Arctic Ice 2009/2010

[Gray-Wolf]

A couple of points, is the ice not anomalously high there currently? Secondly it (the Baltic Sea) is not in the Arctic anyway

My pint is the anomalous high ice figures in the areas that will be ice free in a month or so. A quick look at the Bering straights and beyond will see well broken ,rounded floes that also appear on the 'grey' side of white (very thin ice, almost sea through). These areas , and their breakup/fragmentation, have pushed up the 15% or more 'extent' figures over the past week or so (as did the high Arctic fragmentation over the past full moon tides).

Over the next 6 weeks the edges of the pack will disappear (unless you predict that spring is on hold across all these regions and sunlight will be blocked out now that the sun has risen over the pole.

In 2 weeks we will start to amass important info as to the state of the Arctic pack in the form of ice thickness measures across the basin (even before the knacked ice reveals itself by melting out) so we will know much earlier in the season just where the pack is weakest.

The 'old' info on 'ice age' (which are proven to be a bit askew with 'rotten ice' parading as 'old perennial') has most of the old ice stacked up behind the Fram straight or to the north of Greenland/Canadian archipelago.

Let us see how wind and current treat these areas this year.

We've had 2 knacked summers in a row and I'm hoping that this year we'll have a July /Aug that is better for the kids and not a washout. The Arctic has had 2 years of weather that has kidded some folk into calling 'recovery'.......will this year also be more 'normal' up there? If so watch for the drift through Fram on the Arctic Current and the general motion of the ice (anti clockwise) feeding the stuff behind Greenland into the Fram Straight. The perennial in the Davis straight (including the ice from the shelfs that collapsed from Ellesmere Island over the past 2 years) has been flowing down it all winter long so expect a much freer Archipelago this year as the 'ice jam' that blocked the northern end has effectively cleared

[Devonian]

A couple of points, is the ice not anomalously high there currently? Secondly it (the Baltic Sea) is not in the Arctic anyway

This is right, but I would guess it's counted in the figure for 'Arctic' ice - it certainly features in the Cryosphere maps and NSIDC. Likewise Hudson Bay isn't all truly Arctic but I think it's part of the area/extent figures?

[Gray-Wolf]

This is right, but I would guess it's counted in the figure for 'Arctic' ice - it certainly features in the Cryosphere maps and NSIDC. Likewise Hudson Bay isn't all truly Arctic but I think it's part of the area/extent figures?

You are correct Dev. It'd be a pretty dim thing just to measure ice within the Arctic Circle now wouldn't it? We'd be full of ice by mid December each year and the ice 'extent' would only start to melt come late April/early May!!!

This year has seen a pee poor High Arctic extent with poorly formed thin ice (as Mr Serreze points out) but anomalously high sea/lake ice in the areas worst hit by the extreme AO. Those areas outside the Arctic circle with sea/lake ice are now into spring and I don't think anyone expects this ice to endure for a normal summer season (i.e ice 'extent will suffer a cliff face plummet from mid April through late May).

The 'test' is the high Arctic and it's performance through the season.

We already had open water at the Geographic pole in mid March (remember the images of the big leads running through it?) and poor ice concentration/thickness/integrity across the rest of the Arctic Basin.

The fools crying "recovery" over the breakup, spread and melt of the extremities of the pack/lake ice will soon be feeling foolish so I expect a lot of angry responses when we give it " oh! , look at that reduction of ice! in a few weeks time........Ho Hum.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Solar Cycles]

All ice has to start (or re-start) somewhere. Previously in history, single year ice has obviously being multi year ice - so we know it can happen.

The situation in 2007 was extremely vulnerable, as we all know. Yes it is only a short time, and we certainly cannot draw conclusions of lasting recovery as a given from this, but that said, it is very telling that from the most vulnerable of stages in 2007 we have seen a stabilisation and higher ice maxima retention since then plus now we see a figure that brings us in line with 2002/3.

We also know that there have been cyclical synoptic changes as well since the mid 2000 decade - with a markededly increasingly more southerly tracking jet stream that is taking less warmer plumes of air into the arctic.

