Arctic Ice 2009/2010

[oldsnowywizard]

the Very cold 850 temps are over the continents not the Arctic for the most part. In fact there has to be some record early low temps in parts of Canada and Russia.. already signs of -40s! this i think bodes well for the UK if we can tap into that huge cold pool to the East... however as for the ice to really get going i think it will be another week or so.. once the ocean temps did a little more and the cold pool starts to re build over the Arctic..

i dont think there is a need for too much doom and gloom at the moment.

[Skiwi]

the Very cold 850 temps are over the continents not the Arctic for the most part. In fact there has to be some record early low temps in parts of Canada and Russia.. already signs of -40s! this i think bodes well for the UK if we can tap into that huge cold pool to the East... however as for the ice to really get going i think it will be another week or so.. once the ocean temps did a little more and the cold pool starts to re build over the Arctic..

i dont think there is a need for too much doom and gloom at the moment.

i beg to differ. i think it is very concerning that going into november we are rapidly approaching the extremely poor ice extent levels of 2007 even after some reasonably cool 850 temps across the artic basin in the last few weeks. On top of this we now face well above average 850 temps pushing into the artic basin in the next few days which is certainly not going to do anything for a quick recovery in ice extent. Long term is anyones guess but based on the evidence in front of us, things are not pretty.

[Gray-Wolf]

Over the years I,ve asked many times how low 2m temps need to be to 'freeze' salt water at 5c......still no reply. I've really got to 're-discover the site for arctic sst anoms as that would surely be more useful in figuring when to expect re-freeze in certain sectors?

I must say ,when J1 and I had our misunderstanding over when the 09' line falls below the 07' line I didn't expect what we are seeing at the moment to take place! It looks very much like a stand still (which can't be happening really) so it must be part stall, part freeze and part melt. The 'part melt would seem to suggest that the areas not melted will have thinned further giving rise to further concerns about the integrity of the pack come spring?

Seeing as we are supposed to be in our PDO-ve phase (for up to 30 yrs) ,apparently complimented by a favourable AO, should we be in a position to have such concerns or should we not be looking to another 'high' ice extent to rival the past 2 years?

If the Nino' last through winter (as forecast) then will it then have an influence on the start of melt season or not?

I thought the PDO-ve was supposed to lessen the impact of Nino's and augment that of the Nina's??

[SteveB]

Good to see the Artic increase after it's little stutter over the last day or so.

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

Cryosphere today is back up and running too.

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

[Iceberg]

Hudson should be starting it's ice over in the next two weeks, an early start and ice extent will shoot up, a late start and it will struggle to maintain a strong increase.

Still very low ice levels though.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hudson should be starting it's ice over in the next two weeks, an early start and ice extent will shoot up, a late start and it will struggle to maintain a strong increase.

Still very low ice levels though.

Have they not been getting proportionally lower as the autumn has progressed?

I mean we started off 3rd lowest and now look at things?

[stewfox]

Hudson should be starting it's ice over in the next two weeks, an early start and ice extent will shoot up, a late start and it will struggle to maintain a strong increase.

Still very low ice levels though.

Didnt Hudson have a very late thaw this year ?

Having had a re look at the IJIS site it just shows what a remarkable recovery 2007 had.

[oldsnowywizard]

Have they not been getting proportionally lower as the autumn has progressed?

I mean we started off 3rd lowest and now look at things?

We are not even into November yet and already you are dooming and glooming. The sea ice pick up has been slower becuase of cold pooling being sent off to Russia and Canada. things will pick up very quickly over the next month or so.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Oldsnowy

Aren't we all sat here with everything crossed hoping for a continuation in the recent years improvements on the horrid 07 figures at ice min?

I'm sorry but my nerve is obviously less steely than yours and any signs of a 'poor start', with ice thicknesses where they are, has me a tad jumpy .

I'm sure we can take reassurance from your words and hope we'll see the Dec figures up there with 08' and then a max shadowing 09's.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[noggin]

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091015b.html

I hope it's OK to post this here. It's not re this year, but is IS re Arctic ice!

