Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Arctic Ice 2009/2010


J10

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

With the greatest of respect J1 we can no longer look at perennial in the way we used to look at it. Since the ICESAT studies (through the 00'ies) it becomes apparent that we no longer generate ice thickness in ageing as as we used to. We all know that 90% of the ice is below water so have we come across a signal for warmer waters, at shallow depth, that were not present in the past (allowing for the giant blocks that used to form). If we give credence to the work done over this decade by the satellites gauging ice thickness we have to accept that ice no longer builds beyond 2 to 3m above sea level.

Since I became aware of the phenomena I have been careful to distinguish between 'old perennial' and 'new perennial' (ice retained since 03').

If things were as they used to be over the 30yrs of sat. measurements then ice retention over summer, and it's move into perennial ice ,would be crucial to any recovery. As it is it would appear that 'new perennial' is just a susceptible to summer melt out as single year ice.

I know this is based on scant data (satellite and sampling) but the addition (in feb?) of the European satellite will give us a better 'view' on how the ice performs, especially this winter basal melt that appears to plague the 'new perennial'.smile.gif

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/jul/HQ_09-155_Thin_Sea_Ice.html

Edited by Gray-Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Aberdeen
  • Location: Aberdeen

Ice age matters a lot for a number of reasons. The most important is obviously it's ability to over summer even in unfavourable conditions. Mark Serreze has said as much each address he gives (head of NSIDC). He is quick to point out the turnround ,over the past 15yrs, of the proportions of multiyear and younger ice (perennial was once the majority ice type now it is 10%). The ICESAT mission also shows that basal melting over winter and summer means that 'new' perennial never reaches the dimensions of the old perennial so any comparison of ice types today ought to recognise this change (surely?). Old perennial used to act in a way similar to glacial ice with physical changes occurring as it aged. The changes meant it became more durable with age but these 'changes' were part driven by it's depth.With the loss of perennial 'depth' we also loose the ice's tenacity to endure.

In 05? a buoy was dropped in the Siberian side of the Arctic.It emerged on the Svalbard side 2 years later. They repeated this in 07 and it took 7 months to do the same trip. I'm sure the transport of the 'pole' equipment (dropped each year) would provide a similar view of how much quicker ice travels these days on the Arctic Gyre and associated currents. How can ice endure in such conditions? We are still in the process of 'flushing out' the last 10% of the 'old' perennial today (hence the NW passage being 'clogged up this summer) and any opportunity to scan the east coast of Greenland will show these big bits of perennial as they move out into the north Atlantic (I remember someone mooting Greenland and Iceland nearly being 'joined ' by an ice bridge in Oct/Nov last year only to fins a flotilla of old perennial on it's way south.

So, we have thin ice predominating, we have basal melt 12 months of the year, we have ocean currents running faster than ever recorded flushing ice out at the peripheries, we have three year old ice no thicker than the average single year (at winters end). Should I be as concerned as the experts that one 'perfect storm' will take us well below 07's exceptional losses?

None of this is welcome, none of this is pleasing. Those of us with concerns are on a hiding to nothing.We cannot feel in any way rewarded when we see our understandings confirmed (unlike the cockle-doodle-doing we get when we have a high ice extent at winters end or are up on the appalling 07' extent in autumn). We listen to the experts ,understand what they tell us ,study the reports/papers and find ourselves accepting that as long as nothing alters within the system as it is we will live to see an ice free Arctic ocean.

And another 5 years with the conditions like 2008 and 2009 will bring what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the greatest of respect J1 we can no longer look at perennial in the way we used to look at it. Since the ICESAT studies (through the 00'ies) it becomes apparent that we no longer generate ice thickness in ageing as as we used to. We all know that 90% of the ice is below water so have we come across a signal for warmer waters, at shallow depth, that were not present in the past (allowing for the giant blocks that used to form). If we give credence to the work done over this decade by the satellites gauging ice thickness we have to accept that ice no longer builds beyond 2 to 3m above sea level.

Since I became aware of the phenomena I have been careful to distinguish between 'old perennial' and 'new perennial' (ice retained since 03').

If things were as they used to be over the 30yrs of sat. measurements then ice retention over summer, and it's move into perennial ice ,would be crucial to any recovery. As it is it would appear that 'new perennial' is just a susceptible to summer melt out as single year ice.

