Arctic Ice 2009/2010

[Gray-Wolf]

So, we're into Gold.

We remote sense gold to prospect it.

We know that it reflects microwaves at a certain frequency so we use microwave satellite sensors to discover our trove.

In the past Gold was found in nice big blocks, bricks of the stuff in fact.

Unbeknown to us the 'bricks' are now Gold leaf.

It reflects at the same frequency.

It maps out across the same areas just as it used to.

How rich are we today?

Edited December 10, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Admiral_Bobski]

So, we're into Gold.

We remote sense gold to prospect it.

We know that it reflects microwaves at a certain frequency so we use microwave satellite sensors to discover our trove.

In the past Gold was found in nice big blocks, bricks of the stuff in fact.

Unbeknown to us the 'bricks' are now Gold leaf.

It reflects at the same frequency.

It maps out across the same areas just as it used to.

How rich are we today?

I know what you're saying and it has nothing to do with what I've been saying. You keep on missing what I've been saying, so I'm not going to say it any more. End of story.

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

I know what you're saying and it has nothing to do with what I've been saying. You keep on missing what I've been saying, so I'm not going to say it any more. End of story.

CB

End of old story Bob....

U-C-Bob thing's have changed.

No matter how we quibble and Obfuscate thing's have changed.

07?, a mere reflection of a reality already in existance.

It could have been 05' or 06' just that the 'weather' played ball that year.

The old pack is gone and no more (long live the new pack!).

It was eaten away from below by a warming ocean and an upper level mixing layer now bringing heat to the pole come rain come shine. come summer, come spring ,come autumn ,come winter...

Bring a warm 'perfect storm' to the pole and all that ice masquerading as 'old perennial' is exposed.

It's matrix and itself is melted,in an instant and, WHOOSH, no ice, record low, massive loss of perennial.

U-C-Bob, U-C?

It was no big deal.

We thought there were 20ft cliffs of ice and there weren't.

We couldn't believe that so much thick ice could just 'go'.

It wasn't thick ice was it Bob?

It was a sham.

What is was ,Bob, was a skin of single year ice encrusted with the remnants of the old perennial reflecting back it's past Glory to the satellites above and reassuring us all that 'all is well'.

It wasn't was it Bob?

We're either 'Doom mongers' or 'Fools'........unless there is another category of 'Head messers' who delight in 'the game' and care nothing for the truth.... or the folk it impacts .....just the thrill of confusion and indecision they can and will spawn.

Recovery!

So the cry has been for 2 years now,

"Hold on!" some have cried.What of the mass?

We were told that for the past 7 years perennial has dwindled and new perennial has maxed out at 2m thickness.

"More 3rd year ice this year" they yell.

So what? 3rd year as thick as first year ? So what?

Still the collapse of the perennial.

Dead man walking the Green Mile.

It's over.

The sub surface temps have won.

We are already at the point where one warm summer will expose our true situation (there is no more 'old perennial' to collapse out to fill the void)

See you in Sept.

Edited December 10, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Admiral_Bobski]

What on Earth are you blathering on about now, GW?

[jethro]

GW, I cut and pasted it into Babel Fish, all it came up with was

Any chance you could translate your post into English for thicko here?

[pottyprof]

And I came in here, out of the MOD to regain my sanity........

Yeah right!!!!!!!!!!

[ScottSnow]

I for once see GW's point of view. Yes the ice pack could behave differently after the loss of most of the perrenial and we could see reductions in growth due to the thinner ice around the edges of the pack at this time of year. But there would surely always be thinness around the edges no matter what year (80s, 90s etc) which could be liable to break up due to a storm or milder weather.

However if 1st year ice is so 'flimsy' why have we seen an increase in the mininimum ice extent the past two years after 07. Surely if as GW points out the ice pack is now 'rotten' we would have seen the pack gradually eaten away over the summers of 08 and 09.

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks S.W., I may 'blather on' (it's my nature) but my concerns are grounded in the reality I perceive from the data we are allowed access to (along with everyone else).

For those who had issues understanding my Moscow mule fuelled post I'll recap.

The changes in the ice extents over the noughties, inc 07', have been a departure from the years before in both their scale and in the drop off in the thick central core of perennial.Some of this ice was many centuries old and had reached fantastic depths and solidity (glacial ice). In the past this ice was the majority ice over the late summer as the peripheries melted out leaving just this central ice 'bank'.

