Arctic Ice 2009/2010

[sgian dearg]

Indeed, and very welcome all additional information will be too. But be aware that all it will be is information; in itself it won’t change anything, and there is no such thing as undisputable evidence. The interesting outcome will arise from how that information is interpreted and ultimately how, or even if, it is applied.

[Gray-Wolf]

I am still content that the silliness that is/has been 15% or more per pixel is outmoded.

I am content that Dr B's discoveries means a different algorithm will need to be employed to distinguish between perished old perennial and sound old perennial.

I am content that 'icebridge' is currently engaged on the low fly survey to bring similar data that the Cryosat mission will (and Cryosat is to within 1cm.....a far cry from 15% or more per pixel eh?).

Basically I am content that the truth will out and the silliness we've endured since 07' will be no more.

Though a single one a summer does not make I've just seen my first 9 swallows of the season (probably headed your way ole' red blade) and thats a good 9 days earlier than I'm used too!!!

[songster]

I am still content that the silliness that is/has been 15% or more per pixel is outmoded.

What's your explanation for the observation that ice area is also recovering over the last two years? Ice area calculations weight the data on a per-pixel basis, so a 15% pixel counts as 0.15, a 50% pixel counts as 0.5, etc.

[Gray-Wolf]

Remember what Dr Barber reports at the end of his 09 cruise in the high Arctic?

When that kms long flow collapsed when the right harmonic hit it it did so into 2m slabs. 90% of ice is under water so how do you think those slabs organised themselves and how much more ocean did they cover when cleaved into 2m sections and then lay on their sides (If I remember correctly the floe he encountered was quite large so it's depth ,9/10ths more, would be even greater).

Seeing as the majority of the Arctic used to be perennial you can see a pattern developing.

All this will be explained for us by Icebridge and Cryosat (and the folk currently on ice doing survey work).

[doctormog]

So basically your content with obsevrations, comments and opinions but do not comment on the actually data i.e. the numbers. This is how science works GW, you don't go with the theory and ignore the data. Variables, year on year and numerical data sets are the only way to do it. Personal obsevrations are just that, observations unless they are part of a longitudinal study they don't have more than "interest" value - they are certainly not as robust as the CT/NSIDC/IJIS datasets regardless of how you try to spin it.

I promise myself I won't reply to your posts, but they are so misleading and subjective it is difficult not to do so. The recent (decades) trend is undeniable but the future is also uncertain and the present is encouraging even if it doesn't last.

[cooling climate]

So , she flies .

3 days of system checking , a couple of weeks of investigative trials, and then we'll get the info it appears some of you don't want to hear.

It is not the info that some do not want to here but more like the info you are so desperately wanting to

here. Your posts are sounding more and more desperate that you need some sort of proof to back your

theories up.

Here is a quote from Mark Serreze director of the National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado(NSIDC)

from an article in the Times last Sunday...

"In retrospect, the reactions to the 2007 melt were overstated. The lesson is that we must be more careful

in not reading too much into one event,” Serreze said.

In a Arctic winter that is a few degrees above average it is meaningless when temperatures are still in

the region of -20c to -30c. What happens later in the spring and summer is more important.

The Arctic now is in pretty good shape considering what happened in 2007 and the future outlook is looking

very promising. The spring melt this season (assuming this is the real deal this time and does not continue to grow again)

continues the trend from last year and is in fact one of the slowest for many years.

I see you have been on other sites trying to promote your ideas and beliefs but with shall we say less

subtle responses from posters. See your post below taken from Solar cycle 24...

Whoopee dog pooh!!! She Flies!!!

What with Cryosat2 now in orbit and checks going well (ice thickness to within 1cm across the Arctic Basin and Greenland and Antarctica) we will soon dispose of the erroneous 'extent' (15% plus per pixel) and enter the real world of ice volume,

With 'icebridge' up and running we'll have a low fly version of thickness with which to compare and validate and also to re-calibrate the sensors above for the perished perennial to get a real view of how much 'old perennial' remains.

I sense a few prams will soon be bereft of toys.....

PS Love the smiley by the way.

