (I'm talking generally here) is when it's replicated through the media it tends after a while to switch the people off who it was aimed for.

So when they don't see the arctic free of ice by summer of 2012 they think all is well.

People can cry wolf only so many times and of course this could mean its too late if/when the wolf comes.

Anyway back to 'spin'

I have NEVER seen the arctic ice RECOVERY have such a steep upward curve this century? Amazing recovery. (See redline)

http://www.ijis.iarc...aice_extent.htm

Thats alright mate. No problem

Yea i couldn't agree more. amazingly fast increase over the last few days. Looks unlikely to continue unfortunatley with warm air moving over the Barents sea in the next fews days. Nonetheless, the last few days have been very positive. A couple more days of strong increases and things will be looking much much better! Lets hope it continues!

Edited November 17, 2009 by Skiwi

[laserguy]

I have NEVER seen the arctic ice RECOVERY have such a steep upward curve this century? Amazing recovery. (See redline)

http://www.ijis.iarc...aice_extent.htm

If,and when it punches thru' the knot of other year-lines,do you think it'll be on the BBC news at whenever,with pictures of rejoicing polar bears replete with champagne,having a knees-up?

[Gray-Wolf]

If,and when it punches thru' the knot of other year-lines,do you think it'll be on the BBC news at whenever,with pictures of rejoicing polar bears replete with champagne,having a knees-up?

Not really , by then we'll have noted that the recent storms have just framented, and drifted, the pack edges so as to qualify for 15% cover yet without any real change in the amount of frozen sea in the Arctic Basin taking place ...........well OSW said there'd be a couple of big storms up there over the past week didn't he? S'gonna mess up some of the pack now isn't it?

Anyhoo's aren't those pesky Bears retiring to their snow holes around now?( prior to their untimely collapse, due to ever earlier melts,and snuffing out their icky bicky cubs?)

Edited November 18, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Mr Maunder]

Not really , by then we'll have noted that the recent storms have just framented, and drifted, the pack edges so as to qualify for 15% cover yet without any real change in the amount of frozen sea in the Arctic Basin taking place

So are you saying we should ignore all the figures for 2003-2008 because this has only ever happened in 2009!?

No, I don't think you are saying that - but it just makes the point (if it needs making!) that every years figures are affected by "weather" during their progress from minimum to maximum. Trying to make any real sense from a week or two's figures is a mugs game (Not that I am saying you are a mug!!).

MM

[Thundery wintry showers]

The lack of ice growth and joint record low (for mid November) doesn't surprise me.

Early October had a deep low with a warm core to the north of Norway, which brought cold northerlies to parts of north-western Europe but had the pole and the Asian sector in unusually warm air, and the vigorous input of southerlies into Asia prevented the usual cold pooling from forming.

Since mid October, the Siberian High has had a strong presence, keeping much of central and eastern Asia unusually cold for this early in the season, and cold northerlies have been frequent over the USA resulting in above average Northern Hemisphere snow cover. But in the areas where we normally expect to see major ice formation on our side of the Arctic, there has been persistent warm southerlies, keeping temperatures in those areas well above average.

I don't think the Arctic as a whole has been exceptionally warm this season, but rather the pattern of warm and cold anomalies has been very bad for ice formation in the usual areas.

[Gray-Wolf]

Mr M. The pack has never been this thin ,across it's extent, before!

It's like me dropping a brick into my water butt after a light ,-3, frost compared to me dropping one in after an ice week with constant -9c nights.

I would imagine one brick would smash through and the other one to bounce!!!

If you can imagine ice so thin that the swell can transmit through it.Would you expect fragmentation as larger,thicker chunks were 'bobbled' in it by the swell?

With a thick skin of ice the swell is effectively damped out.

It would be useful to know what thickness of ice will dampen out wave action and what thickness allows the ice to plasticly deform as the swell passes under it (I think!)

[oldsnowywizard]

Mr M. The pack has never been this thin ,across it's extent, before!

