Arctic Ice 2009/2010

[Admiral_Bobski]

We know I've mentioned before that past warmings have been followed ,close behind' by CO2 increases which appear to then accelerate the warming. Are we now starting to see how these big CO2 spikes have come about in the past?

You see, GW, this is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about on the other thread - the CO2 increases do not "appear to then accelerate the warming." We have had this discussion before.

There is no evidence of CO2 accelerating the warming from historical data. A while ago P3 asked this question of a climate scientist on my behalf - why is there no evidence of a step-change or acceleration of warming after CO2 levels rise - and the climate scientist admitted that he could not explain it.

You really need to start taking this kind of information on board.

CB

Edited October 18, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[Gray-Wolf]

You see, GW, this is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about on the other thread - the CO2 increases do not "appear to then accelerate the warming." We have had this discussion before.

There is no evidence of CO2 accelerating the warming from historical data. A while ago P3 asked this question of a climate scientist on my behalf - why is there no evidence of a step-change or acceleration of warming after CO2 levels rise - and the climate scientist admitted that he could not explain it.

You really need to start taking this kind of information on board.

CB

I will have to re-visit my sources and post , with the relevant info, when I have done so.

You are either correct in your observations of me or you are not and I feel we are probably at the point that we need to seek resolution.

Sorry if this is too 'black and white' for your grey world but where else are we to seek such?

Edited October 18, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[J10]

On the IJIS figures Arctic Ice now stands at 6257188 the sixth highest in the series (of 7) and around 200,000 below the 2002-2008 average. The average growth over the past week is around 73,000 per day, which is slightly below the average growth at this time of year, however this disguises the fact that at the start of the week, ice growth was very low, but it seems to be picking up quite a bit now.

On the IJIS figures Arctic Ice now stands at 6,820,938 the sixth highest in the series (of 7) and around 363,000 below the 2002-2008 average. The average growth over the past week is around 80,000 per day, which is slightly below the average growth at this time of year.

We are now 1,592,318 below the 1979-2007 average figures, and slowly catching up, (this compares to 1,668,906 below average this time last week), we remain at 30th out of 31st in the listings.

[MR EXTREMES]

http://www.scienceda...91014144729.htm

I know we're split on the role of human produced CO2 and the planets climate but we do not seem too concerned with the planets 'natural' carbon cycle and how our tinkering is messing with that. Not only are the Southern oceans carbon sinks failing but it would appear that the polar region can account for up to 25% of our carbon uptake from the atmosphere. We all know of the peril melting permafrost poses but if we couple this with the planets growing inability to perform it's normal CO2 absorption duties we can throw away our current prediction for how high atmospheric CO2 levels may become.

We know I've mentioned before that past warmings have been followed ,close behind' by CO2 increases which appear to then accelerate the warming. Are we now starting to see how these big CO2 spikes have come about in the past?

to be honest gw i think it might be better if you mounted a campain theres lots of groups you could join to promote the co2 and earths distruction.

but i really dont see a huge problem co2 has gone up yes ice around the arctic has melted to record levels in 2007 and back in 1922 like snowleopard suggested and during the mewp and i expect many other times.

but co2 is high right now but we see a recovery in the arctic and the antactic is doing even better.

i dont see where the panic is coming from i dont understand how anyone can only see one outcome and not look at past history.

i myself think it will continue to recover but for now even though there is a couple of years of multi icei sit in the middle and even if it where to all melt it could still be extreme natural climate change.

[MR EXTREMES]

I will have to re-visit my sources and post , with the relevant info, when I have done so.

You are either correct in your observations of me or you are not and I feel we are probably at the point that we need to seek resolution.

Sorry if this is too 'black and white' for your grey world but where else are we to seek such?

cb is right hes very right theres so much out there about this infact it could be im not 100% that co2 follows temp rises i watched alot of video on you tube that explain this and lots of research aswell.

yes here temps rise co2 follows.

http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/the_co2_ability_to_time_travel/

http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/are_arctic_temperatures_correlated_with_co2_or_the_sun/

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ci/31/special/may01_viewpoint.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/21/co2-does-not-drive-glacial-cycles/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_carbon_dioxide_drive_temperature

and its bang on what lots of other scientist say aswell.

and another point it goes to show how media and people like al gore suck the public into this false rubbish,

well with co2 anyway lol.

[J10]

This thread is about Arctic Sea Ice, discussions about Co2 emissions are perfectly valid but they are better off being made in more specific Climate Change threads.