[Gray-Wolf]

I like Mark Serezze, I have a lot of respect for the efforts he has put in over the years and that this was recognised by his team when he became head honcho.

Your 'snip' was in response to the 'open water at the pole', ''entirely possible ,with another 07', to have an ice free arctic by 2013...' comments ( not by him personally but his team) that the press and denialists jumped all over.

He has been true to his word and reports in quite a flat way over the years following that debacle.

He has also always added the 'not out of the woods by a long way' qualifier at the end of each statement he's released. So has his team.

What I 'desperately want' is to be shown to be correct in the information I have gleaned ,over the years, from the science and posted on here.

I have received more disparagement than encouragement from the forum on this subject and so ,naturally, I would gain some personal satisfaction from being shown to be right all along (my bad eh? but I am only human and it's been five years of mainly abuse now).

There is no satisfaction to be gained from seeing our planet in the state it is esp. whilst folk still quibble about how it wasn't us that provided the essential 'push' that brought us to such disarray or how there is no disarray at all and it's nothing more than background natural variation (midst the 5th great extinction event).

When no one can deny the state of the arctic (no matter how thin and wide we stretch the winter ice) folk will pay more attention to the rest of the changes the planet is now undergoing and maybe we can start to save the future of billions of folk.

With the Arctic ocean operating a a 'normal ocean' ocean currents will extent into there drawing on more water from outside the basin as it does. Have you never questioned why the PDO is being so weird? We have the fisheries folk telling it's member that it can come and go in a year these days (and to look for their salmon accordingly). What if we now draw water across the PDO zone to enter into Bering and the Arctic Basin? The changes in the Arctic WILL cause rapid alterations across the N. Hemisphere, what do you expect when an ice desert turns into a cloud maker?

Edited April 9, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Hiya]

I am still content that the silliness that is/has been 15% or more per pixel is outmoded.

I am content that Dr B's discoveries means a different algorithm will need to be employed to distinguish between perished old perennial and sound old perennial.

I am content that 'icebridge' is currently engaged on the low fly survey to bring similar data that the Cryosat mission will (and Cryosat is to within 1cm.....a far cry from 15% or more per pixel eh?).

Basically I am content that the truth will out and the silliness we've endured since 07' will be no more.

Though a single one a summer does not make I've just seen my first 9 swallows of the season (probably headed your way ole' red blade) and thats a good 9 days earlier than I'm used too!!!

In response to your long running story about the increase in Artic ice in March, if it is what you say it is why don't we see the same thing every year?

And as an aside comments like the last one in your post really, really get up my nose.

[The PIT]

Now passed the 2003 line but only just. http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

Next few weeks are going to be interesting to watch.

[MR EXTREMES]

Now passed the 2003 line but only just. http://www.ijis.iarc...aice_extent.htm

Next few weeks are going to be interesting to watch.

yep indeed,

and how about the cold that due to take hold around the arctic in the next week or so.

[jethro]

I think it was Jethro who had the exchange with me over 'collapsing perennial' back then (it'll be logged in the 'histories') but whoever it was they never came back to say "it appears you may have been right".

I don't know, can't remember.

If it was, I wouldn't have come back and said you were right because I do not subscribe to the view that Arctic ice is a reliable measure of AGW.

It isn't, never has been nor ever will be; far, far too many other factors involved to even begin to gauge what percentage of melt is due to AGW.

[sunny starry skies]

But surely the point is that enhanced warming in the Arctic was one of the predictions of AGW theory, therefore observation of it, as predicted, is in support of the theory. It does not, on its own, tell us that humans are warming the planet, but if the Arctic were not observed to be warmer, then the mechanisms (in relation to the Arctic) by which AGW theory operates would be suspect. However, we observe a reducing trend in Arctic sea ice (most prominent in September minima, but also present in March maxima), and we observe acceleration of and negactive mass balance in high latitude glaciers and ice sheets. Hence the theory is supported by the evidence. Temperature data conclusively shows polar amplification. A great deal of other evidence from other sources demonstrates the link to humans, and observed effects in different layers of the atmosphere.

sss

[Solar Cycles]