And as others say, we have seen the same doomwatch prophecies that each year that passes will be the deathknell of the arctic ice. Not in 2008, not in 2009 and now not so far in 2010 either. We wait on the summer to see what happens

Such people profess to not wanting the arctic ice to fail, yet apparently revel in every opportunity of seemingly wanting to make the same OTT predictions several times a week (somethimes several times a day!)

Unfortunately as a consequence of this, it is hard not to believe that it is some kind of wind-up - and that they do actually want it to happen all in the name of rubber stamping AGW.

Then others will suggest that we should look at 'the science' and follow slavishly what that suggests in terms of forebodings. As an example - recent history has shown that such predictions have not been correct too. Failures like an inability to pick up cyclical changes in positive (warming) and negative (cooling) cycles such as the PDO. One only has to look at the astonishment of the METO that the jet stream has defied climatic trends and headed south. Very much reflected in their warm tinted seasonal forecasts which have gone woefully wrong due to their subsumation in all things AGW without looking at the bigger picture in tems of what real seasonal factors are going to influence the weather instead of meddling with adding bolt on % increases in temperature for assumed man made forcings. They have forgotten that climate is long term and the weather is 'now'

Undoubtably in my mind the change in synoptic pattern that 'the science' has failed to anticipate, or believe was even able to happen, is a main reason for the stabillisation of the arctic ice since 2007.

Also we should look at the failure and mishandling of the negative solar minimum cycle (see NASA for eg here) for similar over pre-occupied reasons as the UK METO. Once again, solar minimum is a big driver of synoptic patterns in terms of stratosphere/ozone behaviour and impacts on the AO and in turn jet stream patterns. Which in turn impact the polar field and the arctic ice distribution.

'The Science', to my mind, pays far too much attention to supposition over the possibility that man made positive warmth amplification feedbacks might exist to override and negative cyclical feedbacks to the point where it becomes so skewed that only reality finally shows it up as over exaggerated and over cooked.

It is a bit like hearing a doom laden weather forecast and then watching and waiting to see it inevitably unfold out of your own window. Sometimes what you actually go on to witness is not what was predicted to happen.

An excellent summary there Tamara, I'll say it just about sums up where we stand regarding climatic observations, or I shall say the lack of!

[The PIT]

First dip but still on the 2003 line. http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

Cryosphere shows the Arctic back to normal http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html

Tamara sums it up fairly well.

Now lets see what happens over summer. If there's less melt than last year that will allow the ice to thicken will it not and vice versa???

[MR EXTREMES]

An excellent summary there Tamara, I'll say it just about sums up where we stand regarding climatic observations, or I shall say the lack of!

your hard pushed to read such an excellent post every single part of tamara post was spot on.

we will see in september even with slight loss right now,

which id of thought would be expected being that the weather has changed towards a normal spring like pattern,

but other parts of the arctic are still enjoying good ice coverage.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Now the highest in the last 8 years, just over 100,000km2 above 2003. Looking quite good for now, though we're still barely touching on the long-term average

[Gray-Wolf]

Yawn, did I miss something?

See the ice is still floating away into the Pacific (Bering) and Atlantic (Greenland sea) and is melting away in Hudson ,Newfoundland, and fringes of the pack......

[Devonian]

An article about this extent maxima worth reading

And a comment on uk.sci.weather that explains the lack of significance of recent events (comment 9):

> Ah yes I see. When the ice shrinks its AGW and when it expands its weather.

> Remarkable, is there a website you can guide me to that explains this

> process in greater detail?

No, when I see the Arctic ice has markedly decreased over a period of

over forty years, I reckon that could well be climate change. When a

change happens over a couple of weeks, I'm pretty sure it's just weather.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Devonian

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

An article about this extent maxima worth reading

And a comment on uk.sci.weather that explains the lack of significance of recent events (comment 9):

> Ah yes I see. When the ice shrinks its AGW and when it expands its weather.

> Remarkable, is there a website you can guide me to that explains this

> process in greater detail?