[jethro]

Saw this link in the Polar Low thread (thanks Phil) as it is about ice extent in the 1040's/'50's and ''60's I thought some here may find it interesting. It also has a long list of references for those who want to dig deeper into data for bygone years.

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/098/mwr-098-11-0833.pdf

[Admiral_Bobski]

I will have to re-visit my sources and post , with the relevant info, when I have done so.

You are either correct in your observations of me or you are not and I feel we are probably at the point that we need to seek resolution.

Sorry if this is too 'black and white' for your grey world but where else are we to seek such?

It's not that it's "too black and white for [my] grey world", it's that it's too black and white for the real world. I do appreciate you taking the time to check it out, and I look forward to your response. Perhaps you could post it up on the General thread and we can continue the discussion there.

CB

[oldsnowywizard]

brilliant, just caught up on the 6 pages.. i love the debates that Arctic ice creates and its thoroughly entertaining to read GW and Iceberg take on the rest.. well done all involved...

Its interesting to read all angles on this, i think because there are so many variable and lets be honest probably a few unknowns that make this situation so hard to read..

GW could you add the link for your ocean temp anomoly? thats quite useful.. i would like to know though over what period is it comparing the temps... as ice covered water would show temps of 0 or below.. so open areas due to melt would obvioulsy be showing a + anomoly... but still a useful source.

not sure if this has been covered but has there been research carried out on melt rates for new ice vs old with lots of variable used? i knwo the structure is slightly different but doesnt colour also change with multi year from white to blue...? which i would imagine has a greater absorption rate of energy.. does anyone know if a colour change would have a greater impact on melt rate in comaparison to a structure change? it would possibly help explain why there was such a big loss of multiyear ice in 07 due to higher radiation levels...

Edited October 19, 2009 by oldsnowywizard

[PeteG]

Old ice is actually pretty much as transparent as glass. I suspect it only looks blue for the same reason the sky looks blue.

[MR EXTREMES]

im not so sure this is looking good ice seems to have or been falling away.

perhapes the blasted el nino is to blame.

looks to be creeping down towards 2007 levels this would be terrible if a decline was to continue.

Edited October 24, 2009 by badboy657

[J10]

The last verified figures (Thursday 22nd) show ice growth being steady but slow for the time of year compared to recent averages, but closer to long term averages whihc started at a higher summer extent. Currently around 500,000 below 2003-2008 average.

At this stage 2007 was growing rapidly after a very slow start to the refreeze.

Next full update on Sunday.

[Gray-Wolf]

Seeing as we appear a little 'slower' in this period where we'd expect 'rapid' ice growth I had a gander at the C.T. site

http://arctic.atmos....edu/cryosphere/

and found ,by their reckoning, that only 2 areas are posting positive anoms for the time of year, one is Beaufort (tiny area behind Alaska) and the other is the Greenland sea.

Seeing as ,in the past, I have shown the ice still flowing out of the Arctic basin through the Greenland sea into December I wonder if this is a positive 'anom' from ice growth or a positive anom from floating ice drifting south into the region and not melting at the same rate as it does over summer?

When we look at the 'arctic report card' the bits updated to include 09' show the bulk of the perennial now lined up to the north of Svalbard in the path of this current down the east coast of Greenland.

MODIS is a little cloud blighted but as soon as we have a break I'll have a look and see what is in the Greenland sea (so we know) and post links to the images on here.

I do also think that in the run up to chrimbo 09's line will cross the 07' line and leave us as the lowest ice extent recorded for the time of year (since sat records began). I do not think the chance is now as 'slim' as J1 originally postulated.

Edited October 25, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Mr Maunder]

Seeing as we appear a little 'slower' in this period where we'd expect 'rapid' ice growth I had a gander at the C.T. site

http://arctic.atmos....edu/cryosphere/

and found ,by their reckoning, that only 2 areas are posting positive anoms for the time of year, one is Beaufort (tiny area behind Alaska) and the other is the Greenland sea.

Seeing as ,in the past, I have shown the ice still flowing out of the Arctic basin through the Greenland sea into December I wonder if this is a positive 'anom' from ice growth or a positive anom from floating ice drifting south into the region and not melting at the same rate as it does over summer?

When we look at the 'arctic report card' the bits updated to include 09' show the bulk of the perennial now lined up to the north of Svalbard in the path of this current down the east coast of Greenland.

MODIS is a little cloud blighted but as soon as we have a break I'll have a look and see what is in the Greenland sea (so we know) and post links to the images on here.

