Arctic Ice 2009/2010

[Admiral_Bobski]

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.

Why is the LI "merely a construct of man"? Prejudice, GW?

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

Why is the LI "merely a construct of man"? Prejudice, GW?

CB

Maybe over on the LI thread C-Bob, V.P.?

Edited December 7, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Admiral_Bobski]

Maybe over on the LI thread C-Bob, V.P.?

I'll see you there...

CB

[stewfox]

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.

The world has been doing what it world will do for the last 5,000,000,000 years..... ish

I do agree in another 5,000,000,000 years... ish when the sun expands the artic ice thread might become redundant ??

I do agree however with the fragmentation of the ice pack we could be fooled by the ijis figures

When will we have graphs that measure overall volume ??

Edited December 7, 2009 by stewfox

[Gray-Wolf]

More from Dr Barber and it appears his paper on the trip is accepted and awaiting review;

Climate change's impact in Arctic worse than thoughtPosted Tuesday, November 24, 2009 11:36 AM

Above: University of Manitoba researcher David BarberArctic sea ice has duped satellites into reporting thick multiyear sea ice where in fact none exists, a new study by University of Manitoba researcher David Barber has found.

In 2008 and 2009 satellite data showed a growth in Arctic sea ice extension leaving some to reckon global warming was reversing. But after sailing an ice breaker to the southern Beaufort Sea this past September Dr. Barber and his colleagues found something unexpected: thin, "rotten" ice can electromagnetically masquerade as thick, multiyear sea ice. And contrary to what satellites recently suggested, we are actually speeding up the loss of the remaining, healthy, multiyear sea ice.

The results of the study have now been accepted for publication in the peer reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters, of the American Geophysical Union.

"These are very significant findings since the scientists and public all thought that sea ice was recovering since the minimum extent in 2007," says Barber, a professor of Environment and Geography and Canada Research Chair in Arctic System Science.

In September 2009 Barber and others went to various points in the southern Beaufort Sea aboard the research vessel (NGCC) Amundsen. They discovered the multiyear sea icescape was not as ubiquitous as it appeared in satellite remote sensing data. And much of the multiyear ice, which is integral to maintaining the ecosystem and its inhabitants, was so heavily decayed the Amundsen easily broke through floes six to eight meters thick. Indeed, through most of the journey the Amundsen sailed at an average speed of 24km/h; its open water cruising speed is about 25km/h.

"Ship navigation across the pole is imminent as the type of ice which resides there is no longer a barrier to ships in the late summer and fall," Barber says.

So why have satellites been fooled? When studying sea ice, satellites shoot microwaves at the icescape and, among other things, record how they scatter. Each variety of ice was thought to have its own unique scattering characteristics which researchers could read to determine where certain species of ice reside. But Barber and his colleagues discovered that multiyear ice and the "rotten" ice have similar near-surface temperatures, similar near-surface salinities, and both have similar open water and new sea ice fractions at the surface. So when satellites try to identify who's who, the microwaves behave similar enough that cases of mistaken identity abound.

"Our results are consistent with ice age estimates that show the amount of multiyear sea ice in the northern hemisphere was the lowest on record in 2009 suggesting that multiyear sea ice continues to diminish rapidly in the Canada Basin even though 2009 aerial extent increased over that of 2007 and 2009," the paper concludes.

"This has significant implications for assessment of the speed of global climate change impacts in the Arctic and for increased shipping and industrial development in the Arctic," says Barber.

To watch Dr. Barber speak about his experience and the study, click 'play' below:

For more information, contact:

Sean Moore

Communications Officer

Public Affairs

sean_moore@umanitoba.ca

Phone: (204) 474-7963

EDIT; some footage from U.Manitoba of the 'rotten ice'

http://umanitoba.ca/...c_footage_1.mp4

http://umanitoba.ca/...c_footage_2.mp4

Edited December 8, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[winterfreak]

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

Does anyone know why such a sudden drop? Tech problems?

[Gray-Wolf]

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

Does anyone know why such a sudden drop? Tech problems?

A bit too early to say? Maybe we should give it a couple of days then we can see what C.T. make of it (check out the sectors and see if any have dropped).

If what I've been putting up about Dr Barbers trip is indicative of basin wide perennial (as plotted by the sat.s) then any heavy storms entering the basin could shatter the pack and either have it shipped out of the Arctic or ride up on top of other ice opening up gaps. We've also seen vids posted where ice has piled up along coast lines once shattered (the wind then drives it to shore and the momentum piles it up there).

We could even have 'faux growth' where the edges are shattered and spread out , satisfying the 15% or more criteria, but then the ice is driven further out and ends up covering less that 15% so effectively 'disappears'?

I will certainly be looking at tomorrows plot!!