No longer do we have this bank of 'ancient ice'.

The eyewitness account of the destruction of a 10 mile long ice island in Sept this year (as witnessed by Dr Barber and his team off Banks Island) illustrates well both the fate of the 'old perennial' but also how the satellites data have been wrongly interpreted over the last number of years with the slumped and smashed remnants of the old perennial ice (set in a matrix of single year ice) reflecting the microwave signals in much the same way that the old core of perennial used to (same stuff just all smashed up into small chunks).

If you took a block of ice 2ft square and placed it into a bath it would cover only 2sq feet. If you took an ice pick to it then you could fill the baths surface giving 100% coverage.

As the old perennial collapses how much 'spreading out' has happened? How much 'growth' has really been decay? How much of the past 2 years (alleged) gains have been what Dr Barber saw with the collapse of floes of perennial at the end of melt season (late Aug/early sept).

Is the only reason we haven't matched 07's min because we have been loosing the last of the old perennial and its fragments have spread out and pushed the boundaries of the ice outwards?

I remember all the 'cockle -doodle -doing' at the end of the 08' season as ice extents rocketed up. What if that growth spurt was really a collapse spurt?

Sadly we have to wait to see.Obviously this 'effect' is short lived and once the old perennial is collapsed into rotten ice then it will melt out as soon as conditions allow.

If I am correct then we should see a massive reduction in ice cover in the coming summers and now that this phenomena has been witnessed and the 'loophole' is ice type measurement uncovered we will see changes in the way we understand the remaining ice cover across the Arctic Basin.

The slow growth at the end of the last melt season may prove to be more typical of the years to come (no ice surge from the slumping perennial as it's all gone now) with the Arctic Amplification now delaying ice formation (and not melting out the old 'core' and spending the energy that way) and the thin polar ice prone to disruption as the stronger ,more northerly tracking, autumnal storms pass over the Arctic.

I will be measured by my words ( aren't we all?) but I have no worries that the core of what I 'understand ' will, in time, prove correct.

Sadly the L.I. folk have also nailed their colours to the mast and tell us of a cool down to come over the next 10 years or so and a re-build of the ice (which ,in reality will take many centuries to replicate the ice type we have lost).

The poles are an important part of our climate machine and ,in the north at least, this machine is broken.

[oldsnowywizard]

jeeeees.. what on earth is going on in this thread? i go away for a week and already doom and gloom is back.. Its December!! and GW yes there have been storms but not recently in fact over the basin there has been lots of HP.. we are all concerned but im getting a little annoyed with the constant doom messages. bottom line is 2007 was a very bad year no one denies this, but we are have so far had 2 years of better summer ice retention so lets look at the glass being half full rather than empty. There are negative things of course which lets hope can be changed before it is too late, but imo the fact that ice extent has been better after 2 years just proves that nature is fighting back..at least for now!

anyway rant over last time i checked this was a thread for current Arctic ice in 2009..

PS this statement "If I am correct then we should see a massive reduction in ice cover in the coming summers and now that this phenomena has been witnessed" is inaccurate.

[Gray-Wolf]

PS this statement "If I am correct then we should see a massive reduction in ice cover in the coming summers and now that this phenomena has been witnessed" is inaccurate.

On what do you base your rebuttal?

Current observations of 'old perennial' levels?

Not wishing to be confrontational but when the Canadian ice service are left looking 'out of touch with reality' by plotting good ,solid, 'old perennial' only to be shown that it is just mush (no a small difference in type wouldn't you say?)then you may not be best placed to enter into judgement on the topic (none of us are are we?)

If we now must take with a pinch of salt the mapping of ice types, as a swathe of that data may be tainted with a doppleganger of little material substance, then what do we know of current ice conditions (of which all of this is a conversation about)?

And why do you think you know more than the experts that are now unsure of what ,in fact, they know?

[J10]

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.

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.

Todays update to follow shortly.

[J10]

Todays update to follow shortly.

On the (Provisional) IJIS figures Arctic Ice now stands at 11,126,719, we have moved back below 2005,2006 and 2007 in a disappointing week for sea ice growth and are now 7th in the series of 7 in the IJIS series and 31st out of 31st on the combined figures for all 31 years.