I know this is based on scant data (satellite and sampling) but the addition (in feb?) of the European satellite will give us a better 'view' on how the ice performs, especially this winter basal melt that appears to plague the 'new perennial'.smile.gif

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/jul/HQ_09-155_Thin_Sea_Ice.html

Starting off with the greatest of respect is never conducive of a respectful post, which is rather ironic, please bear that in mind with future comments.

The NASA information shows the figure up to 2008, I am interested in new data, as I am interested in how 2009 has performed and whether or not multi year ice is up as a recent report in Feb 09, suggested that 2nd year ice was recovering, but older than this was diminishing.

We are now 2 years past the 2007 low point in ice extent (current perhaps), this effected multi year ice greatly and as you say 2008 was lower (in multi year ice) for a multitude of reasons including flushing out of ice previously mentioned, also any new ice in 2008 could not possibly be more than year old.

However the interesting and important thing going forward is the rebuilding of post 2007 ice and there should be an increased of ice 2+ year old this year, perhaps leading to further increase in older ice in subsequent years, as we rebuild ice from 2007 onwards, as the new ice formed in winter 2008, would be 1-2 years old. If (and it's a big if), we get a further rise next year, and ice formed in winter 2008, would then become 2-3 years etc.

Tt is only in 4 or 5 years time we can see if multi year is recovering from this lowpoint, as there appears to be a lag effect however we could see hints towards this with the final 2009 Summer ice figures. As mentioned before the February 2009 figures showed an increase in ice between 1-2 years old, however much of this ice was retained during the summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

And another 5 years with the conditions like 2008 and 2009 will bring what?

In my own understanding it will bring us a very vulnerable ice pack across the Arctic ocean.

In 5 years time the 'log jam' of 'old perennial' ice across the Canadian Archipelago and the area from there to Svalbard will have cleared and ice transport across the pole will mean a limiting of the age ice achieves by it's transport out of the polar region into the North Atlantic (without taking into consideration the limiting factor of warmer waters below the pack).

This will mean that any repeats of 07' (which ,it being a 'cyclical, natural,event will occur over time) will have the whole of the ice pack to attack with no areas of ancient ice left to sustain such an onslaught leading to the prospect of an ice free polar sea.

The impacts on the Arctic Amplification will also increase with the amount of dark water revealed over the summer season so the time taken to loose the ocean heat (across the topmost section of ocean) in autumn will also lengthen delaying ice reformation in the areas worst affected.

The impacts across the Siberian side of the Arctic will also amplify esp. the loss of methane from the shelf seas of the coast there as the submerged permafrost melts with it's contact with warm waters (we should have this years methane emissions later in the year).

The impacts on animals relying on the ice pack for rearing young and feeding will also mean an increasing impact on the sustainability of their species in those areas (new concerns over the Walrus population behind Bering spring to mind).

I'm sure that if I had the time I could give a fuller reply but I'm a little stretched todaywacko.gifsmile.gif

Starting off with the greatest of respect is never conducive of a respectful post, which is rather ironic.

Sorry you take it so J1 but I do have the greatest of respect for the effort and info you bring to this area I just feel that you must have accidentally 'skipped over' the recent data on ice thickness and age which does have great relevance to your post.smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry you take it so J1 but I do have the greatest of respect for the effort and info you bring to this area I just feel that you must have accidentally 'skipped over' the recent data on ice thickness and age which does have great relevance to your post.smile.gif

Actually the info you supply only goes to 2008, (to be fair it would be pretty impressive to have Winter 2009 figures now), so it is not that relevant to my post as mentioned above. I am not disputing the general trend I am more interested in the Summer 2009 figures in terms of multi ice, to see if it supports my post 2007 recovery theory, especially with regards to "young" multi year ice.

Looking at the data provided, it is very interesting in that there was a significant recovery from 2003 to 2005, and 2005 was by far the best in the series in terms of ice volume, although 2008 does appear to be below 2003.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

Looking at the data provided, it is very interesting in that there was a significant recovery from 2003 to 2005, and 2005 was by far the best in the series in terms of ice volume, although 2008 does appear to be below 2003.

But then came 07'.

I think that the 'surprise' at the melting then was that in past 'warm years' the perennial had endured but as you point out though ice was carried through up to 07' it perished along with the single year during that summer.

If we have 'turned a corner' in the Arctic ,with regards to perennial ice (and the thickness it is now able to muster), then the old perennial locked in the Archipelago and behind Greenland may well be the last vestige of the 'old' Arctic.