It is now thought that an ice-free Arctic won't occur until 2060/2080.

Was the original claim of ice-freeness by 2020 a knee-jerk reaction to something?

Edited October 29, 2009 by noggin

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.metoffice...r20091015b.html

I hope it's OK to post this here. It's not re this year, but is IS re Arctic ice!

It is now thought that an ice-free Arctic won't occur until 2060/2080.

Was the original claim of ice-freeness by 2020 a knee-jerk reaction to something?

I thought you didn't trust the Hadley centre models Nog's?

[stewfox]

http://www.metoffice...r20091015b.html

I hope it's OK to post this here. It's not re this year, but is IS re Arctic ice!

It is now thought that an ice-free Arctic won't occur until 2060/2080.

Was the original claim of ice-freeness by 2020 a knee-jerk reaction to something?

I can imagine the disappointment of all those summer cruise ships that were on standby

I still predict we will see the first German Towel up there by 2050

ps the Doom and gloom volley ball banter is part of the fun.

The Artic will rebuild and will get to the cira 14m in March regardless of wether GW takes a blow drier up there

Summer 2010 will be the most interesting yr I would suggest for the last 30yrs as to wether we see further rebuild ,stablisation or reduction

[noggin]

I thought you didn't trust the Hadley centre models Nog's?

Ah, the thing is, Wolfie, I sometimes post stuff without comment, as in this case, to see what peeps might have to say about it. Then I read other peoples' opinions and ideas and points of view and it helps me to form my own thoughts/conclusions!

What I am wondering here is, was the original 2020 claim a knee-jerk reaction? If more consideration and moderation had gone into disseminating the available information, would the initial "prediction" of 2020 not even have been made?

Do you see what I mean or have I posted a load of garbled tripe? :unsure: :lol:

[laserguy]

Summer 2010 will be the most interesting yr I would suggest for the last 30yrs as to wether we see further rebuild ,stablisation or reduction

Yes,I'd say 2010 is the pivotal year in the Great Arctic Ice Saga. If the trend to recovery is still ongoing then it's time to put it to bed,though I wouldn't be in the least surprised if purveyors of AGW relate a very different story/outlook to the largely disinterested/passive masses. Regarding the 2060/2080 prognostication... no,I'm not going to get drawn in,I've got 10 gallons of fine English ale to make today!

[Gray-Wolf]

From Reuters

12:37 October 30th, 2009

Panic at 2 a.m. — the search for multiyear Arctic ice

Post a commentPosted by: David LjunggrenTags: Environment, Canada Arctic ice, global greenhouse, global warming, oceans When you're looking for shrinking packs of multiyear ice in the Arctic Ocean, bizarre things tend to happen. Top Canadian scientist David Barber knows this first hand, as he explained in a presentation in Parliament on Wednesday. Barber said that to all extents and purposes the multiyear ice in the Arctic had already vanished, which could open up the region to shipping and mineral exploitation.

Barber, who holds Canada's Research Chair in Arctic System Science at the University of Manitoba, boarded the icebreaker Amundsen last month and steamed north from the Arctic port of Tuktoyaktuk to look for the Beaufort Sea pack ice, the "thickest, hardest, meanest, multi year sea we have left in the northern hemisphere".

According to up-to-date satellite maps provided by the Canadian Ice Service, the Amundsen should have started ploughing into progressively thicker ice almost from the start. Soon after the ship set sail Barber went to bed, and then woke up at 2 am in a panic.

"I looked on my screen and we're doing 13 knots. We do 13.7 knots in open water and we're right here (in an area where the maps show there should be thick ice) somewhere, doing 13 knots," he said.

"And I just panicked, I thought 'Oh My God, Stephane the captain is not on the bridge and the first officer has gone crazy, he's driving this thing way too fast through the sea ice'. So I go up on the bridge and talk to the guys and they say "There is no ice here'."

The ship sailed for hundreds of miles, first to the north and then eastwards, "trying to find multiyear sea ice that would even slow us down". All they found was so-called rotten ice — a thin layer covering small chunks of multiyear ice.