Edited December 8, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[saperlo]

I wonder what "rotten" ice is supposed to be?

Given that in the physics of solutions, passing from a liquid to a solid phase causes precipitation of compounds depending on their freezing points, thus solutions will separate out into there constituent compounds(so ice is made of fresh water)

The term "rotten ice" implies ice made of something else in addition to H2O, which is not something I could explain

I wonder if this is a bit of pseudo-science?

... that's not to say I discount Dr Barbers paper - I'm just wondering exactly what he means with this euphemism

Edited December 8, 2009 by saperlo

[Gray-Wolf]

I wonder what "rotten" ice is supposed to be?

Given that in the physics of solutions, passing from a liquid to a solid phase causes precipitation of compounds depending on their freezing points, thus solutions will separate out into there constituent compounds(so ice is made of fresh water)

The term "rotten ice" implies ice made of something else in addition to H2O, which is not something I could explain

I wonder if this is a bit of pseudo-science?

... that's not to say I discount Dr Barbers paper - I'm just wondering exactly what he means with this euphemism

I think it well describes something that has lost it's physical integrity.

Poke a rotten apple/tomato if you need to remind yourself how something 'looking like' a known object can have some queer physical properties like a total lack of integrity.

[stewfox]

............. etc

I will certainly be looking at tomorrows plot!!

We havent seen such a drop at this time of year before.

Interesting comments, lets keep an eye on it.

[jethro]

We havent seen such a drop at this time of year before.

Interesting comments, lets keep an eye on it.

Perhaps the split vortex and the weather it is generating has something to do with the drop? If the graphics in the MOD thread are anything to go by, deep cold is being displaced out of the Arctic and spread around the NH.

[Gray-Wolf]

Perhaps the split vortex and the weather it is generating has something to do with the drop? If the graphics in the MOD thread are anything to go by, deep cold is being displaced out of the Arctic and spread around the NH.

I don't think that there is anything that novel or new in that Jethro?

Each year we have warm plumes into the Arctic displacing the cold air into areas of the N.H. Japan has been hammered, Greece has been hammered, Eastern Europe has been hammered but the Arctic ice carried on with it's development. We are told to expect more direct exchanges of warm/cold across the Arctic (remember the paper last winter?) so such exchanges should be ever more common.

The fact that the ice is ever more fragile and ,as Dr Barber has shown us ,of 'novel composition' in areas may lead to differing responses but I'd tend to stick with the lack of strength in the thin pack to absorb and damp our any swells that are driven into the arctic (Via the Pacific or Atlantic) or even the mini tsunamis that collapsing ice drives (we've all seen the Vids of glacial collapses driving harbour waves).

If the Arctic circulation is able to continue its work straight through the water column these days (and not below the ice only) then it is possible to have ice continually flushed out of the Arctic all winter (if we are to believe that ice thickness can carry on reducing over winter then why not this?).

Still , lets watch this space eh? Not only the loss of area we see but also the loss of growth that should have occurred over the past few days.Very odd.

[Admiral_Bobski]

But this happens quite frequently - mid-December 2003 and 2008, mid-January 2003 and 2006, for example.

And despite the recent dip, surely the overall trend is still upwards...?

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

But this happens quite frequently - mid-December 2003 and 2008, mid-January 2003 and 2006, for example.

And despite the recent dip, surely the overall trend is still upwards...?

CB

It's winter?

Were we to see the winter pack suffering similar loss in extent to the summer pack of late then surely everyone would have questions?

[Admiral_Bobski]

It's winter?

Were we to see the winter pack suffering similar loss in extent to the summer pack of late then surely everyone would have questions?

Yes, but we're not seeing the winter pack suffering similar loss in extent to the summer pack of late. I was responding to the suggestion that the slight decrease of the past few days is something to be concerned about - I was pointing out that it's not actually unusual at all.

It would be nice to see the ice extent go nowhere but up, non-stop, throughout winter, but that's not very realistic, is it?

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

Before it became easy for the summer pack to behave the way it has recently it had to slim down dramatically.

This new 'slim pack' is also a feature of the winter pack and so with a reduced structural integrity we should expect to see far more disruption of the ice.

It is funny that we see an increase in penetration of storm systems into the Arctic (along with increases in their intensity) shadowing this thickness reduction.

Surely this is a poor formula for ice rebuild and adds to the likelihood of 'rotten ice' propagation?

[Admiral_Bobski]

Before it became easy for the summer pack to behave the way it has recently it had to slim down dramatically.

This new 'slim pack' is also a feature of the winter pack and so with a reduced structural integrity we should expect to see far more disruption of the ice.

It is funny that we see an increase in penetration of storm systems into the Arctic (along with increases in their intensity) shadowing this thickness reduction.