But surely the point is that enhanced warming in the Arctic was one of the predictions of AGW theory, therefore observation of it, as predicted, is in support of the theory. It does not, on its own, tell us that humans are warming the planet, but if the Arctic were not observed to be warmer, then the mechanisms (in relation to the Arctic) by which AGW theory operates would be suspect. However, we observe a reducing trend in Arctic sea ice (most prominent in September minima, but also present in March maxima), and we observe acceleration of and negactive mass balance in high latitude glaciers and ice sheets. Hence the theory is supported by the evidence. Temperature data conclusively shows polar amplification. A great deal of other evidence from other sources demonstrates the link to humans, and observed effects in different layers of the atmosphere.

sss

Absolutely no evidence to support any such claims, there is just as much evidence in hand for natural variation to be responsible. It's been well documented the causes of warming in the Arctic, so to state that this shows the AGW theory to be right is nonsense. I admire your well drilled stance, but the proof is in the pudding, and as of yet you have provided none, just wild claims backed up by questionable science.

[MR EXTREMES]

Absolutely no evidence to support any such claims, there is just as much evidence in hand for natural variation to be responsible. It's been well documented the causes of warming in the Arctic, so to state that this shows the AGW theory to be right is nonsense. I admire your well drilled stance, but the proof is in the pudding, and as of yet you have provided none, just wild claims backed up by questionable science.

absolutely the science is a little rocky right now so its always best to look at both sides of the coin.:lol:

[Gray-Wolf]

C'mon S.C., there's plenty of science to support the collapse of the perennial ice pack and the mud logs don't support it being any kind of 'natural cycle'. If I'm missing such evidence then I would welcome you pointing me in it's general direction (studies post 2002 plse).

By June we'll not only have the full 11 papers from Dr Barbers Polar Year expedition, over the last 18 months (yeah, I know, i couldn't figure why it lasted 2 years either) and the first results from Icebridge and Cryosat.

Science has been telling us of the collapse of the thick ice across the arctic since 1994 (as I know of) with data to back these observations up. Since 2002 the evidence of perennial collapse has been indisputable and ,considering the time it took to build the ice/perennial island, there seems no 'quick fix' by "Freaky Arctic Weather" (as Mr Serezze puts it) is possible.

The fact that, combined with all this new data, we have the poorest ice conditions ever recorded in the high Arctic has me suspecting a very enlightening summer for some posters on here.

We may even find that they are forced to accept just how far along in the process of realising a season pack in the Arctic we are.

The amount of 'extra ice ' ,over the 07' low, that 08' and 09' had at summers end will take less than 2 weeks to melt out in the height of melt season and what kind of 'recovery' would that be?

Things are still precarious for the arctic pack, lets not bull ourselves into seeing it any different.

[WindWatcher]

By June we'll not only have the full 11 papers from Dr Barbers Polar Year expedition, over the last 18 months (yeah, I know, i couldn't figure why it lasted 2 years either) and the first results from Icebridge and Cryosat.

Please can you clarify something for me, as I can't find any evidence of the Barber study lasting any longer than the following:

Circumpolar Flaw Lead System Study (CFL)

International Polar Year (IPY)

CCGS Amundsen

27 September 2007 – 7 August 2008

So he would have been studying the ice during and just after the 2007 minimum, in which case he will have been seeing the ice at it's worst and won't be able to report on any recovery since?

Or has there been a further study that I haven't found?

Thanks

Steve

Edited April 10, 2010 by WindWatcher

[Gray-Wolf]

I understand that the ice breaker mission was over last summer and his 'rotten ice/collapsing perennial' was late sept early oct of 09'.......well into the so called 'recovery' period. This was ,to me, why it was so worrisome.

Lot's of folk on here crying 'recovery' over wind blown, streched out ,single year ice whilst the perennial (whats left of it) was in full collapse or misdiagnosed (by sat. feedback) as 'solid ice' (hence why the Canadian ice maps had shown it as such.

The Canadian coastguards are supposedly the lead in ice mapping of Arctic waters (the russians are not supposed to be as good) yet they were mapping smashed slush as solid multiyear ice.

The last time I checked they were still using the 'eroneous' plots to advise shipping but I'm sure come late spring/open water they'll have to update as shipping will once again be using the deep water maps.

