Arctic Ice 2009/2010

[Gray-Wolf]

Looks like that growth spurt has slowed to a crawl and we appear to be slipping down the rankings again!

I do hope we've picked up by J1's next post!

[stewfox]

Looks like that growth spurt has slowed to a crawl and we appear to be slipping down the rankings again!

I do hope we've picked up by J1's next post!

Lets face it any faster increases then the last week and the Polar bears would have been encased in ice.

The last thing we want to see is run away ice growth, lets face it half the Northern Hemisphere is covered in ice

http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims_gif/DATA/cursnow_asiaeurope.gif

Looks like a ice bridge between Iceland and Greenland soon, was it 1976 last time ??

[Gray-Wolf]

Seems like ice growth is on a Christmas Holiday! another day of this slowed growth will put us bottom of the pile again.

[Devonian]

Lets face it any faster increases then the last week and the Polar bears would have been encased in ice.

The last thing we want to see is run away ice growth, lets face it half the Northern Hemisphere is covered in ice

http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims_gif/DATA/cursnow_asiaeurope.gif

Looks like a ice bridge between Iceland and Greenland soon, was it 1976 last time ??

AIUI ice bridge hasn't happened since the late sixties and it's highly unlikely to happen this year.

[Gray-Wolf]

AIUI ice bridge hasn't happened since the late sixties and it's highly unlikely to happen this year.

If you look at the Arctic flushout you'll see the East Coast of Greenland is one of the major routes into the Atlantic. As we saw in sept the rest of the old perennial was stacked up to the NW of Svalbard and flowing south.

This time last year we had a similar situation with folk pointing out what they saw as 'growth' down the East coast of Greenland only for it to be revealed as Bergs heading out of the Arctic into the warmer waters of the Atlantic.

I think if we looked (on infra red) that we'd find similar this year with winds/currents taking the remnants of the old perennial out of the Arctic.

[Devonian]

If you look at the Arctic flushout you'll see the East Coast of Greenland is one of the major routes into the Atlantic. As we saw in sept the rest of the old perennial was stacked up to the NW of Svalbard and flowing south.

This time last year we had a similar situation with folk pointing out what they saw as 'growth' down the East coast of Greenland only for it to be revealed as Bergs heading out of the Arctic into the warmer waters of the Atlantic.

I think if we looked (on infra red) that we'd find similar this year with winds/currents taking the remnants of the old perennial out of the Arctic.

Indeed...There is always ice moving SW to the east of Greenland - bergy bits, bits of old ice, all caught up in the current. This is nothing like the late sixties when ice formed around the N of Iceland and from there to Jan Mayen.

Edited December 24, 2009 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

Indeed...There is always ice moving SW to the east of Greenland - bergy bits, bits of old ice, all caught up in the current. This is nothing like the late sixties when ice formed around the N of Iceland and from the to Jan Mayen.

Indeed Dev!

I do think that some folk still don't get just how depleted the ice is up there.

[stewfox]

Indeed...There is always ice moving SW to the east of Greenland - bergy bits, bits of old ice, all caught up in the current. This is nothing like the late sixties when ice formed around the N of Iceland and from there to Jan Mayen.

Well if you know the forcast upthere for the next 3.5 months please post it

1976 was the last year

[oldsnowywizard]

Indeed Dev!

I do think that some folk still don't get just how depleted the ice is up there.

Mods are you paying attention to this thread at all? i have just sifted through 3 pages and found little to do with what this thread is about. and im sorry GW but comments like this are the reason why i am refusing to post on this thread any longer. this is a clear comment meant to get a raise out of people.

[shuggee]

I'm not sure how you can disagree? I'm no expert, but what appears to be the sixth lowest ice total for mid December ever recorded suggests GW is right?

[Gray-Wolf]

I think we're tied at the lowest level ever recorded so if you couple that with the loss of ice volume we are currently way below anything seen before as regards total ice volume across the pole.

Why is this important?

Well a thin skin of ice is a different beastie to a thick ,multimile ice island leading to different growth patterns and different breakup /melt patterns in spring.

[stewfox]

Mods are you paying attention to this thread at all? i have just sifted through 3 pages and found little to do with what this thread is about. and im sorry GW but comments like this are the reason why i am refusing to post on this thread any longer. this is a clear comment meant to get a raise out of people.

Well we are talking about 'artic ice cover' and how its running cf previous years. About 1 post a day recording this.