It's like me dropping a brick into my water butt after a light ,-3, frost compared to me dropping one in after an ice week with constant -9c nights.

hey GW the first statement needs backing up with facts please, the word never is incorrect in this context. Im not sure your experiment is relevant considering that arctic temps range from -9 to -25 at this time of year. unless your context is of course fringe areas, where you would expect there to be thinner ice...

back to current conditions and we are back with the main pack

[Gray-Wolf]

hey GW the first statement needs backing up with facts please, the word never is incorrect in this context. Im not sure your experiment is relevant considering that arctic temps range from -9 to -25 at this time of year. unless your context is of course fringe areas, where you would expect there to be thinner ice...

Oh you pedant Mr M.!

My water butt isn't salt water either!

We were discussing (or so I thought) the IJIS records and the performance of the pack over the winters listed there?

The study By GRACE and ICESat, of the pack thickness since 03' ,would suggest that both the loss of the majority of the perennial and the general failure of the 'new' multiyear to grow to the thickness that it used to leaves us with a very depleted pack (mass wise) so both the thinly spread pack (as noted by NSIDC over July and Aug's melt) and this failure of new Multiyear to put on thickness leaves us with a pack that has never been as uniformly thin (over the IJIS monitored period).

[stewfox]

ame='oldsnowywizard' date='19 November 2009 - 08:04 ' timestamp='1258617858' post='1616132']

Oh you pedant Mr M.!

My water butt isn't salt water either!

We were discussing (or so I thought) the IJIS records and the performance of the pack over the winters listed there?

The study By GRACE and ICESat, of the pack thickness since 03' ,would suggest that both the loss of the majority of the perennial and the general failure of the 'new' multiyear to grow to the thickness that it used to leaves us with a very depleted pack (mass wise) so both the thinly spread pack (as noted by NSIDC over July and Aug's melt) and this failure of new Multiyear to put on thickness leaves us with a pack that has never been as uniformly thin (over the IJIS monitored period).

Agree , how did you get the brick to 'bounce off' the ice ??

Anyway ice back on tract , back here in March to get a up date

[Nick B]

If you can imagine ice so thin that the swell can transmit through it.Would you expect fragmentation as larger,thicker chunks were 'bobbled' in it by the swell?

With a thick skin of ice the swell is effectively damped out.

It would be useful to know what thickness of ice will dampen out wave action and what thickness allows the ice to plasticly deform as the swell passes under it (I think!)

Actually, I would be surprised if someone somewhere hasn't carried out such research. It would be interesting to learn what the findings were. Difficult to establish any sort of control, given so many variables such as weather conditions including cloud cover, warmth of sea current, variability of ice thickness over small areas etc. but if carried out over a long enough period and careful measurement of as many variables were taken often the results might be worthwhile knowing...

[Gray-Wolf]

Actually, I would be surprised if someone somewhere hasn't carried out such research. It would be interesting to learn what the findings were. Difficult to establish any sort of control, given so many variables such as weather conditions including cloud cover, warmth of sea current, variability of ice thickness over small areas etc. but if carried out over a long enough period and careful measurement of as many variables were taken often the results might be worthwhile knowing...

I suppose some of the institutes that do scale testing in those big wave tanks could have a go with materials of similar properties. I think maybe real ice would be out of the question, when scaled down to the size required, but I am sure there will be other man made materials with the same qualities and properties under P and S wave stresses.Why not just a computer simulation? they do earthquake testing on structures so why not ice failure testing?

Anyway, a tad off topic!

Edited November 19, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[J10]

A much better this week in terms of Ice growth, now above 2006, which really stalled alarmingly at this time.

Full update to appear later.

[J10]

On the IJIS figures Arctic Ice now stands (Provisionally) at 9,103,594, the lowest in the IJIS series and on the combined figures for all 31 years, which remains bad news.

The average growth over the past week has fallen to around 45,000 per day, which is slightly below recent ice growth of 48,000 (2002-2008) and a bit more below longer term ice growth of 64,000 sqkm per day (1979-2007)

We are now 1,191,119 below the 1979-2007 average figures, and 429,297 below 2003-2008 figures.

Up until yesterday, this was a very bad week for ice growth, with a real stall in growth, however yesterday growth did show decent growth.