I do also think that in the run up to chrimbo 09's line will cross the 07' line and leave us as the lowest ice extent recorded for the time of year (since sat records began). I do not think the chance is now as 'slim' as J1 originally postulated.

Of course the CT site has not been updated due to "computer problems" for some two weeks, so the latest information is not available. Hwever, looking at the IJIS site ice growth has yet to get fully in to its stride.

Your predictions have been noted and will be monitored!

MM

[J10]

Seeing as we appear a little 'slower' in this period where we'd expect 'rapid' ice growth I had a gander at the C.T. site

http://arctic.atmos....edu/cryosphere/

and found ,by their reckoning, that only 2 areas are posting positive anoms for the time of year, one is Beaufort (tiny area behind Alaska) and the other is the Greenland sea.

Seeing as ,in the past, I have shown the ice still flowing out of the Arctic basin through the Greenland sea into December I wonder if this is a positive 'anom' from ice growth or a positive anom from floating ice drifting south into the region and not melting at the same rate as it does over summer?

When we look at the 'arctic report card' the bits updated to include 09' show the bulk of the perennial now lined up to the north of Svalbard in the path of this current down the east coast of Greenland.

MODIS is a little cloud blighted but as soon as we have a break I'll have a look and see what is in the Greenland sea (so we know) and post links to the images on here.

I do also think that in the run up to chrimbo 09's line will cross the 07' line and leave us as the lowest ice extent recorded for the time of year (since sat records began). I do not think the chance is now as 'slim' as J1 originally postulated.

The Cryosphere figures are out of date by around a fortnight, so really I don't think that any judgements can be drawn from this.

Will it drop below the 07' figure before 'normal' growth is 'seen' to commence?

My comment was that the chances of this were negligible, and indeed growth is now increasing albeit slowly by current standards but not by long terms standards. However by now extending this period to Christmas, you are moving the goalposts big time, and my comment related to before the growth rates started to rise, and as such 2009 has remained above 2007 and ice growth rates are rising.

Whether or not ice extent will be above 2007 at Christmas is another matter, as 2007 did recover very well to around the 2003-08 averages around that time. At no stage did I suggest that the chance of 2009 ice extent falling below 2007 until was negligible.

[J10]

On the IJIS figures Arctic Ice now stands at 6,820,938 the sixth highest in the series (of 7) and around 363,000 below the 2002-2008 average. The average growth over the past week is around 80,000 per day, which is slightly below the average growth at this time of year.

We are now 1,592,318 below the 1979-2007 average figures, and slowly catching up, (this compares to 1,668,906 below average this time last week), we remain at 30th out of 31st in the listings.

On the IJIS figures Arctic Ice now stands (Provisionally) at 7,527,656 the sixth highest in the series (of 7) and around 560,000 below the 2002-2008 average. The average growth over the past week has risen to around 100,000 per day, which is below the average growth at this time of year, but above historic rates of growth at this time of year.

We are now 1,439,550 below the 1979-2007 average figures, and slowly catching up, (this compares to 1,592,318 below average this time last week), we remain at 30th out of 31st in the listings.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm sorry if I have caused offence J1, truely I am.I just seem to recall your saying that the chances of the 09' line (on IJIS) dropping below the 07' one.I didn't realise we had set this in any type of 'context' and if we have ,and I have now altered my position in reference to it, I am sorry.

My drive is that we have had 'good' final figures the past two years and ,of course, we need to see this continue this year.With things being so slow on the uptake it is easy to wonder 'what if' we have a low extent year. If we still melt the area melted over the previous 2 years (or the average of them) won't this put us back into 'lowest ice extent on records' territory?

With more thin ice and a 'stalled beginning it is a concern (is it not?)

[J10]

I'm sorry if I have caused offence J1, truely I am.I just seem to recall your saying that the chances of the 09' line (on IJIS) dropping below the 07' one.I didn't realise we had set this in any type of 'context' and if we have ,and I have now altered my position in reference to it, I am sorry.

My drive is that we have had 'good' final figures the past two years and ,of course, we need to see this continue this year.With things being so slow on the uptake it is easy to wonder 'what if' we have a low extent year. If we still melt the area melted over the previous 2 years (or the average of them) won't this put us back into 'lowest ice extent on records' territory?

With more thin ice and a 'stalled beginning it is a concern (is it not?)