With warmer waters and thinner ice the transport of ice across the Arctic appears to be accelerating and so the processes that used to trap ice and allow it to grow into office block size chunks may be lost.

I agree that the ice volume and thickness data will be interesting once it's released but I'm sure that 07' has generated a lot more study into the process of ablation across the Arctic so we may well have a wealth of documentation to digest over the coming years.

to supplement our yearly report card.

Had I been born in 2000 then my experience of the Arctic may have lead me to feel less concerned about it's fate after watching 2 years of ice extent growth since 07'.Sadly I'm not allowed this luxury having been born in a time when the Arctic had around 43% more ice than it does at present.

When we start loosing ice shelfs that have been in place for thousands of years we must surely start to look for processes that are operating above and beyond the recent natural fluctuations in ice extents/volumes we have witnessed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Gateshead, Tyne and Wear - 320ft ASL
  • Weather Preferences: Cold snowy weather in winter. Dry and warm in summer.
  • Location: Gateshead, Tyne and Wear - 320ft ASL

I have to say Gray-Wolf that you seem to have a very blinkered view on things. I think if you had a little more balance in your posts then people might give you a bit more credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

I have to say Gray-Wolf that you seem to have a very blinkered view on things. I think if you had a little more balance in your posts then people might give you a bit more credit.

I'm so sorry you feel that way S.W. If you have some other way of accepting the measured changes to the North I'd be thrilled to embrace them.

If they are no more than hope casting on the strength of ice extent increases over the disaster of 07' ,but still 20% off the rolling 30yr extent, then you'll really need to sell it to me.

Are we all expected to ignore facts because folk find them unpalatable? Are we supposed to stay moot when facts are twisted and misrepresented? If so I find I cannot live in such a shallow reality, sorry an' all that and though reality is unsettling it is all that we have (that is real, that is).smile.gif

http://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss.html?awesm=on.ted.com_2p&utm_campaign=ted&utm_medium=on.ted.com-twitter&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_content=site-basic

Edited by Gray-Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the ice volume and thickness data will be interesting once it's released but I'm sure that 07' has generated a lot more study into the process of ablation across the Arctic so we may well have a wealth of documentation to digest over the coming years.

to supplement our yearly report card.

I agree that will be interesting, I also think that there will be more information on ice thicknesses in forthcoming years, as it becomes more relevant.

I'm so sorry you feel that way S.W. If you have some other way of accepting the measured changes to the North I'd be thrilled to embrace them.

If they are no more than hope casting on the strength of ice extent increases over the disaster of 07' ,but still 20% off the rolling 30yr extent, then you'll really need to sell it to me.

Are we all expected to ignore facts because folk find them unpalatable? Are we supposed to stay moot when facts are twisted and misrepresented? If so I find I cannot live in such a shallow reality, sorry an' all that and though reality is unsettling it is all that we have (that is real, that is).smile.gif

This years minimum ice extent was better than the experts expected, surely that is good news, as no one expected ice extent to be above 30 year averages after the damage done in 2007 did they.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and heatwave
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft

Ice age matters a lot for a number of reasons.

No one as yet has explained why 'ice age matters'

3 metres of 1 yr ice will melt as fast as 3 metres of 10 yr ice (all things being equal)

Its not the age of the ice thats important (as the last 2 yrs have shown) its the location synoptics etc.

If older ice gets 'released' of course there maybe a snow ball effect but thats due to the location of the ice not the age of it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon

No one as yet has explained why 'ice age matters'

3 metres of 1 yr ice will melt as fast as 3 metres of 10 yr ice (all things being equal)

Its not the age of the ice thats important (as the last 2 yrs have shown) its the location synoptics etc.

If older ice gets 'released' of course there maybe a snow ball effect but thats due to the location of the ice not the age of it

Here is a reason, multi year ice is different. It has less brine in it, it's stronger.

Edited by Devonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Dorset
  • Location: Dorset

No one as yet has explained why 'ice age matters'

3 metres of 1 yr ice will melt as fast as 3 metres of 10 yr ice (all things being equal)

Its not the age of the ice thats important (as the last 2 yrs have shown) its the location synoptics etc.

