Arctic Ice 2009/2010

[Gray-Wolf]

I would hazard a guess that both the weight, and the mass, of the ice in the arctic today is not only the lowest we (modern man) has ever recorded but also since before the onset of last major Glaciation.

It's extent (be it 15% of a pixel or 30%) may be the lower end of the past 7 years worth of data (and having another wobble I see) but the loss of perennial (and an average of 4m thickness of ice since the 1950's) has brought us to a Arctic last seen before the Arctic became ice free over summer.

The Arctic gyre and trans Arctic current will show us all how this new type of brittle pack acts over winter seasons that aren't blessed with positive cold conditions but rather with a disruptive, stormy El-Nino driven winter (and the new propensity for those storms to manifest ever further north).

As for the Russians shouldn't they be wondering why we see no decay in the mega fauna that keeps popping out of their permafrost if it is constantly being thawed out? Or why there northern coastline shows no evidence of he kind of weathering the rivers/sea do to thawed permafrost until the recent past.

An array of environmental 'evidence' points to this currnt Arctic 'thaw' being unprecedented since before the last ice age (be it exposure of rocks that used to be covered with ice shelfs for tens of thousands of years or changes in diatoms or Foram's,solufluction issues,changes to temperate flora/fauna etc.).

Sure, long cycle solar could be a major temp driver but what of large flushes of GHG's in the atmosphere whilst the sun drives temps up? would the same pattern occur as in the past or would the GHG's alter the amount of heat held onto by the planet?

As with every other natural driver it's not that they are there but rather the fact we have increased (and keep on increasing) the planets potential to hold onto that heat (and risking all the positive feedbacks we know occur when temps advance too high).

[winterfreak]

I would hazard a guess that both the weight, and the mass, of the ice in the arctic today is not only the lowest we (modern man) has ever recorded but also since before the onset of last major Glaciation.

It's extent (be it 15% of a pixel or 30%) may be the lower end of the past 7 years worth of data (and having another wobble I see) but the loss of perennial (and an average of 4m thickness of ice since the 1950's) has brought us to a Arctic last seen before the Arctic became ice free over summer.

The Arctic gyre and trans Arctic current will show us all how this new type of brittle pack acts over winter seasons that aren't blessed with positive cold conditions but rather with a disruptive, stormy El-Nino driven winter (and the new propensity for those storms to manifest ever further north).

As for the Russians shouldn't they be wondering why we see no decay in the mega fauna that keeps popping out of their permafrost if it is constantly being thawed out? Or why there northern coastline shows no evidence of he kind of weathering the rivers/sea do to thawed permafrost until the recent past.

An array of environmental 'evidence' points to this currnt Arctic 'thaw' being unprecedented since before the last ice age (be it exposure of rocks that used to be covered with ice shelfs for tens of thousands of years or changes in diatoms or Foram's,solufluction issues,changes to temperate flora/fauna etc.).

Sure, long cycle solar could be a major temp driver but what of large flushes of GHG's in the atmosphere whilst the sun drives temps up? would the same pattern occur as in the past or would the GHG's alter the amount of heat held onto by the planet?

As with every other natural driver it's not that they are there but rather the fact we have increased (and keep on increasing) the planets potential to hold onto that heat (and risking all the positive feedbacks we know occur when temps advance too high).

Could I raise a couple of issues please GW?

Why are you so quick to dismiss this chaps 40 year real time, first hand experiences of the Arctic when apparently nearly everyone else relies on 30 yr satellite observations. Perhaps your own first hand experiences of the Arctic region are better than his?

Second re positive feedbacks leading to 'cooking' of the planet:

I believe (although happy to be corrected) that co2 concentrations have been up to 8000 ppm in Earth's history with average temps some 6 deg c higher than present. Why, with these scenarios didn't we end up with multiple positive feedbacks that ended life on Earth ?:smiliz19:

Edited December 1, 2009 by winterfreak

[Gray-Wolf]

Could I raise a couple of issues please GW?

Why are you so quick to dismiss this chaps 40 year real time, first hand experiences of the Arctic when apparently nearly everyone else relies on 30 yr satellite observations. Perhaps your own first hand experiences of the Arctic region are better than his?