The average growth over the past week has fallen to around 27,000 per day, which is well below recent ice growth at 77,000 (2002-2008) and well below longer term ice growth of 62,000 sqkm per day (1979-2007)

We are now 985,431 below the 1979-2007 average figures, and 322,604 below 2003-2008 figures.

We will see next week whether this bad week is a blip or a trend.

[Gray-Wolf]

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.

And how do we know this J1?

What measures are you employing?

Passive microwave(which may not be interpreted correctly)?

Visual(which is blighted by cloud/arctic sea smoke and fog)?

A combination?

We are only as good as the data we are fed and maybe some of that data is corrupted and the 'gains' folk talk about are really losses (if a 6m thick slab collapses out to 2m thickness how much more surface does it cover?).

We are close to being sure as to how the ice is doing, how the ice is growing or shrinking, but we are close.

If the 'collapse phenomena' has impacted 'ice extents' then it is a transient phase and ,with a hot one forecast for next year (and 50% of the following 10 yrs), then we are sure to soon find out exactly where we are.

Just remember that the info was there all along.

Edited December 13, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

Sadly the L.I. folk have also nailed their colours

You are welcome to join in - and, not only, that, you've misread the LI hypothesis. I expect it record warming in the very near future, and have said so for the last year or so. Do you want to test your mettle against the MetO who agree with this forecast?

I thought not. I shall see you on the LI thread where your exemplary knowledge will help us prove, or disprove some ancient theory that its the sun wot did it.

Thanks GW - you've made my day - anyone else want to play?

(Alternatively, - help us disprove the LI hypothesis: by science and not conjecture or appeal to authority. Clearly you have the moral, and scientific high ground, here, and it should not take more than an iota of your time. I look forward to your answers based on mathematics, and science - Thanks )

Edited December 13, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Gray-Wolf]

Gore at climate talks: Polar ice may go in 5 years(AP) – 52 minutes ago

COPENHAGEN — Al Gore has told the U.N. climate conference that new data suggests that the Arctic polar ice cap may disappear in the summertime as soon as five to seven years from now.

Clicking through a slide show Monday in a packed side event, the former U.S. vice president joined the foreign ministers of Norway and Denmark in presenting two new reports on melting Arctic ice.

The Arctic Ocean sea ice has shrunk dramatically, to record low levels, the past several summers. Scientists blame global warming, which has raised temperatures twice as fast in the far north as elsewhere.

Gore said polar scientists told him Sunday that the latest data "suggest a 75 percent chance the entire polar ice cap will melt in summer within the next five to seven years."

Gore won a Nobel Peace prize for his climate change efforts.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Well, thank goodness it was Gore who said it, and not some politician or layman catastrophist...

[Gray-Wolf]

Well, thank goodness it was Gore who said it, and not some politician or layman catastrophist...

Incapable of even remembering the drive of a conversation with 'scientists ' (that's folk who do science) the night before.....poor lad eh? glad we none of us resort to ad homs......

[Admiral_Bobski]

Incapable of even remembering the drive of a conversation with 'scientists ' (that's folk who do science) the night before.....poor lad eh? glad we none of us resort to ad homs......

Oh! That's what scientists are! How silly I've been! So scientists also listen to alternative hypotheses and assess them on their merits, I suppose? Hmmm....

[Gray-Wolf]

Oh! That's what scientists are! How silly I've been! So scientists also listen to alternative hypotheses and assess them on their merits, I suppose? Hmmm....

Indeed! It would seem a bunch of them had been over confident in their remote sensing techniques until an associate saw (first hand) that their interpretations were awry.

It would now seem that a bit of rapid updating to the length of time we have polar summer ice had to be done.

Strange (to me) ,in 07' we first heard of this doom laden prediction but then,swayed by the growth in scepticism and the two years of alleged Arctic 'recovery' pushed the figure back to 2030 at the earliest.

Now the pendulum, with the help of the evidence culled this Sept, has swung back to the "gone in 5 to 7 years" side of things.

At least it shows science can listen and when errors are discovered is the flexible enough to accommodate the new data.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Admiral_Bobski]

Indeed! It would seem a bunch of them had been over confident in their remote sensing techniques until an associate saw (first hand) that their interpretations were awry.

It would now seem that a bit of rapid updating to the length of time we have polar summer ice had to be done.

Strange (to me) ,in 07' we first heard of this doom laden prediction but then,swayed by the growth in scepticism and the two years of alleged Arctic 'recovery' pushed the figure back to 2030 at the earliest.