Its the depth of winter up there 'not much' is actually going on.

Edited December 26, 2009 by shuggee

[Gray-Wolf]

Well we are talking about 'artic ice cover' and how its running cf previous years. About 1 post a day recording this.

Its the depth of winter up there 'not much' is actually going on.

Maybe we should look at Arctic Ice as our 'climate piggy bank'.

We try to save money over winter to fund the moderation that the Arctic brings to the N.H. climate over summer.

You talk about comparing with previous years but ,back then, 50 to 60% of the arctic was covered in £2 coins and not the 10 pence peices we see today.

If AGW is filching our piggy bank even over winter, changing our £2 and £1 coins into 50p and 20p peices then ,come summer, how do we finance our 'climate moderation'?

Had we only the models to show us the losses over winter we could have reservations but when sat data confirms what the models show how can we ignore it? How can we claim 'nothing much is actually going on'?

If the Arctic was your bank account would you be feeling 'rich' these days or on your uppers?

[stewfox]

You talk about comparing with previous years but ,back then, 50 to 60% of the arctic was covered in £2 coins and not the 10 pence peices we see today.

If AGW is filching our piggy bank even over winter, changing our £2 and £1 coins into 50p and 20p peices then ,come summer, how do we finance our 'climate moderation'?

Had we only the models to show us the losses over winter we could have reservations but when sat data confirms what the models show how can we ignore it? How can we claim 'nothing much is actually going on'?

If the Arctic was your bank account would you be feeling 'rich' these days or on your uppers?

Are you refering to muti year ice or volume of ice or just coins ??

If you can provide a link to the volume of ice I would be more then happy to review

Most people know the measurments on the attached links has its weakness but it seems to be the 'default on here'

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

[Gray-Wolf]

I think this has to be the best week of the winter so far. Some really good gains. To me it now looks like 12.5M could be possible for Jan 1

Looks a little over optimistic now. Increases seem to have slowed down again now.

[stewfox]

Looks a little over optimistic now. Increases seem to have slowed down again now.

Any link to the 2010 year , I cant seem to find it or are they still all on xmas break up there.

Only thing for certain next 3 months , increases will increase a plenty

[laserguy]

Any link to the 2010 year , I cant seem to find it or are they still all on xmas break up there.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/...icecover.uk.php

[stewfox]

http://ocean.dmi.dk/...icecover.uk.php

Thanks I see IJIS is back and with more years better colours

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

Looks like we are bottom of the pile

GW no need for concern yet ?

Edited January 5, 2010 by stewfox

[Gray-Wolf]

I do hope not Stew but ,as I keep banging on about, the ice volume is also the lowest ever.

If the El-Nino influenced summer melt is 'average' then we stand to loose most of the last of the old perennial (lined up behind Svalbard currently) as soon as things ease between Greenland and Svalbard then the rest is less than 6ft thick (if we believe the stats) which means no physical integrity and a lot of cracking and piling of ice (all of which is still 3yrs or less and so melts out far easier than the 'old perennial' used to (not aged to glacier ice).

With all the Agencies going for a record hot year we could do with an extent like the last 2 years to start the melt season.

Ho Hum

[Gray-Wolf]

After Years of watching the 'single year ice' perform in the southern continent I'd like to raise an issue about our rapidly synchronising Northern ice pack..

Will it begin to act the same?

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL041434.shtml

Sorry ,can't afford the full paper but it confirms that we are in a poorer state, both measuring and sea, than we thought. With warm temps across the polar region ice build is still very thin and so soes not bode well for the coming melt season.

"

This case of mistaken identity is physically explained by the factors which contribute to the return to Radarsat-1 from the two surfaces; both ice regimes had similar temperature and salinity profiles in the near-surface volume, both ice types existed with a similar amount of open water between and within the floes, and finally both ice regimes were overlain by similar, recently formed new sea ice in areas of negative freeboard and in open water areas. The fact that these two very different ice regimes could not be differentiated using Radarsat-1 data or in situ C-band scatterometer or microwave radiometer measurements, has significant implications for climate studies and for marine vessel navigation in the Canada Basin."

As for December and the season;

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2010/010510.html

As for the 'exploitation of the Arctic' Dr Barber says;

"We are almost out of multiyear sea ice in the northern hemisphere," The little that remains is jammed up against Canada's Arctic archipelago, far from potential shipping routes.