You made a specific comment and I replied to it, if you had meant whether or not 2009 would ever fall below 2007 I would not have said that comment. :lol:

Moving on from that, we are now lower than average at this time of year, however on past IJIS records, things tend to come together and even by the end of this month, all figures are in the 8.0-8.9m range, and I would certainly expect/hope, that the 2009 figures are back in the gaggle of figures around then.

Target figures 8,000,000 by 31st October and 9,000,000 by 9th November. If we are not above these figures on these dates, then things are looking quite bleak.

What doesn't help of course is that Cryosphere is not up to date and this supplies such vital information, especially on where there are deficiencies.

[Skiwi]

Wow.

According to IJIS artic ice extent has decreased in the last 24 hours. The last thing we need! Any thoughts on what might have caused this given no significant warming in the artic basin.

[Iceberg]

The 72-2009 average can now be found here at the bottom of the page.

http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/amsre.html

It shows approx 2M behind this average, we are also only 48 hrs behind 2007 so anything is possible from here, FWIW.

Arctic ice looking good(for the modern day) around the NW passages. But very very weak bewteen Svalbard and the Russian coasts(maybe record breakingly weak).

Indeed Svalbard is ice free(from the polar icesheet) and we are only 1 week from November. Maybe not something your hear on the other ice thread.

[stewfox]

Wow.

According to IJIS artic ice extent has decreased in the last 24 hours. The last thing we need! Any thoughts on what might have caused this given no significant warming in the artic basin.

Even I am surprised to see a over all drop at this time of year

Interesting that the ice off the shores of North East Canada makes a link to the main sheet then in last two days it then retreats again.

http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/loop/ak-1mo-loop.html

[Gray-Wolf]

Wow.

According to IJIS artic ice extent has decreased in the last 24 hours. The last thing we need! Any thoughts on what might have caused this given no significant warming in the artic basin.

Hi Skiwi!

we've been having ,and expect more mild temps in the Uk so I have to wonder how far north this trend exists. There has been a lack of Atlantic Storms /'canes this year so maybe the mixing of the tropical oceans hasn't been as strong in the season just ending and all that pleasant warmth is now being fetched up to us via stationary lows to our SW.

My misunderstanding with J1 was about such low levels of rebuild occurring and ,as it sits now, we are in danger of being the lowest 'extent' on his chart. Couple that with the thinness and we will also have record low volumes.

We don't do 'I told you so' but the major cryosphere agencies, whilst welcoming higher extents at summers end (compared to the disaster that was 07' that is), have warned how precarious the situation in the Arctic is.

[Skiwi]

I have been amazed at how slowly ice extent has increased this year(compared to the last decade) even with the 850 temps being considerably colder then many of the years post 2000. It will be a very intersting November to see if we can catch up with recent averages or continue with much below average ice extents.

Things do not look overly optimistic though with very mild 850 temps moving into the artic basin in the 144-180 hours range. although a long way off. they are consistently appearing on every run not making for pretty reading.

Edited October 26, 2009 by Skiwi

[Gray-Wolf]

I have been amazed at how slowly ice extent has increased this year(compared to the last decade) even with the 850 temps being considerably colder then many of the years post 2000. It will be a very interesting November to see if we can catch up with recent averages or continue with much below average ice extents.

Things do not look overly optimistic though with very mild 850 temps moving into the artic basin in the 144-180 hours range. although a long way off. they are consistently appearing on every run not making for pretty reading.

Though folk pooh -poohed the NSIDC take on the late July/Aug ice 'spread' , which kept the extent higher than the past 2 years, we may be seeing the result of the 'spread' as the ice may currently be 'filling in the gap's between the 15% ice cover regions making it appear a 'slow' rebuild (as it made it 'appear a 'slow' melt).

Over the two years that ice was compacted new ice could only 'grow' at the edges and so was instantly apparent on the 'extent' plots as new ice. So long as there are high latitude zones with gaps in the ice some of the 'growth' will be lost as the gaps are filled in.

We also have the spectre of the 'Arctic Amplification' across the areas exposed to sunlight over summer and if I could only 're-find' that blasted site showing current arctic sea surface temp anoms we could see how that was progressing (in the Siberian sectors).

EDIT: hadn't spotted this from NOAA from Oct 22nd

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20091022_arcticreportcard.html

Edited October 26, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[songster]

Question looking at the IJIS figures - what the heck happened in 2006 from mid October through to end November? Was there anything unusual about the weather then, and did it somehow pre-condition the pack for the 2007 melt? Most importantly, how does that six-week period stack up to the predictions for the next few weeks?