Second re positive feedbacks leading to 'cooking' of the planet:

I believe (although happy to be corrected) that co2 concentrations have been up to 8000 ppm in Earth's history with average temps some 6 deg c higher than present. Why, with these scenarios didn't we end up with multiple positive feedbacks that ended life on Earth ?

Hi Winterfreak!

As I'm often reminded in here that 40 yrs is nothing in climate terms so we really must expand things over centuries to see if we have cyclical major retreats (ice free Arctic) over extended periods.

Such records lead us to the understanding that an 'ice free Arctic' is a rare state of affairs for the planet over the last 55 million years.

If you've watched the russian coastline over the past 10yrs or so you'll have noticed just how 'milky' some areas get over summer.This discolouration comes from the erosion of the permafrost that the rivers pass through as it and pick it up as load.On reaching the sea the saline conditions cause the clay minerals to coagulate and then drop out of the load leaving a layer of clay/fine sand in front of the rivers exit.More melt ,more erosion,more deposits.Like tree rings the annual deposition of these varves can be cored and studied.We don't find any periods of cyclical extended melt to suggest a mirror of the events we are currently in the midst of.

Seen any prog's on the Basking shark? Each spring they head north following the annual 'algal bloom', up past Cornwall past The Western isles and north. This particular type of algae favours a pretty tight temp range which is why we see it travel north as the waters warm in spring.Many such 'thermometers' exist in our oceans and each type exists in a narrow band of environmental conditions.Their remains sink to the sea floor on death and leave a record of temp conditions in the ocean muds.Some prefer sunlight, others live under the ice.we don't find temperate algae or open water algae ,in cyclical layers, suggesting such conditions existed in the mud logs we take from the Arctic waters.

Foramoniferra are sea creatures with spiral shells (and very pretty) Water temps dictate which type of foram lives in which area.Some shells spiral one way others, the opposite way.Comes a temp change then a different species moves into the area (seeing as they do not live long this 'change' of species happens quite rapidly) and the mud logs show us the change.We do not find any evidence of any long cycle warm/cool phase changes in the Arctic muds.

When rock is exposed to sunlight the energy messes with the components of the rock, take away the sunlight and these components start to alter (through their 1/2 life) into differing forms. When an ice sheet/shelf covers an area the bedrock is isolated from the sunlight and it's 'clock' starts ticking. In the same way that we know when the last time the Antarctic shelf systems were not there we can tell how long it has been since the Arctic bedrock has seen sunlight.The Stretch of ice shelfs running along Ellesmere Island (North of Greenland) has lost 3/4 of it's shelf ice since 1950.The rocks exposed there haven't seen sunlight since before the start of the last major glaciation. Why no evidence of long cycle Arctic temperature oscillation there?

Woolly Mammoths and Rhino's, Giant Elk and Aurochs.All are found deep frozen in the Alaskan/Siberian Tundra. As it melts they start to rot and their bones are deposited in the streams eroding the Tundra.If we see regular cyclical melting in the high Arctic then the corpses we come across would show signs of previous melting (and associated bacterial activity in their bodies). We don't find any suggesting that these critters have remained deep frozen for the 15-30 thousand years of their entombment.

I would be more than happy to be shown irrefutable evidence (at least strong enough to rival the above listing) that we are in the middle of an normal,cyclical Arctic melt. Thus far the evidence shows we are not and we are seeing an ice retreat unrivalled since the start of the last ice age.

Seeing as temps are supposed (and were until recently) to be on the wind down to the next glacial period (we are physically past our 'closest' approaches to the sun in the Milankovich cycle) then why are we seeing such continued warming up there?

I believe that we are not far from the point of ALL seeing , beyond reasonable doubt, that the changes in the Arctic are 'new' and not part of any extended cyclical response to an external driver(s).Sadly the Arctic was always to be the first to show the impacts of AGW.If we confirm (beyond reasonable doubt) it's occurrence there the temperate regions will not be far behind in showing us irrefutable proof of AGW either.By which time it'll be too late to do anything about it other than mitigate it's impacts on humanity.

Though extremely fast in geological terms the energy needed to start to over-ride the planets climate is immense but ,like an oil tanker, once in motion it's own impetus makes it very hard to slow/stop.Many of the changes will only become undeniably apparent once AGW is in 'motion' and ,by then, it'll be to late to 'stop'.