Poor,Poor, Arctic.

[paul tall]

I think we're tied at the lowest level ever recorded so if you couple that with the loss of ice volume we are currently way below anything seen before as regards total ice volume across the pole.

Why is this important?

Well a thin skin of ice is a different beastie to a thick ,multimile ice island leading to different growth patterns and different breakup /melt patterns in spring.

Hey, I've been doing some research on Ice Ages today. Did you know that we are actually still in an Ice Age? Apparantly because there is still ice at the poles and Greenland.

The last what we call an "ice age" that we came out of was a "glacial period", and we are now in an "interglacial period". Or something. The glacial part of an Ice Age is the colder part whereas the interglacial is the warmer phase where glaciers retreat. In laymans terms.

So interestingly, we are still in an Ice Age, although a warmer phase, which may end with the entire melting of the polar and Greenland ice. Or it might not. If the polar caps don't melt then we remain in the current Ice Age, and the natural cycle would take us back to a glacial period eventually. Most Ice Ages usually have a number of glacial and interglacial periods within the Ice age, as we have had within this Ice Age. It HAS to end at some point and when it does we'll no longer be in an ice age, until the next one comes along a few million years later.

What is my point? Well, the ice caps have melted before in between Ice Ages. In fact, they have to completely melt for us not to be in an Ice Age. If this is a normal cycle for the Earth to go through then why are we worrying about the ice caps melting because we cannot stop it, whether we have given it a man made gee up or not? We just don't want it happening on "our watch", but I think nature will have the say on when the ice age ends not us.

[Gray-Wolf]

Wheels within wheels, some cycles are built of many Glaciations before we see an 'ice free'/reduced ice sheets earth. We are the last in a set of shorter glaciations and are now beyond the max. in the interglacial. Current warming, some say, has saved us from a return into an ice age in 12/14,000yrs time.

[songster]

If this is a normal cycle for the Earth to go through then why are we worrying about the ice caps melting because we cannot stop it, whether we have given it a man made gee up or not?

Because humans are, by and large, a littoral species. The vast majority of our population, financial and industrial concentrations are on the shoreline, and will be inundated if there is any significant sea level rise. Also, our crop species are vast monocultures which we have tailored to very precisely fit the current climate. Even a small rise in temperature will affect their productivity. We have no way of knowing whether we will be able to adapt (say) wheat, rice and barley to grow in hotter and saltier soils. Yes, we can carry out selective breeding, but if the variation is not there in the first place we cannot select for it.

Due to our intelligence, we are probably less vulnerable to climate change than most other species - we are unlikely to actually go extinct. Our civilisation, however, is uniquely vulnerable. You cannot just up sticks and migrate, when you're talking about moving (say) London. Significant sea level rise would drown our cities and industry, and send us back out to forage for a living. Along with that would come a vast reduction in population, from the 6.7 billion we can support with advanced agriculture, factory-produced fertilisers and industrial machinery, to the half-billion we can support with subsistence farming. In the worst-case scenario, if we lost wheat and rice as crop plants, that would send us back to pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer population levels, let alone pre-industrial - another factor of 10 or so. We'd be left searching for more heat-tolerant grass species to cultivate.

Edited January 10, 2010 by songster

[paul tall]

Yes, I understand all of the implications, but at the end of the day it is seemingly out of our hands, mother nature will do what mother nature will do. Lets say the worst happens, and lets say we prove it was down to us (unlikely)....it would only happen one other day anyway even without our input! We should spend less time fearing change and trying to fathom ways of altering mother nature, and more time planning how to adapt to the worst case scenarios.

Wheels within wheels, some cycles are built of many Glaciations before we see an 'ice free'/reduced ice sheets earth. We are the last in a set of shorter glaciations and are now beyond the max. in the interglacial. Current warming, some say, has saved us from a return into an ice age in 12/14,000yrs time.

We are IN an ice age, right now. What you mean is that current warming has saved us from a return to a glacial period, except there is no evidence for that is there? We can only go on past ice ages and the current ice age for historical evidence and that shows a run of ice ages with an ice free earth in between each one. Within each ice age you have a glacial/interglacial/glacial/interglacial cycle, however each ice age has an end, and the end of an ice age meas the end of a glacial/interglacial.

How can we say for certain that the warming has saved us from the next glacial period 12,000 years down the line, could it not just be that this is it, the run up to the end?