If they are updated we may well see transpolar shipping this year as there will be no obsticles to this left in the high Arctic.

EDIT: I'll post this again;

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/yournews/41112

with Dr B. talking about 'Last Septembers' findings. It goes on to note the continued collapse of the old perennial and the fact that it was at it's lowest ever recorded in 09'.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[sunny starry skies]

Absolutely no evidence to support any such claims, there is just as much evidence in hand for natural variation to be responsible. It's been well documented the causes of warming in the Arctic, so to state that this shows the AGW theory to be right is nonsense. I admire your well drilled stance, but the proof is in the pudding, and as of yet you have provided none, just wild claims backed up by questionable science.

round and round we go SC. I did not state "this shows AGW to be right". I was very specifically pointing out that enhanced warming of the Arctic is but one of many requirements for the AGW theory, and one that is supported by the evidence. Therefore AGW is supported by Arctic observations, not proven by them. Or do you not believe that Arctic sea ice is retreating, that temperatures have risen more in the Arctic than elsewhere, and that the Greenland Ice sheet is melting at an ever-faster rate? These observations are not based on dodgy science. All the studies I're read clearly state that the thinning and reduction in albedo of the sea ice makes it ever more vulnerable to favourable winds or weather patterns. I haven't seen a single recent study suggesting natural variation to be the cause of Arctic warming. Care to enlighten me? I do like your "Absolutely no evidence"! Go have a read of the papers yourself. Restrict yourself to the last 2 years of publications on Greenland and the Arctic ice, and there's plenty to keep you busy.

Good posts G-W, but it's clear that some just don't want to understand what is happening.

sss

[MR EXTREMES]

i got something to say im not going to hold back although gray wolf you make a little sense,

ive been reading alot and its funny how nasa feel multi year ice could well last through this summer aswell.

i cant see why you dispute everything thats evidence of true growth,

it makes no sense to me,im really starting to think your just trying to push your theories.

as far as im concerned the last few years are a big slap in your face,

and in anycase looking at 2007 record lows to other charts over many years,

2007 looks like a freak event that did have a effect but because it was a freak event the arctic recovered very well.

i also cant see it getting any worse than 2007 anytime soon and as ive said if the climate plays ball which i feel it will,

then recovery looks likely for sometime.

just a gentle reminder gray wolf why i dont take notice of all you say.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/:cold:

[MR EXTREMES]

round and round we go SC. I did not state "this shows AGW to be right". I was very specifically pointing out that enhanced warming of the Arctic is but one of many requirements for the AGW theory, and one that is supported by the evidence. Therefore AGW is supported by Arctic observations, not proven by them. Or do you not believe that Arctic sea ice is retreating, that temperatures have risen more in the Arctic than elsewhere, and that the Greenland Ice sheet is melting at an ever-faster rate? These observations are not based on dodgy science. All the studies I're read clearly state that the thinning and reduction in albedo of the sea ice makes it ever more vulnerable to favourable winds or weather patterns. I haven't seen a single recent study suggesting natural variation to be the cause of Arctic warming. Care to enlighten me? I do like your "Absolutely no evidence"! Go have a read of the papers yourself. Restrict yourself to the last 2 years of publications on Greenland and the Arctic ice, and there's plenty to keep you busy.

Good posts G-W, but it's clear that some just don't want to understand what is happening.

sss

i think its time to say it was as you say greenland melting arctic ice melting but like everything recovery would be slow unless the sun died of coarse.

you may be aware of past events but looking at the last few years the drama has taken a new path now with help from our friend the jet stream neg pdo moderate ao,s also becoming a regular feature.

we can sit and wait for the next 2007 event but what if it never happens and recovery continues we still going to live on past events,the climate will do what it wishes as for the science its still very much in its infancey,to prove this look at all the events that have happened in the last few years in regards to colder conditions.

look to our heat source in the sky,

its blank and activity there is not playing ball,

flux dropped again its now down to 76 if this low activity where to continue, nasa will once again be looking at the science behind there predictions, which i might add has been flawed big time.

but we will see.