No, when I see the Arctic ice has markedly decreased over a period of

over forty years, I reckon that could well be climate change. When a

change happens over a couple of weeks, I'm pretty sure it's just weather.

You still have to look at other possible reasons beyond AGW.

Cyclical, cyclical, cyclical. Things that start have an end. New things then start. Nothing is constant and/or changes are not always permanent such as you believe.

The science doesn't leave enough leeway for these possibilities. Assumptive overrides in climate are a perilous road to take. Never assume - it makes an ass of u and me.

[Devonian]

You still have to look at other possible reasons beyond AGW.

Actually, we all need to keep an open mind - which means that you have to do that as well.

Cyclical, cyclical, cyclical. Things that start have an end. New things then start. Nothing is constant and/or changes are not always permanent such as you believe.

I've asked you before not to, please, tell me what I believe. Fwiw, there are climate cycles but it would be closed minded to rule out other possibilities - right?

The science doesn't leave enough leeway for these possibilities. Assumptive overrides in climate are a perilous road to take. Never assume - it makes an ass of u and me.

But, it's OK to (as you are?) assume science is making assumptions, to assume that it doesn't leave leeway for other possibilities?

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Actually, we all need to keep an open mind - which means that you have to do that as well.

I do, that is why I consider other possibilities besides the IPCC dieted one

I've asked you before not to, please, tell me what I believe. Fwiw, there are climate cycles but it would be closed minded to rule out other possibilities - right?

I'm merely stating what is obvious - you do believe pretty wholesale what the IPCC says don't you?

But, it's OK to (as you are?) assume science is making assumptions, to assume that it doesn't leave leeway for other possibilities?

I'm not making assumptions about the science, or what some of the science says - I'm cautioning against narrow focus. The forward projections of the IPCC do make assumptions about positive warming feedbacks manifesting themselves to produce future runaway warming, including the relative knock on effects on the arctic ice. They are relying on these to be reality.... beyond any (present) supposition

Edited April 5, 2010 by North Sea Snow Convection

[doctormog]

Yawn, did I miss something?

See the ice is still floating away into the Pacific (Bering) and Atlantic (Greenland sea) and is melting away in Hudson ,Newfoundland, and fringes of the pack......

It's called spring :lol:

Still looking slightly more favourable than recent years, not significantly different to the long term average (and as others suggest quite possibly/probably nothing significant in the big trend picture)

[Gray-Wolf]

I still think folk are not quite grasping the 'reality' and prefer to cling onto 'the illusion'.

The Article Dev posted a page back says much the same (the quotes from the experts) as my comment over the past fortnight.

Most of the 'extra extent' is outside the Arctic Basin (i.e. seasonal) and so plays no part in the min ice figures. The Arctic Basin is the place that sea ice min is measured and it has not had a good season for ice (too warm by far) so even as the ice outside the Basin is melting rapid changes will start to occur withing the basin itself (thin,shattered ice melting out as the 24hr sun takes it's toll).

The cliff face we are poised to fall off on the extent plot is not a 'surprise event' but will sadden/madden many of the recent "didn't we do well" posters.

As for cyclical.

Of course there are cycles of ice growth and ice loss.

We are well beyond the most extreme of the cyclical mins we have ever noted.

Science tells us that only mans mess could fetch us to this point.

Why pretend there is some grand cycle of ice min, not noted or theorised as being real anywhere in our scientific studies of the pole ,when there is a perfectly reasonable explaination for the mess we see up north?

I can't see the sense in it at all unless it is some illogical state of denial (they're not dead, they can't be dead etc.), an unwillingness to see the mess we are causing (on top of nature cycles ).

Cryosat2 will be launched this week?

No more need to worry about fickle extents.

At last we can focus on the true measure of 'ice volume' and we can all sing from the same hymn sheet (past 2 years 'recovery' saw a reduction in ice volume each time so , no recovery at all)

No longer will folk be able to call the collapse and spread of ice as a 'recovery' (when it is , in fact , nothing more than a continued slow collapse).