If older ice gets 'released' of course there maybe a snow ball effect but thats due to the location of the ice not the age of it

No this is totally wrong sorry. 3 meters of 1 yr ice will melt far far easier than 3 of 10 yr ice. As ice gets older more and more oxygen leaves the ice, the ice becomes more dense, this is why glacial ice doesn't melt as fast as 1 year old sea ice.

Sorry wrong again on the middle point the last year summers have shown how the age of the ice matters as the older ice is the ice which has melted least.

I do find it hard to understand how so many ice experts have come out and explained that the age of the ice matters yet people on here seem to just discount it. Why ?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

No this is totally wrong sorry. 3 meters of 1 yr ice will melt far far easier than 3 of 10 yr ice. As ice gets older more and more oxygen leaves the ice, the ice becomes more dense, this is why glacial ice doesn't melt as fast as 1 year old sea ice.

Sorry wrong again on the middle point the last year summers have shown how the age of the ice matters as the older ice is the ice which has melted least.

I do find it hard to understand how so many ice experts have come out and explained that the age of the ice matters yet people on here seem to just discount it. Why ?.

If feel that it is maybe because it is too close to the bone (as a sign of Arctic decline) for most folk to choose to embrace whilst there is the chance of grabbing onto other 'feel good factors' across the arctic (high ice extent over winter or improvements on the 07' figure at summers end).

Though we know we've shed over 80% of the 'old perennial' since sat. measurements began, and that the ice measured since 04' does not put on the depth that the old perennial used to, we find ourselves facing 'ice extent' as the common currency of conversation.

Maybe we are programmed to 'always look on the bright side of lifewhistling.gifwhistling.gifwhistling.gif .....'?biggrin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey

Maybe we are programmed to 'always look on the bright side of lifewhistling.gifwhistling.gifwhistling.gif .....'?biggrin.gif

That's no bad thing

BFTP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey

If feel that it is maybe because it is too close to the bone (as a sign of Arctic decline) for most folk to choose to embrace whilst there is the chance of grabbing onto other 'feel good factors' across the arctic (high ice extent over winter or improvements on the 07' figure at summers end).

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't be happy when end-of-summer ice extent improves, or when the winter high extent improves? You do seem determined to find the worst in every situation, GW.

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

I don't really follow the Arctic ice thread much so apologies if this has been covered already...

I always understood that the biggest problem with greater ice loss in the summer was the change to albedo, in that dark ocean water absorbs more energy from the Sun than ice which reflects. This in turn would lead to warmer oceans, leading to ever more ice melt, so on and so forth until it's all gone.

If this is the case, then the date for the start of re-freezing in the autumn should be delayed to allow for the warmer oceans to cool enough to begin freezing.

Has the start date of re-freeze been getting later?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't be happy when end-of-summer ice extent improves, or when the winter high extent improves? You do seem determined to find the worst in every situation, GW.

CB

Sorry C-Bob, I suppose you could interpret my posts that way. It is not that I don't see the positives but they are always qualified by 'the bigger picture'.

It's kinda like folk pointing out weather and me seeing only climate.

Sadly since the 1980 Arctic max. the 'trend' has been in one direction only and even the 'positives' you point us to are but a continuation of that trend.

I'd love to peep 30yrs down the line and see that the past 2 years increases (over the terrible 07' min.) continue but it seems (to me) that we have a long ways to go to overturn the overall trend of wastage in the Arctic.

Even when 'weather' is favourable for retention we still seem to fall in with the continued 'trend' for loss across the arctic (see the past 2 years with high winter max figures for a start point and 'favourable' conditions through the summer melt for retention).

As with global climate I wouldn't want to hold a natural 'extreme' as the benchmark from which to measure all else (be it 98' global temps and all the chatter it generates or the 07' ice extent min. and the chatter this generates) better to take the smoother line of the 'long view'?

'One Swallow a summer does not make' and for every positive I glean from the daily onslaught of reports/data/papers there are many negatives confirming (to me) that we are in a bad place and that both our understanding of that 'bad place' increases and the data showing us this 'bad place' amasses.

I would hope ,for my kids sakes, that we do have nothing but positives to look forward to but is this realistic of me to expect? When they ask questions of me do I try and have them understand the picture as it is painted or give them my hopes for the future?

For those who question CO2's role in our current warming do they also question it's part in the acidification of our oceans? The latest paper on the acidification of the Arctic waters surely makes us question the wisdom of adding such quantities of the gas into our atmosphere even if only for the impacts on the ocean's ecosystems?