Edited April 10, 2010 by badboy657

[Gray-Wolf]

bb ,what does 'more' mean where you come from? I know with children under 3 there is a propensity towards choosing that which 'looks' larger over volume so an under 3 would choose a rolled out sweetie over two of the same sweets rolled together. Don't tell me that you really choose the thin stretched ice extent as the 'more' in this case. How can folk accept in one breath that the perennial has drastically reduced since 79' and then tell us that sea ice has reached the levels of 79'????? Please ,tell me how that works. We either have the same amount of ice in the Arctic Basin as we did in 79' or we don't, Scientific measurement says we have up to 2/3 less ice today than in 79' so how can it be the same?????

Within 3 months we'll have science papers on the findings and then we'll have blogs about the papers and then the broadsheets will be running the story and then the red-tops will run the story.

It's all going to get very interesting now isn't it?

[Solar Cycles]

bb ,what does 'more' mean where you come from? I know with children under 3 there is a propensity towards choosing that which 'looks' larger over volume so an under 3 would choose a rolled out sweetie over two of the same sweets rolled together. Don't tell me that you really choose the thin stretched ice extent as the 'more' in this case. How can folk accept in one breath that the perennial has drastically reduced since 79' and then tell us that sea ice has reached the levels of 79'????? Please ,tell me how that works. We either have the same amount of ice in the Arctic Basin as we did in 79' or we don't, Scientific measurement says we have up to 2/3 less ice today than in 79' so how can it be the same?????

Within 3 months we'll have science papers on the findings and then we'll have blogs about the papers and then the broadsheets will be running the story and then the red-tops will run the story.

It's all going to get very interesting now isn't it?

It certainly is, but what will it have to with AGW? Absolutely nothing GW, let's look at the facts, we are still below the post 79 average, but there as been a recovery during the last 3 years. Come September we will know whether that is 4 years or not, until then lets speculate.

round and round we go SC. I did not state "this shows AGW to be right". I was very specifically pointing out that enhanced warming of the Arctic is but one of many requirements for the AGW theory, and one that is supported by the evidence. Therefore AGW is supported by Arctic observations, not proven by them. Or do you not believe that Arctic sea ice is retreating, that temperatures have risen more in the Arctic than elsewhere, and that the Greenland Ice sheet is melting at an ever-faster rate? These observations are not based on dodgy science. All the studies I're read clearly state that the thinning and reduction in albedo of the sea ice makes it ever more vulnerable to favourable winds or weather patterns. I haven't seen a single recent study suggesting natural variation to be the cause of Arctic warming. Care to enlighten me? I do like your "Absolutely no evidence"! Go have a read of the papers yourself. Restrict yourself to the last 2 years of publications on Greenland and the Arctic ice, and there's plenty to keep you busy.

Good posts G-W, but it's clear that some just don't want to understand what is happening.

sss

Your so good at twisting others words, yet you fail to take on board at what is being said. I don't need to read your propaganda thank you very much. As for Arctic ice retreating, no arguments there. but what does that tell us sss. Does it say that this is down to AGW, NO. So lets look at the facts, not the IPCC book of fables.

Ps

Your patronising tone to every skeptic who disagrees with you, is beginning to grate me. For that reason I'm giving your posts a wide birth!!!

[Gray-Wolf]

Do I detect the feint yet instantly recognisable sound of pram toys on pavement?

Once the data starts to roll in from this current sweep of Arctic investigation I wonder how many folk will suddenly decide they no longer wish to post here because of the 'tone' of the posters whose beliefs are supported by the new evidence?

Already , a day after posting, folk on another site I frequent have started to tell the board 'why' the new evidence won't mean anything (wrong chioce of equipment) or will need 20yrs of data before it's meaningful (Cryosat is set to run 3 or 4 years). Let's not go the same way over here eh?

Nobody is trying to 'prove' anything here, the facts speak plain. With a fuller set of 'facts' at our disposal surely we will reach agreement on what is happening across the pole even if some cannot accept what has given the all important 'extra push' to the procedings up there.

Thinning ice is thinning ice.

Lost perennial is lost perennial.

Mixed up ocean is mixed up ocean (as opposed to still, quiet, layered ocean).