I sense a lot of toys loosing their position in the pram soon...........

[doctormog]

Why do we need the new satellite as you consistently state you know the ice volumes and how they match up with the archives yet somehow without using any data! :unsure:

The new satellite data will come in handy over future decades but will have no comparable baseline data at the start.*

(Therefore "ice is much thinner than we expected" and similar comments will say more about expectations that actual ice thickness)

I'll ask this nicely but could you tone down your arrogance a tad please. Comments like "I still think folk are not quite grasping the 'reality' and prefer to cling onto 'the illusion'." to start a post are both insulting and unnecessary they also IMO reflect badly on you and detract from the rest of your posts.

Patronising dismissal of others' viewpoints yet no evidence posted when requested to back up your concrete claims is wearing rather thin now. If you can't provide the evidence clearly and specifically you cannot simply discount others' views as illusional! I don't expect you to respect my points but thought I'd make them anyway.

[Devonian]

Why do we need the new satellite as you consistently state you know the ice volumes and how they match up with the archives yet somehow without using any data! :unsure:

The new satellite data will come in handy over future decades but will have no comparable baseline data at the start.*

(Therefore "ice is much thinner than we expected" and similar comments will say more about expectations that actual ice thickness)

I'll ask this nicely but could you tone down your arrogance a tad please. Comments like "I still think folk are not quite grasping the 'reality' and prefer to cling onto 'the illusion'." to start a post are both insulting and unnecessary they also IMO reflect badly on you and detract from the rest of your posts.

Crikey, Doc! You're obviously not reading TWO or WUWT these days

Patronising dismissal of others' viewpoints yet no evidence posted when requested to back up your concrete claims is wearing rather thin now. If you can't provide the evidence clearly and specifically you cannot simply discount others' views as illusional! I don't expect you to respect my points but thought I'd make them anyway.

Ditto.

I've looked on NSIDC for graphs of age change - no luck so far, if you've time perhaps you might be be able to help find them?

I think it's clear, is it not, that by all measures Arctic sea ice is in long term decline?

[Gray-Wolf]

http://television.esa.int/default.cfm#

Above is the link for this thursday's launch of our Cryosat2 satellite

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Crikey, Doc! You're obviously not reading TWO or WUWT these days

Ditto.

I've looked on NSIDC for graphs of age change - no luck so far, if you've time perhaps you might be be able to help find them?

I think it's clear, is it not, that by all measures Arctic sea ice is in long term decline?

As GW acknowledges, ice gain and loss can be cyclical

Edited April 6, 2010 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Gray-Wolf]

As GW acknowledges, ice gain and loss can be cyclical

I couldn't agree more NSSC , we know that we have both warm and cold episodes in the Atlantic and Pacific and these have always allowed the pack to vary in it's extents (the 'ice Bridge to Iceland from Greenland in the late 60's etc.) but the loss overall of ice thickness, ice shelfs and ice from the Greenland ice sheet is 'new' (as the science shows us).

The melting of the permafrost and destabilisation of the tundra affected (rapid coastal erosion, hillside solufluction, lake drainage etc.) is also 'new'.

Changes to the upper atmosphere imposed by the Arctic amplification (as it allows the open waters to shed their heat at winters end) are also a phenomena that was suggested must take place as the Arctic looses ice cover which we now measure occurring (and have not 'witnessed' before due to ice cover limiting and Arctic Ocean warming over summer).

AGW will make itself know by adding to ,or detracting from natural systems initially. As it grows in strength then it's impacts will manifest more and more above the baseline of 'natural variability' until it dominates wholly.

We are in the first stages of this process (as I witness things) and ,of course, the Arctic is the first to show us the effect to the point of all doubt being removed as to the cause of the changes. 07' was a collaboration of an AGW 'thinned pack' and a natural Chinook summer.

We will suffer 'natural summers' as big as 07' in their potential to eat,drift ice but next time we will have even less volume for the 'natural cycle' to work on.

In the way Dr B was surprised by his 'rotten ice masquerading a old perennial last Autumn science was surprised by the thin pack in 07' which ,for the first time, was able to melt out in areas normally ice locked.