The planet has been here before and will adjust (and self limit) the impacts of this forced warm up .I do not give credence to any 'runaway warming' scenario.We know that at certain GHG concentrations we can see 6c of warming.Are we headed in that direction?

EDIT: Feedbacks;

I was thinking more in line of CO2/Methane releases from the melted permafrost accelerating any warming we see.I was thinking open 'dark water' leading to more heat being absorbed in the arctic leading to later 'refreeze' (as the heat needs to be lost prior to refreeze) and weaker pack development (as we see today???). I was thinking northerly tracking of cyclones bringing more moisture /heat into the polar basin.I was thinking Forrest/peat fires as temps rise in the arctic leading to more soot deposits/CO2 releases.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[winterfreak]

Hi Winterfreak!

As I'm often reminded in here that 40 yrs is nothing in climate terms so we really must expand things over centuries to see if we have cyclical major retreats (ice free Arctic) over extended periods.

Such records lead us to the understanding that an 'ice free Arctic' is a rare state of affairs for the planet over the last 55 million years.

If you've watched the russian coastline over the past 10yrs or so you'll have noticed just how 'milky' some areas get over summer.This discolouration comes from the erosion of the permafrost that the rivers pass through as it and pick it up as load.On reaching the sea the saline conditions cause the clay minerals to coagulate and then drop out of the load leaving a layer of clay/fine sand in front of the rivers exit.More melt ,more erosion,more deposits.Like tree rings the annual deposition of these varves can be cored and studied.We don't find any periods of cyclical extended melt to suggest a mirror of the events we are currently in the midst of.

Seen any prog's on the Basking shark? Each spring they head north following the annual 'algal bloom', up past Cornwall past The Western isles and north. This particular type of algae favours a pretty tight temp range which is why we see it travel north as the waters warm in spring.Many such 'thermometers' exist in our oceans and each type exists in a narrow band of environmental conditions.Their remains sink to the sea floor on death and leave a record of temp conditions in the ocean muds.Some prefer sunlight, others live under the ice.we don't find temperate algae or open water algae ,in cyclical layers, suggesting such conditions existed in the mud logs we take from the Arctic waters.

Foramoniferra are sea creatures with spiral shells (and very pretty) Water temps dictate which type of foram lives in which area.Some shells spiral one way others, the opposite way.Comes a temp change then a different species moves into the area (seeing as they do not live long this 'change' of species happens quite rapidly) and the mud logs show us the change.We do not find any evidence of any long cycle warm/cool phase changes in the Arctic muds.

When rock is exposed to sunlight the energy messes with the components of the rock, take away the sunlight and these components start to alter (through their 1/2 life) into differing forms. When an ice sheet/shelf covers an area the bedrock is isolated from the sunlight and it's 'clock' starts ticking. In the same way that we know when the last time the Antarctic shelf systems were not there we can tell how long it has been since the Arctic bedrock has seen sunlight.The Stretch of ice shelfs running along Ellesmere Island (North of Greenland) has lost 3/4 of it's shelf ice since 1950.The rocks exposed there haven't seen sunlight since before the start of the last major glaciation. Why no evidence of long cycle Arctic temperature oscillation there?

Woolly Mammoths and Rhino's, Giant Elk and Aurochs.All are found deep frozen in the Alaskan/Siberian Tundra. As it melts they start to rot and their bones are deposited in the streams eroding the Tundra.If we see regular cyclical melting in the high Arctic then the corpses we come across would show signs of previous melting (and associated bacterial activity in their bodies). We don't find any suggesting that these critters have remained deep frozen for the 15-30 thousand years of their entombment.

I would be more than happy to be shown irrefutable evidence (at least strong enough to rival the above listing) that we are in the middle of an normal,cyclical Arctic melt. Thus far the evidence shows we are not and we are seeing an ice retreat unrivalled since the start of the last ice age.

Seeing as temps are supposed (and were until recently) to be on the wind down to the next glacial period (we are physically past our 'closest' approaches to the sun in the Milankovich cycle) then why are we seeing such continued warming up there?

I believe that we are not far from the point of ALL seeing , beyond reasonable doubt, that the changes in the Arctic are 'new' and not part of any extended cyclical response to an external driver(s).Sadly the Arctic was always to be the first to show the impacts of AGW.If we confirm (beyond reasonable doubt) it's occurrence there the temperate regions will not be far behind in showing us irrefutable proof of AGW either.By which time it'll be too late to do anything about it other than mitigate it's impacts on humanity.