Methane releases from melting permafrost are methane releases from melting permafrost.

Baby fur seals starving on shingle beaches (instead of being safely camoflaged on sea ice by Mummies blow hole) are baby fur seals starving on shingle beaches.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[WindWatcher]

I understand that the ice breaker mission was over last summer and his 'rotten ice/collapsing perennial' was late sept early oct of 09'.......well into the so called 'recovery' period. This was ,to me, why it was so worrisome.

Lot's of folk on here crying 'recovery' over wind blown, streched out ,single year ice whilst the perennial (whats left of it) was in full collapse or misdiagnosed (by sat. feedback) as 'solid ice' (hence why the Canadian ice maps had shown it as such.

The Canadian coastguards are supposedly the lead in ice mapping of Arctic waters (the russians are not supposed to be as good) yet they were mapping smashed slush as solid multiyear ice.

The last time I checked they were still using the 'eroneous' plots to advise shipping but I'm sure come late spring/open water they'll have to update as shipping will once again be using the deep water maps.

If they are updated we may well see transpolar shipping this year as there will be no obsticles to this left in the high Arctic.

EDIT: I'll post this again;

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/yournews/41112

with Dr B. talking about 'Last Septembers' findings. It goes on to note the continued collapse of the old perennial and the fact that it was at it's lowest ever recorded in 09'.

Thanks, it's a shame the relevant organisations can't update their websites to show this, as according to even the International Polar Year website, the ice breaker mission ended in 2008 and there was no subsequent mission aboard the Ammundson.

So, if we were to take your post as gospel as opposed to supposition, we now have a greater extent with a higher albedo, being younger ice in the more extreme and snowier areas this will be true. I do wonder how much of a greater effect on climate a few extra feet depth of perennial ice really has, the extent and therefore albedo effect surely is greater in thinner more expansive ice. So, whilst you may be correct, does it matter as the past couple of years summer and winter extents have been increasing and therefore affecting climate more generally than the thickness?

IF the trend continues then it will be self fulfilling, at least that is opposite to what you were saying when the extent was falling?

Just my thoughts, I am not a scientist like you so wouldn't try an mislead people into posting my beliefs as fact.

Steve

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks, it's a shame the relevant organisations can't update their websites to show this, as according to even the International Polar Year website, the ice breaker mission ended in 2008 and there was no subsequent mission aboard the Amundsen.

So, if we were to take your post as gospel as opposed to supposition, we now have a greater extent with a higher albedo, being younger ice in the more extreme and snowier areas this will be true. I do wonder how much of a greater effect on climate a few extra feet depth of perennial ice really has, the extent and therefore albedo effect surely is greater in thinner more expansive ice. So, whilst you may be correct, does it matter as the past couple of years summer and winter extents have been increasing and therefore affecting climate more generally than the thickness?

IF the trend continues then it will be self fulfilling, at least that is opposite to what you were saying when the extent was falling?

Just my thoughts, I am not a scientist like you so wouldn't try an mislead people into posting my beliefs as fact.

Steve

Let us be mindful the the bulk of the single year ice responsible for this years 'extent' is outside the Arctic circle and will perish by warm water ablation and not solar.

The important stuff, the high arctic, is a mushy mess and as such has a lowered albedo. It is also very fragmented and so presents a greater surface area to ocean/air than a solid ice sheet would.

We will all see ,over the course of this melt season, how strong the pack within the Arctic circle actually is. We will also , by seasons end, have realistic data about ice thickness and type across the whole Basin.

Sadly the folk clap clapping about the thin ice outside the Arctic will soon realise how 'temporary' this phenomena was. I cannot envisage a time where ice does not form in the Arctic over winter. It's very cold and very dark there. My concern is over summer where the old packs albedo saved the planet from some of the warmth 24hr days bring with them. With the loss of the 'old perennial' this has changed. The first,second,third year ice presents an ideal surface for melt pools to form on (it being flat unlike the mountainous old perennial) so even when it doesn't melt it's albedo is compromised and more heat is absorbed and re-radiated out in the infra-red spectrum. We have gasses to can trap such wavelengths in the atmosphere above us.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Gray-Wolf