Edited by Gray-Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

I don't really follow the Arctic ice thread much so apologies if this has been covered already...

I always understood that the biggest problem with greater ice loss in the summer was the change to albedo, in that dark ocean water absorbs more energy from the Sun than ice which reflects. This in turn would lead to warmer oceans, leading to ever more ice melt, so on and so forth until it's all gone.

If this is the case, then the date for the start of re-freezing in the autumn should be delayed to allow for the warmer oceans to cool enough to begin freezing.

Has the start date of re-freeze been getting later?

I think you'd need to view this sector by sector as the distribution of ice cover varies (due to weather) over summer. The areas I'd look to would be those to the rear of Bering and off the Russia coast as these appear to be where we have lost 'traditional' summer ice cover. Also the heat accrued over summer is radiated out into the atmosphere in autumn and the measures of the 'Arctic Amplification' are best witnessed by the temp profiles of the atmosphere above the summer 'open waters' as compared to the past measures of the temp profiles there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

I appreciate that weather plays a huge role in the ice loss, that was the primary cause for the phenomenal melt in 2007. Wind plays a major role too, flushing old, multi-year ice out into warmer waters, this has more to do with the state of the AO and the NAO than anything else. Surely the proposed positive feedback loop whereby less ice leads to loss of albedo, leading in turn to warmer oceans and even less ice, should first be noticeable in the start date of re-freeze?

It doesn't matter what the summer atmospheric temperatures are, ice has always melted in the summer. What matters is if this is leading to warmer ocean temperatures, this would indicate a later start date for re-freeze; has it been getting later?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

http://nsidc.org/monthlyhighlights/august2009.html

All I can do is point you at the NSDIC overview.Hope this is useful?smile.gif

http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/2/601/2008/tcd-2-601-2008-print.pdf

and the paper that the Arcticle refers to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: CARDIFF
  • Location: CARDIFF

Sorry C-Bob, I suppose you could interpret my posts that way. It is not that I don't see the positives but they are always qualified by 'the bigger picture'.

It's kinda like folk pointing out weather and me seeing only climate.

Sadly since the 1980 Arctic max. the 'trend' has been in one direction only and even the 'positives' you point us to are but a continuation of that trend.

I'd love to peep 30yrs down the line and see that the past 2 years increases (over the terrible 07' min.) continue but it seems (to me) that we have a long ways to go to overturn the overall trend of wastage in the Arctic.

Even when 'weather' is favourable for retention we still seem to fall in with the continued 'trend' for loss across the arctic (see the past 2 years with high winter max figures for a start point and 'favourable' conditions through the summer melt for retention).

As with global climate I wouldn't want to hold a natural 'extreme' as the benchmark from which to measure all else (be it 98' global temps and all the chatter it generates or the 07' ice extent min. and the chatter this generates) better to take the smoother line of the 'long view'?

'One Swallow a summer does not make' and for every positive I glean from the daily onslaught of reports/data/papers there are many negatives confirming (to me) that we are in a bad place and that both our understanding of that 'bad place' increases and the data showing us this 'bad place' amasses.

I would hope ,for my kids sakes, that we do have nothing but positives to look forward to but is this realistic of me to expect? When they ask questions of me do I try and have them understand the picture as it is painted or give them my hopes for the future?

For those who question CO2's role in our current warming do they also question it's part in the acidification of our oceans? The latest paper on the acidification of the Arctic waters surely makes us question the wisdom of adding such quantities of the gas into our atmosphere even if only for the impacts on the ocean's ecosystems?

Can not argue with you quote 'one swallow a summer does not make', however we also need to understand that if a turnaround on global temperatures has now slowly just began, that will then lead to Artic sea ice recovering, then perhaps we should also use the quote, 'Rome was not built in a day'

Firstly human intervention on this planet will obviously effect it to some degree, Co2 and other pollutants should be reduced and in doing so can only be a positive move. BUT why do we find a piece of a puzzle then sit back and think we have the full picture. The Sun has the biggest effect on our planet, Nothing else has an effect anywhere near to the effects the sun does.

so with a long period of excessive solar activity would you not expect temperatures to rise, now we enter a much less active period and so we would expect temperatures to fall. Which is exactly what has happened. Sea ice minimum was just behind the solar max and sea ice recovery starts with the minimum solar activity( using the time lag )

To explain the effects of CO2 we would be looking for a drop in levels for the last two years, Howver that has not happened, CO2 ammounts have increased. The only change is too the solar cycle.