Though extremely fast in geological terms the energy needed to start to over-ride the planets climate is immense but ,like an oil tanker, once in motion it's own impetus makes it very hard to slow/stop.Many of the changes will only become undeniably apparent once AGW is in 'motion' and ,by then, it'll be to late to 'stop'.

The planet has been here before and will adjust (and self limit) the impacts of this forced warm up .I do not give credence to any 'runaway warming' scenario.We know that at certain GHG concentrations we can see 6c of warming.Are we headed in that direction?

EDIT: Feedbacks;

I was thinking more in line of CO2/Methane releases from the melted permafrost accelerating any warming we see.I was thinking open 'dark water' leading to more heat being absorbed in the arctic leading to later 'refreeze' (as the heat needs to be lost prior to refreeze) and weaker pack development (as we see today???). I was thinking northerly tracking of cyclones bringing more moisture /heat into the polar basin.I was thinking Forrest/peat fires as temps rise in the arctic leading to more soot deposits/CO2 releases.

But he reckons it's cooling up there......

[jethro]

Could I raise a couple of issues please GW?

Why are you so quick to dismiss this chaps 40 year real time, first hand experiences of the Arctic when apparently nearly everyone else relies on 30 yr satellite observations. Perhaps your own first hand experiences of the Arctic region are better than his?

Second re positive feedbacks leading to 'cooking' of the planet:

I believe (although happy to be corrected) that co2 concentrations have been up to 8000 ppm in Earth's history with average temps some 6 deg c higher than present. Why, with these scenarios didn't we end up with multiple positive feedbacks that ended life on Earth ?

I've posted an article which you may find interesting:

It has information about positive feedbacks and the problems associated with modelling them for future temperature scenarios.

[winterfreak]

I've posted an article which you may find interesting: http://forum.netweat...6entry1624276

It has information about positive feedbacks and the problems associated with modelling them for future temperature scenarios.

Thanks Jethro. Very informative. So why do Gray-wolf's posts seem to contradict what he says? Who's right?

[jethro]

Let's keep this thread for ice discussions, pop over to the general thread.

[Gray-Wolf]

But he reckons it's cooling up there......

Well that'll only take a couple of years to sort won't it? If we see poor ice development over winter ,high ice loss over summer, higher methane out gassing over summer, more widespread Arctic Amplification in the atmosphere over Autumn, we'll know he is just looking at local weather and not polar climate won't we?

I would not discount different rates of warming (or no warming at all for short periods) as our recognised drivers 'do their thang' but do not mistake a short term departure from the trend as a new trend.

We are far closer to complete summer Arctic ice loss than we are to the thickness/extents of the Arctic ice over summer enjoyed at the start of the last century.

One anomalous summer (as in 07') and the ice will go .

If we are happy to accept a cyclically driven run of cold winters then we must be equally willing to accept a cyclically driven run of warm summers?

Edited December 1, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[winterfreak]

If we are happy to accept a cyclically driven run of cold winters then we must be equally willing to accept a cyclically driven run of warm summers?

Quite GW. Proving it's entirely down to Man though is somewhat more difficult though wouldn't you agree?

GW, not being confrontational at all, i just want to understand what goes on and why....

Jethro, point noted.

[Gray-Wolf]

Quite GW. Proving it's entirely down to Man though is somewhat more difficult though wouldn't you agree?

GW, not being confrontational at all, i just want to understand what goes on and why....

Jethro, point noted.

I know Winterfreak, But you must also accept that I have (for now) reached a point where I can see ( to my own satisfaction) that we have sown the seeds for climate change by our impacting the planet both by our pollution and changes of land use.

When we walk the streets of England you can no longer see the things you would 5 thousand years ago.The changes across our country are caused by mans clearance of Forrest and his predation of species or his introduction of species (poor old Red Squirrel!). If I am to accept such a scale of impact to my planet at ground level then why should I struggle to accept the recent changes to our atmosphere by mans hand? I do not know how long such changes take to fully reach their potential (how long Mother N. resists change before She gives in to the irrepressible forcing) but I do believe that you cannot 'change' something without causing change.