Ice growth remains a problem especially around the Barents Sea and the Chuckchi Seas. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ , and Tropical Maritime airflow from the mid Atlantic to high latitudes north of Norway for the next few days hardly helps ice growth either.

On the IJIS figures Arctic Ice now stands at 9,752,188, we have moved above the 2006 figures and are now 6th in the series of 7 in the IJIS series and 30th out of 31st on the combined figures for all 31 years.

The average growth over the past week has risen to around 92,000 per day, which is well above recent ice growth of 52,000 (2002-2008) and longer term ice growth of 58,000 sqkm per day (1979-2007)

We are now 949,855 below the 1979-2007 average figures, and 144,641 below 2003-2008 figures.

At last there are signs of Ice growth around the Kara Sea and the Chuckchi Seas,, hopefully this can extend to the Barents Sea area soon.

Arctic Ice Autumn 2009.xls

[stewfox]

I see the arctic ice continues to recover and is well in side 'the bunch', now past 10m sqkm2 with another 3.5 to 4 months of continued growth all things look well up there.

http://www.ijis.iarc...aice_extent.htm

Its holding up in the 'christmas pudding', how would this compare to the 70s ??

Ps let's hope if the recovery does continue the BBC doesn't invert the graph

[laserguy]

Ps let's hope if the recovery does continue the BBC doesn't invert the graph

Many a true word spoken in jest?!

[J10]

On the IJIS figures Arctic Ice now stands at 9,752,188, we have moved above the 2006 figures and are now 6th in the series of 7 in the IJIS series and 30th out of 31st on the combined figures for all 31 years.

The average growth over the past week has risen to around 92,000 per day, which is well above recent ice growth of 52,000 (2002-2008) and longer term ice growth of 58,000 sqkm per day (1979-2007)

We are now 949,855 below the 1979-2007 average figures, and 144,641 below 2003-2008 figures.

At last there are signs of Ice growth around the Kara Sea and the Chuckchi Seas,, hopefully this can extend to the Barents Sea area soon.

Arctic Ice Autumn 2009.xls

On the (Provisional) IJIS figures Arctic Ice now stands at 10,362,813, we have moved above the 2007 figures and are now 5th in the series of 7 in the IJIS series and 29th out of 31st on the combined figures for all 31 years.

The average growth over the past week has fallen to around 87,000 per day, which is well above recent ice growth of 63,000 (2002-2008) and longer term ice growth of 67,000 sqkm per day (1979-2007)

We are now 808,421 below the 1979-2007 average figures, and 23,360 above 2003-2008 figures.

At last there are signs of Ice growth around the Kara Sea and the Chuckchi Seas, hopefully this can extend to the Barents Sea area soon.

[Pingo]

We now seem to be at one of the "pinch points" where there is little variation year-to-year. It is hard to tell from autumnal advance where the Arctic extent is heading.

[Gray-Wolf]

We now seem to be at one of the "pinch points" where there is little variation year-to-year. It is hard to tell from autumnal advance where the Arctic extent is heading.

Were we playing with the good ole' thick pack of yesteryear I'd tend to agree but we are not are we?

Why make statements pertaining to yesteryear when looking at the present? (or did the past 5 years not happen? )

[Pingo]

Were we playing with the good ole' thick pack of yesteryear I'd tend to agree but we are not are we?

Why make statements pertaining to yesteryear when looking at the present? (or did the past 5 years not happen? )

I'm not sure I understand this comment. I've not been at these forums long so forgive me if I miss an inside comment. Arctic sea ice is very volatile, and has been growing significantly the last two years.

[winterfreak]

I saw this and thought i'd post it for musing......

http://go2.wordpress...21542%2C00.html

Arctic warming and cooling solar cyclical apparently :unsure: as observed by Russian chap.

Edited November 30, 2009 by winterfreak

[BARRY]

well he is in a better position to comment than anybody else on here, How can you argue with his comments, But i suppose some one will.

[stewfox]

I'm not sure I understand this comment. I've not been at these forums long so forgive me if I miss an inside comment. Arctic sea ice is very volatile, and has been growing significantly the last two years.

Yes but some people dont like facts just spin