Now the pendulum, with the help of the evidence culled this Sept, has swung back to the "gone in 5 to 7 years" side of things.

At least it shows science can listen and when errors are discovered is the flexible enough to accommodate the new data.

Well then, I guess we'll see if 5-7 years if they're right. Whether the ice melts entirely or not is one thing. Whether the warming that causes the ice to melt is man-made or not is an entirely different thing.

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

Oh ,hold on, let me get this right....what are you blathering on about V.P.? (I think that's how you do it!).

EDIT; And whilst we're at it how did B17b escape the clutches of the trans Antarctic circulation? Does it herald an antipodean cryospheric melt phase with a weakening current allowing a warm southern ocean up close and personal with the remaining shelfs....Esp. Ross from whence it calved?

Edited December 14, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

Oh ,hold on, let me get this right....what are you blathering on about V.P.? (I think that's how you do it!).

EDIT; And whilst we're at it how did B17b escape the clutches of the trans Antarctic circulation? Does it herald an antipodean cryospheric melt phase with a weakening current allowing a warm southern ocean up close and personal with the remaining shelfs....Esp. Ross from whence it calved?

As long as the evil polar bears get it along with the nefarious penguins, I am quite a happy chappy - I can't go on holiday to these parts unless it is safe for my kids, wife, dog and cat, now, can I? Do you think it will be convenient to take my 18litre V36 super-charged Vauxhall Corsa, for sport, along, too?

Perhaps I can schedule a super-tanker to take enough fuel with me - and fly my wife and kids by Concorde (we need to get there fast - it's a long way away, and I can only take two weeks leave) Might a problem in getting it air-worthy, but, I hear, there are ways and means of getting it achieved.

If all the ice hasn't gone, not to worry, I'll build a desalination plant, hire more aircraft, and sprinkle it all with salt. At least there will be fresh-water left over; I hear that there's a shortage in some places in the world. I'll give it to them on the basis that the cost is returned, with interest, whilst the profits I make, I will give 0.000000000001% back to help them fight climate change. Do you think I might win a Nobel prize for being so generous?

Those places where it will be all to hot to live, I will migrate the people there to the poles, at least it's cooler. They might not like the dark, but, hey, I can make some money out of it - especially in the private aircraft I will buy to ship them there. I'll also build a huge energy inefficient nuclear collider so that they have work to do, to. There will be plenty of space - and at least the idiots will get an education that I think is important, and we can ditch their stupid little culture.

But, best of all, I will start a new movement - I will call it the 'blue' movement, and I will lobby the world's press and governments on the basis that the scorpions left in those hot spots are now endangered, and we should all limit CO2 to make it colder, and I will make more money constructing a scheme to turn the periodic table into a market commodity scheme.

I don't care that such things are already owned by everyone, I don't care that we currently sit at the top of human achievement. I certainly don't care that life expectancy has increased, disease has decreased, that capitalism has measurably improved the general wealth of everyone on the planet (apart from those idiots who still live in hot places!)

I will, finally, and, of course, inherit the earth from my numerous and extensive reproductive scheme (father a child every day for ten years) and then I will convert the thinking of the world so that everyone is equal. Those that have odd coloured hair will be forced to dye it. Those who can't run very fast, have nothing to fear, I will cull those that run the fastest. Those who think for themselves, will, well, be exterminated in a very public and degrading fashion. I will torture anyone who strays from the norm. The norm being everything that I am and you are not.

And everything will be average, and boring. And I will be rich. Of course, everyone is equal, but 'some' are more equal than others. That 'some' is me.

Edited December 14, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Gray-Wolf]

You mean the 'Geek' will inhibit the mirth'?

Edited December 14, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

You mean the 'Geek' will inhibit the mirth'?

Nah, I just wanted to demonstrate what an extreme denialist might sound like. I don't believe a word of my last post, but I can see some that do (very very few around here) and I just don't want to be lumped in with those sorts of people, which seems to be happening in an odd, round the houses sort of way.

[jethro]

There's a world of difference between deniers and sceptics, there are very few deniers on this forum - VP you're most definitely not a denier IMO, I'd go so far as to say it would be impossible to consider you as such, going on your posts here.

I do however think the term "denier" is over-used to dismiss all forms of scepticism; sometimes it's easier to dismiss questions as an irrelevance rather than answer them, it doesn't however make the question invalid.