I read ,recently, that the rate we are introducing GHG's into the atmosphere is unprecedented in recent geological history.It appears that it's not the speed of introduction of GHG's that drives the pace of change but the slow, inevitable response of the global climate systems to this forcing.

Basically, to me, it is just a matter of wait and see how long the planet can struggle on before giving in to the new atmospheric potentials.

Checks and balances.

Keep up the pressure and you break through these checks and balances and ,I believe, we enter a Lovelockian climate shift to a new 'balance point'.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I know Winterfreak, But you must also accept that I have (for now) reached a point where I can see ( to my own satisfaction) that we have sown the seeds for climate change by our impacting the planet both by our pollution and changes of land use.

When we walk the streets of England you can no longer see the things you would 5 thousand years ago.The changes across our country are caused by mans clearance of Forrest and his predation of species or his introduction of species (poor old Red Squirrel!). If I am to accept such a scale of impact to my planet at ground level then why should I struggle to accept the recent changes to our atmosphere by mans hand? I do not know how long such changes take to fully reach their potential (how long Mother N. resists change before She gives in to the irrepressible forcing) but I do believe that you cannot 'change' something without causing change.

I read ,recently, that the rate we are introducing GHG's into the atmosphere is unprecedented in recent geological history.It appears that it's not the speed of introduction of GHG's that drives the pace of change but the slow, inevitable response of the global climate systems to this forcing.

Basically, to me, it is just a matter of wait and see how long the planet can struggle on before giving in to the new atmospheric potentials.

Checks and balances.

Keep up the pressure and you break through these checks and balances and ,I believe, we enter a Lovelockian climate shift to a new 'balance point'.

With regards to the bit I have highlighted above, I would like to point out that we clearly do a lot more to the Earth's surface than we do to the atmosphere. If we add to that fact these figures:

Surface Area of Earth: 5.1 x 10⁸km²

Volume of Atmosphere: 1.08 x 10¹²km³

...we can see that the atmosphere is a lot bigger than the surface of the Earth - four orders of magnitude bigger, to be exact. That fact, and that fact alone, is enough to consider your conclusion to be dubious.

CB

PS - Sorry to go off-topic.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[Gray-Wolf]

Another peice on Russia (Nenets view)

Edited December 2, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[oldsnowywizard]

i wonder when that video was recorded... i think they would have moved in October this year due to very early cold! but again its a worrying trend isnt it... IJIS figures back on the rise again... looks like polar vortex will move to canada over the next week, so expect some bitterly cold temps to help freeze hudson up quickly.

[Gray-Wolf]

According to C.T. we are seeing some above average growth areas even without Hudson in the mix. Still a couple of areas not playing ball though and is it normal for Svalbard to still be in open water at this time of year?

[oldsnowywizard]

hi GW, no i dont think it is normal for that much open water to be around Svlabard, SSTS in the area appear to be below average (basin side) so perhaps no sustained cold air temps and a the currents having an impact here?

Bearing - 100k above last year - 200k above the norm - which isnt bad... a few days of slightly warmer temps should slow down the increase, however SSTs are cold around the ice (0/-1)

Baffin - slightly above average - a little surprising as the deep cold has been over the other side of the basin so far, (this is set to change with the vortex move)

chuckchi - above average, so from a late start the freeze over has now finished here so the level will drift back to normal...

all the others are around average or way below..

i think we should give up on Barents!

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.cbc.ca/qu...09-11-28_01.mp3

Remember Dr Barber and his ice breaker trip through the Canadian basin in search of perennial ice (that was shown on the Canadian ice maps)?

Have a listen to the above and then read Bob's (Grumbine) understanding below

http://moregrumbines...e-ice.html#more

I tend to think that we need to take a good hard look at how we view the arctic pack.

The Report from ICESat/GRACE that showed perennial not putting on thickness seems now to be backed up by what they discovered on their voyage and the 'basal melting' that is talked about in the latter part of the interview seems to be the reason why we no longer see the 7m thickness' we used to.

I have heard folk trumpet both ice extents (for the last 2 years) and more recently the growth in second and third year ice (as a percentage of the pack).We appear to be at the point where this no longer matters as processes that did not used to exist (in the scale they do today) are now undermining the 'old way' of viewing things.