Eventually the ship found a 10-mile floe of "nice typical traditional Beaufort Sea pack ice" close to the Canadian Arctic archipelago. As they were about to attach the ship to the floe Barber looked out and saw a crack open up right in front of him. "I went 'Wow, that's kind of weird'." Even weirder, he and a colleague then saw the ice move up and down as a swell hit it.

"And as we watched, literally, without any exaggeration, the entire multi-year floe broke up in five minutes," he said. Barber blames waves which started off the north coast of Siberia and then rolled across the Arctic Ocean, pushed along by a low pressure system and unencumbered by rotten ice.

No wonder he says that "I've never seen anything like this in my 30 years of working in the high Arctic

and from Canada;

http://thestar.com.m...ec=Worldupdates

You can imagine that ,rather like oil on troubled waters, sea ice used to suppress wave action in the Arctic basin.Not any more (it would seem)

Edited October 30, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[J10]

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.

I have attempted to composite an average of ice extent figures using IJIS and old data figures supplied on this thread.

There was a peak deficit of approximately 1.77m on the 8th October, this has declined to just under 1.2 million on figures to the 29th October.

To be honest, you would expect gains on long term ice at this time of year as there is a more water left available to freeze in recent years, compared to long term averages.

From Reuters

12:37 October 30th, 2009

Panic at 2 a.m. — the search for multiyear Arctic ice

Post a commentPosted by: David LjunggrenTags: Environment, Canada Arctic ice, global greenhouse, global warming, oceans When you're looking for shrinking packs of multiyear ice in the Arctic Ocean, bizarre things tend to happen. Top Canadian scientist David Barber knows this first hand, as he explained in a presentation in Parliament on Wednesday. Barber said that to all extents and purposes the multiyear ice in the Arctic had already vanished, which could open up the region to shipping and mineral exploitation.

Barber, who holds Canada's Research Chair in Arctic System Science at the University of Manitoba, boarded the icebreaker Amundsen last month and steamed north from the Arctic port of Tuktoyaktuk to look for the Beaufort Sea pack ice, the "thickest, hardest, meanest, multi year sea we have left in the northern hemisphere".

According to up-to-date satellite maps provided by the Canadian Ice Service, the Amundsen should have started ploughing into progressively thicker ice almost from the start. Soon after the ship set sail Barber went to bed, and then woke up at 2 am in a panic.

"I looked on my screen and we're doing 13 knots. We do 13.7 knots in open water and we're right here (in an area where the maps show there should be thick ice) somewhere, doing 13 knots," he said.

"And I just panicked, I thought 'Oh My God, Stephane the captain is not on the bridge and the first officer has gone crazy, he's driving this thing way too fast through the sea ice'. So I go up on the bridge and talk to the guys and they say "There is no ice here'."

The ship sailed for hundreds of miles, first to the north and then eastwards, "trying to find multiyear sea ice that would even slow us down". All they found was so-called rotten ice — a thin layer covering small chunks of multiyear ice.

Eventually the ship found a 10-mile floe of "nice typical traditional Beaufort Sea pack ice" close to the Canadian Arctic archipelago. As they were about to attach the ship to the floe Barber looked out and saw a crack open up right in front of him. "I went 'Wow, that's kind of weird'." Even weirder, he and a colleague then saw the ice move up and down as a swell hit it.

"And as we watched, literally, without any exaggeration, the entire multi-year floe broke up in five minutes," he said. Barber blames waves which started off the north coast of Siberia and then rolled across the Arctic Ocean, pushed along by a low pressure system and unencumbered by rotten ice.

No wonder he says that "I've never seen anything like this in my 30 years of working in the high Arctic

and from Canada;

http://thestar.com.m...ec=Worldupdates

You can imagine that ,rather like oil on troubled waters, sea ice used to suppress wave action in the Arctic basin.Not any more (it would seem)

To be honest reports like that should be taken with a pinch of salt, there does seem to be a degree of bias in that article.

[Gray-Wolf]

To be honest reports like that should be taken with a pinch of salt, there does seem to be a degree of bias in that article.

You think they take an icebreaker out on a whim? The Canadian Parliament will not see through a fool on a fools errand?