[MR EXTREMES]

i watched a program this morning on sky news something like frontline ice.

it was about the antarctic but scientist did mention the arctic aswell and as gw likes to pick holes in parts of the arctic that is melting fast,

but thease scientist also except that other parts are not melting and holding together pretty well.

regional collapes of ice id of thought is something that has been a regualar feature in earths history,

it also clear to me that the ice in arctic area is doing better than some other years as ive said nobody is in denial that its below where we would like it.

but its enjoying the new global climate shift and features that played against good growth in the arctic look at the jet back when the arctic was causing the biggest headlines for melting also add the pdo effect + solar minimum,

this is now looking like favouring the arctic area.

any melting thats happening right now is not nothing abnormal after all season shifts happen all over our planet.

and what with low pressure systems dominating for awhile id expect fragmenting ice this is nothing abnormal either.

i do wonder if im reading the met office website half the time either that or the ipcc page lol.

looking forward to september with either a slight loss or even on par with the last couple of years.

good news aswell solar output is not as active as i thought it would be by now with decrease since januarys m class flares.

could get very intresting if things continue on this current trend.:unsure:

febuary 2008 http://www.cbc.ca/te...arctic-ice.html

febuary 2009 http://wattsupwithth...at-record-rate/

april 6th 2010 http://www.dailymail...doomsayers.html

i make that 3years in a row gw even the met office have said possible decade of cooling global temps,

id add another 2 decades to that to be honest.

Edited April 6, 2010 by badboy657

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/25/catlin-arctic-survey-ocean-acidification

Above is a recent report from the Catlin Ice survey and conveys the conditions they are encountering on the ground/ice up in the high Arctic.

Note the amount of thin ice and the Southerly drift of the ice that is hampering their progress.

Strange that they are finding thin/fragmented ice so far north eh?

Strange that the ice seems hell bent on a southerly migration eh?

Now who has been reporting such conditions for the past 2 months?

[WindWatcher]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/25/catlin-arctic-survey-ocean-acidification

Above is a recent report from the Catlin Ice survey and conveys the conditions they are encountering on the ground/ice up in the high Arctic.

Note the amount of thin ice and the Southerly drift of the ice that is hampering their progress.

Strange that they are finding thin/fragmented ice so far north eh?

Strange that the ice seems hell bent on a southerly migration eh?

Now who has been reporting such conditions for the past 2 months?

eh? eh?

I can't find anything of the kind in that article?

[Gray-Wolf]

eh? eh?

I can't find anything of the kind in that article?

My Bad , wrong section; try this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/31/catlin-arctic-survey-melting-ice

[WindWatcher]

My Bad , wrong section; try this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/31/catlin-arctic-survey-melting-ice

Thanks, but wasn't worth reading, as it was fact less. I really detest these sorts of articles and surveys, half a dozen people some not even scientists drawing conclusions about the whole Arctic when they cover a minute amount of ice. A few people trying to survey and draw conclusions on the state of the ice from a fixed camp in northern Canada... There are currently 14,198,281 km2 of ice, how much have they covered?

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks, but wasn't worth reading, as it was fact less. I really detest these sorts of articles and surveys, half a dozen people some not even scientists drawing conclusions about the whole Arctic when they cover a minute amount of ice. A few people trying to survey and draw conclusions on the state of the ice from a fixed camp in northern Canada... There are currently 14,198,281 km2 of ice, how much have they covered?

For a stat you can scratch over 1/2 of that figure as it'll be gone in 2 months time. Seasonal ice isn't the problem here, it's the ice that over weathers summer. A few years of ice min plots and you'll start to see where to look and measure. With the aid of Sat's you can then plot out the 'single year, 2nd year 3 rd year and fully perennial and it would be the 'perennial' that holds interest would it not? (no point in looking at ice that'll be sea in 2 weeks is there?).

NSIDC March review has a couple of images of the ice age and distribution and you can see how little of the Arctic we are concerned with here.