If this 'mixing layer' of the ocean is now carrying heat (built up over summer when the 'dark water' is exposed) to the base of the ice (year long) then what we have (as I'd mooted previous) is a thin skin of the ocean that chills to freezing but cannot grow thick as this presents the ice base to the 'mixing layer' and melts it.

The continued loss of perennial is now explained not in terms of 'warm summers' but in terms of warm oceans.

It would appear that the loss of all the old perennial is now assured as it's mass pushes it's base deep into the 'mixing layer' and it erodes from the base up. As was pointed out this means that the ice across the pole is now prone to drastic melt when the atmosphere/weather permit it.This .of course, leads to more exposed dark water and more 'heat' saved up in the upper levels to restrict growth over the next winter.......

We may be looking at a maximum thickness of future sea ice dictated by the ocean warmth and not the warmth of the air above.

The amount of energy absorbed by the ocean to lead us to this point must be amazingly high.Why have we had so much surplus energy to both bring record global temps whilst facilitating such a change?

EDIT: Some nicely presented info here;

http://assets.wwf.org.nz/downloads/wwf_arctic_feedbacks_report.pdf

Edited December 6, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[SleepyJean]

With regards to the bit I have highlighted above, I would like to point out that we clearly do a lot more to the Earth's surface than we do to the atmosphere. If we add to that fact these figures:

Surface Area of Earth: 5.1 x 10⁸km²

Volume of Atmosphere: 1.08 x 10¹²km³

...we can see that the atmosphere is a lot bigger than the surface of the Earth - four orders of magnitude bigger, to be exact. That fact, and that fact alone, is enough to consider your conclusion to be dubious.

CB

PS - Sorry to go off-topic.

Just out of interest, the Chinese admit to regularly seeding clouds to influence local weather. This is not the right thread I realise, but making it rain at a certain place will prevent rain occuring where it was supposed to happen and alter weather patterns, therefore affecting climate, won't it?

I don't know how to move this to an appropriate thread, sorry, please can the mods do so? Thankyou.

SJ

[J10]

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.

On the (Provisional) IJIS figures Arctic Ice now stands at 10,930,938 , we have moved above the 2007 figures and are now 4th in the series of 7 in the IJIS series and 28th out of 31st on the combined figures for all 31 years.

The average growth over the past week has fallen to around 81,000 per day, which is bang on recent ice growth at 81,000 (2002-2008) and above longer term ice growth of 71,000 sqkm per day (1979-2007)

We are now 743,186 below the 1979-2007 average figures, and 23,177 above 2003-2008 figures.

We are now very much in the average pack in relation to the past few years.

http://www.cbc.ca/qu...09-11-28_01.mp3

Remember Dr Barber and his ice breaker trip through the Canadian basin in search of perennial ice (that was shown on the Canadian ice maps)?

Have a listen to the above and then read Bob's (Grumbine) understanding below

http://moregrumbines...e-ice.html#more

I have heard folk trumpet both ice extents (for the last 2 years) and more recently the growth in second and third year ice (as a percentage of the pack).We appear to be at the point where this no longer matters as processes that did not used to exist (in the scale they do today) are now undermining the 'old way' of viewing things.

Maybe to an extent but the huge rise in 2 year sea ice from 8% to 32%, after the recovery from 2007, forms a much better base for future growth, which hasn't been there since 2007 and this simply cannot be ignored.

As a result you would expect year 3 ice to be well up during summer /Autumn 2010 as a result of this. Of course time will tell. Lets revisit the issue in September/October 2010.

[masheeuk]

Maybe a bit off topic but at the moment on the Barrow Ice Observatory web site the radar image show the coastal Ice breaking away and splitting up. Never seen that before and thought others might be interested.

[Gray-Wolf]

Maybe a bit off topic but at the moment on the Barrow Ice Observatory web site the radar image show the coastal Ice breaking away and splitting up. Never seen that before and thought others might be interested.

Well I'm interested masheeuk!

For the folk who have read this thread it should be clear that we are now looking too favourably on some aspects of our satellite info.

If the Canadian ice service can be misled by the readings of 'faux perennial' then what chance do we have??

If Dr Barber can have ice breakers running around the Canadian Basin looking for ice that C.I.B. have plotted on charts but is ,in fact, 'rotten ice' then what chance do we have once cloud cover/fog hides any chance of 'visibly' spotting ice?