For the recovery of sea ice we now need to look at the depth and length of this current minimum.

Short mimimum and return to a maximum would return sea ice depletion to what we have witnessed for last decade, continued mimimum would recover the ice like has happened in the past.

So whats the weather forecast for the sun? truth is everyone is guessing. Some experts predict a Maunder mimimum, others are more causioulsy predicting a Dalton mimimum. Some even say w will return to high solar activity very soon.

I cover this further in another thread so will not repeat it here, but i enclude the link to it and some links to articles about our current minimum and the Dalton minimum.

If some one wants to explain why sea ice has slowly recovered for last two years, and explain why if CO2 is biggest cause then please do.

Its the solar cycle that is why, its happened before and will again.

If you look at how much ice has recovered then it does not look impressive but are you looking acurately at what has happened?

You see 300000 km2 extra ice not dissapeared this year from 07

But in 07 there was an increas in ice loss from 06 - correct? lets say again 300000 km2 less.

So the turn around is much greater its the 300000 that is actual improvement plus the 300000 that was expected in the pattern. The temperatures and other factors causing that loss needed to firstly drop signifigantly to stop any further loss from 300000 - zero. Then the effects had to be more again to make an increase in sea ice. Looking at it from that perspective w really have seen an amazing turn around.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/28/nasa-now-saying-that-a-dalton-minimum-repeat-is-possible/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/15/arctic-sea-ice-melt-appears-to-have-turned-the-corner-for-2009/

Here is a link to netweather forum UK and Western Europe where its explained and debated did not want to put it here as this is about Sea ice but the above is releavant as its the cause of the loss and recovery

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/topic/48837-uk-and-north-west-europe-climate-change/page__st__34

To finish can i reiterate that CO2 is not good for our planet and we should do what we can to look after our planet, just do not think its had as much effect in this area as some people thought. The cause has been shining down on us, perhaps we were temporarily blinded by it.

Edited by pyrotech
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

Thanks for those GW.

They do indeed confirm that later re-freeze would be symptomatic of amplification.

"As the climate warms, the summer melt season lengthens and intensifies, leading to less sea ice at summer’s end. Summertime absorption of solar energy in expanding open water areas increases the sensible heat content of the ocean. Ice formation in autumn and winter, important for insulating the warm ocean from the cooling atmosphere is delayed."

However, as always, nothing's simple in any of this.

"Less sea ice at summer’s end (September), as observed, has enhanced upward heat fluxes

to the atmosphere. Further analysis of the NCEP data reveals that the rise in Arctic

Ocean SAT in autumn is most closely associated with an increase in longwave radiation

emitted by the surface, with changes in the turbulent sensible and latent heat fluxes playing a lesser role. Interestingly, the autumn net surface heat flux has shown little

coherent change in the past decade. This follows in that while the warmer atmosphere

radiates more strongly to the surface (by itself contributing to a more positive net surface

heat flux), the surface in turn radiates more strongly to the atmosphere, with an

opposing effect."

Does any one know if a later start date to the re-freeze is/has been occurring?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Dorset
  • Location: Dorset

There is certaintly a later start date than in previous decades which once saw late August as a valid time for ice to start recovering.

However this isn't a detailed enough answer and more questions such as (what constitutes sea ice recovery (an increase of 100Kskm or 1Mskm) and at what point in the past are we comparing to ?.

The fact that we are currently below 6Mskm still might be enough reason to assume that even in October ice hasn't really started to recover properly yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

I think the fairest assessment date would be when we stop recording losses and start recording gains.

This would answer the question of whether the time it takes for latent heat to be lost from the oceans, to the point that freezing is possible is/has been delayed - warmer oceans due to loss of albedo, taking longer to cool in the Autumn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Dorset
  • Location: Dorset

It's a good suggestion, but I think the problem is that small gains can easily come by ice consolidation(with out ice forming in the warmer waters).

This year is a good example of where the ice is so far recovering pretty dreadfully, this could be down to warmer SST's but might be down to other factors.

We stopped recording ice losses many days ago, but I wouldn't yet say that ice is really recovering.

However going from what you've said I don't believe that ice has stopped falling in August in the last 9 years, however in the 70's and 80's I believe this did happen.

This date is much more likely to be in the later half of September now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...