Surely this is a poor formula for ice rebuild and adds to the likelihood of 'rotten ice' propagation?

So do we? The disruption that has been highlighted (the recent slight dip in extent) is nothing unusual. Does this tally with "far more disruption" of the ice?

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

So do we? The disruption that has been highlighted (the recent slight dip in extent) is nothing unusual. Does this tally with "far more disruption" of the ice?

CB

Though it will not happen I think we'd need to abandon the ' 15% or more' way we measure the pack so we can loose the modern discrepancy of spread and compaction.

In the past (prior to the modern Arctic era) it was only the peripherals of the pack that could spread or condense so the results of it were never significant.

Are we approaching a point where, with total pack fragmentation, the measure indicates weather and not pack health/amounts?

[Admiral_Bobski]

Though it will not happen I think we'd need to abandon the ' 15% or more' way we measure the pack so we can loose the modern discrepancy of spread and compaction.

In the past (prior to the modern Arctic era) it was only the peripherals of the pack that could spread or condense so the results of it were never significant.

Are we approaching a point where, with total pack fragmentation, the measure indicates weather and not pack health/amounts?

I don't see why that has any bearing on the slight - slight - dip in ice extent over the past couple of days.

This type of dip has occurred in the past, there's no sign (yet) that there's anything to be especially concerned about, but you're trying to tell us that the reason for this dip is different from the reason that the many previous dips occurred.

You are projecting your fears and concerns onto a phenomenon which is, in reality, rather common.

CB

Edited December 9, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[stewfox]

I don't see why that has any bearing on the slight - slight - dip in ice extent over the past couple of days.

This type of dip has occurred in the past, there's no sign (yet) that there's anything to be especially concerned about, but you're trying to tell us that the reason for this dip is different from the reason that the many previous dips occurred.

You are projecting your fears and concerns onto a phenomenon which is, in reality, rather common.

CB

There is nothing in this Centuries data that suggest we have had such a dip so late in the year. Can you post a link ??

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

From late January onwards yes

I am not 'concerned' but I do find it interesting

[Admiral_Bobski]

There is nothing in this Centuries data that suggest we have had such a dip so late in the year. Can you post a link ??

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

From late January onwards yes

I am not 'concerned' but I do find it interesting

Since maximum ice extent isn't reached until late February/early March, the "Ice Extent Year" runs from March to March or thereabouts. Late January is therefore, surely, a more worrying time to have a dip than early-mid December?

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

I don't see why that has any bearing on the slight - slight - dip in ice extent over the past couple of days.

CB

It may ,or may not.

If the pack has altered in the way we are being told do you truely expect B.A.U.?

If we have gone from a time of 7m thickness central core pack to a mixture of agglomerate 'rotten ice', skimpy first year ice and thickness limited 'new perennial' then I would suggest that we will see plenty of new and novel behaviours over winter (once the central area is contiguous).

I would suggest that the full moon (blue moon) coming could lead to fragmentation as the tidal bulge rips under the 'flexible' skin leading to a fragmentation event.

If we are unfortunate to have a storm through the Basin at this time then wind will push the plates apart and allow swells to develop further disrupting the pack.

If the upper thermal mixing zone is then 'messed up' we could even see melting taking place.

Come gather 'round people wherever you roam........

Edited December 10, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Admiral_Bobski]

It may ,or may not.

If the pack has altered in the way we are being told do you truely expect B.A.U.?

If we have gone from a time of 7m thickness central core pack to a mixture of agglomerate 'rotten ice', skimpy first year ice and thickness limited 'new perennial' then I would suggest that we will see plenty of new and novel behaviours over winter (once the central area is contiguous).

I would suggest that the full moon (blue moon) coming could lead to fragmentation as the tidal bulge rips under the 'flexible' skin leading to a fragmentation event.

If we are unfortunate to have a storm through the Basin at this time then wind will push the plates apart and allow swells to develop further disrupting the pack.

If the upper thermal mixing zone is then 'messed up' we could even see melting taking place.

Come gather 'round people wherever you roam........

I've given up on expecting anything...

Good news, though - ice extent is on the way up again. Or are we going to doom-and-gloom it and shrug it off as the ice pack breaking up?

CB

[stewfox]

Since maximum ice extent isn't reached until late February/early March, the "Ice Extent Year" runs from March to March or thereabouts. Late January is therefore, surely, a more worrying time to have a dip than early-mid December?

CB

What's that got to do with the price of eggs ?.

Someone posted we had seen numerous dips at this time of year, clearly we hadn't from the data before us.

It's going back now but was interesting non the less, what that has to do with the ice pack in late February when we of course do start to see more fluctuations I don't know

Edited December 10, 2009 by stewfox

[Admiral_Bobski]