The recent report from NASA ,on ice thickness, made it plain that perennial no longer gains depth as the years pass.2m seems to be the new max that can be achieved before ice runs foul of the 'mixing layer' and melts.

This summers 'unfavourable winds' which spread the ice out through late July/Aug is another way folk seem to be gaining false hope whilst the Arctic continues in it's current state of collapse.

I was pleased it was Bob (Grumbine) who has highlighted these issues as he has been very helpful (to me) in the past when I approached about the Ross ice shelf and the crevasses I've been monitoring there (he would seem to spend a lot of time at Mcmurdo and is there at present I think?).

EDIT : As I think some folk didn't listen to it here's Dr Barber again talking about his little 'trip' into the Arctic to look for late season perennial;

http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/media/2009-2010/mp3/qq-2009-11-28_01.mp3

Edited December 6, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[stewfox]

If we are happy to accept a cyclically driven run of cold winters then we must be equally willing to accept a cyclically driven run of warm summers?

I'm happy to accept 25 more artic summers like 2007 and then maybe we will see the Artic Free of ice in 2034.

What I would prefer however is comment on whats actually happening rather that what could happen.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm happy to accept 25 more artic summers like 2007 and then maybe we will see the Artic Free of ice in 2034.

What I would prefer however is comment on whats actually happening rather that what could happen.

Sorry stew but the facts seem to point to one more 07' 'perfect storm' being enough to finish off the pack that summer.Granted it'll take further ,consistent temp raises to maintain that 'ice free summer' situation but we are not that far away from a 'freak' one off right now (in my understanding of the facts) .

Folk seem to neglect the fact that since 07' the 'ice mass' in the Arctic has continued to decline, year on year, in favour of the fact that the thin skin (covering 15% of the surface or more) has given us higher 'extents'. We have to face the facts that with 'less ice' each year we are closer than ever to the ice free pole.Even if Global warming then stopped the changes to our 'thermostat' are too great to leave us with any other result than continued warming.

Maybe one of our more numerate posters could do the energy conversion equations for both an 8 million sq km ice cover over summer (with 80% reflection/albedo) to an open water Arctic over summer ,with 80% absorption of all that energy.

To me it appears that anything sub 8 million sq km's drives ice loss without the 'perfect storm' being present in the atmosphere.We are beyond this point now so even the -ve AO and the -vePDO did not staunch the ice mass losses these past 2 years (nor the permafrost melt ,nor the Greenland melt).

Old ,alone,done for.......

[VillagePlank]

Sorry stew but the facts seem to point to one more 07' 'perfect storm' being enough to finish off the pack that summer.Granted it'll take further ,consistent temp raises to maintain that 'ice free summer' situation but we are not that far away from a 'freak' one off right now (in my understanding of the facts) .

Folk seem to neglect the fact that since 07' the 'ice mass' in the Arctic has continued to decline, year on year, in favour of the fact that the thin skin (covering 15% of the surface or more) has given us higher 'extents'. We have to face the facts that with 'less ice' each year we are closer than ever to the ice free pole.Even if Global warming then stopped the changes to our 'thermostat' are too great to leave us with any other result than continued warming.

Maybe one of our more numerate posters could do the energy conversion equations for both an 8 million sq km ice cover over summer (with 80% reflection/albedo) to an open water Arctic over summer ,with 80% absorption of all that energy.

To me it appears that anything sub 8 million sq km's drives ice loss without the 'perfect storm' being present in the atmosphere.We are beyond this point now so even the -ve AO and the -vePDO did not staunch the ice mass losses these past 2 years (nor the permafrost melt ,nor the Greenland melt).

Old ,alone,done for.......

The LI suggests that over the next decade, or so, that the ice packs will start to re-emerge.

[Gray-Wolf]

The LI suggests that over the next decade, or so, that the ice packs will start to re-emerge.

As ever , be it 'next max', 'next min' this leaves us with no option other than stagnation whilst we let the world do what the world will do.

Sadly the LI is merely a construct of man whereas the AGW we witness is the response of nature to a construct of man.

EDIT: As an aside does the LI include a hole that is shedding slightly water more than is added?

Edited December 7, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

Sadly the LI is merely a construct of man whereas the AGW we witness is the response of nature to a construct of man.

I don't think that holds. Can you take a look at a preliminary paper on the LI thread, please? The LI is based on scientific law, not conjecture.