C'Mon J1, there are a number of reports (just coming out now) of the meeting and the statements of this Chappie.

I cannot, wish not to , fault his credentials and if he says they travelled through waters that we charted as perennial only to find , mile after mile , of "Rotten ice" then I for one will take note.

In the past I have mooted the changes that the loss of 'structure' in the Arctic will bring , from coastal erosion to ice fragmentation, if we are at a point where our 'northerly tracking' storms can raise swells where once ice cover suppressed it what of the forming ice?

This doesn't make pretty viewing (IMHO)

Edited October 30, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[jonboy]

To me GW that shows that we are entering an increase above the 07 level and heading towards the longer term average.

Clearly GW all you are intrested in is creating an element of fear which in my opinion is unjust. Lets look at ice growth in decdember as the real picture of winter is estabishlished rather than cherry picking to suit your own hardened unchanging view

[J10]

You think they take an icebreaker out on a whim? The Canadian Parliament will not see through a fool on a fools errand?

C'Mon J1, there are a number of reports (just coming out now) of the meeting and the statements of this Chappie.

I cannot, wish not to , fault his credentials and if he says they travelled through waters that we charted as perennial only to find , mile after mile , of "Rotten ice" then I for one will take note.

In the past I have mooted the changes that the loss of 'structure' in the Arctic will bring , from coastal erosion to ice fragmentation, if we are at a point where our 'northerly tracking' storms can raise swells where once ice cover suppressed it what of the forming ice?

This doesn't make pretty viewing (IMHO)

You are free to draw any inferences you so desire, however the tone of the article and tabloid and sensationalist and as a result I question that data therein, as I tend to do for sensationalist data on both sides of the argument.

As for current ice extent, over the past 3 days, Ice Extent has risen by over 500,000sq km. And the deficit to recent averages has fallen back to 430,000sqkm. We are also making rapid progress against long term average and are now 1.2m behind these figures.

The current figures are not good for the time of year, however the past couple of days has seen an improvement. and long may this continue.

[Gray-Wolf]

As for current ice extent, over the past 3 days, Ice Extent has risen by over 500,000sq km. And the deficit to recent averages has fallen back to 430,000sqkm. We are also making rapid progress against long term average and are now 1.2m behind these figures.

The current figures are not good for the time of year, however the past couple of days has seen an improvement. and long may this continue.

And the 'health' of that ice? I know we must take measures to give us an idea of how things are but we should not fool ourselves into thinking that these will bring us a solid picture of the situation surely?

We know the Siberian side of the Arctic Basin has altered in the past 7 years and that the open water there must impact on things.

Either we look for the Arctic Amplification and the warming that is foreign to this area for this time of year and it's Teleconnections to the weather for that region or we look to the disruption that this open water brings by enabling swells to build where once there was none (and move out across the whole of the basin).

If a scientist , on a scientific voyage to explore the remnant perennial, finds none then why can we not believe his findings?

There will, in time ,be papers to confirm his voyage and it's route and the ice levels encountered but ,at the moment, we only have his 'words'.

We know 'newspapers' are in it for the 'copy' they sell but please allow us the good sense to read between the lines esp. when quotes are used (across all the papers I have found the article the "Quotes" are the same).

We all wish for 'recovery' but the trends do not give me much cause for optimism.

When do we start believing what the experts are finding and stop wanting ever more proof (which tends to keep arriving in depressing amounts)?

Edited October 30, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[J10]

And the 'health' of that ice? I know we must take measures to give us an idea of how things are but we should not fool ourselves into thinking that these will bring us a solid picture of the situation surely?

We know the Siberian side of the Arctic Basin has altered in the past 7 years and that the open water there must impact on things.

Either we look for the Arctic Amplification and the warming that is foreign to this area for this time of year and it's Teleconnections to the weather for that region or we look to the disruption that this open water brings by enabling swells to build where once there was none (and move out across the whole of the basin).

If a scientist , on a scientific voyage to explore the remnant perennial, finds none then why can we not believe his findings?

There will, in time ,be papers to confirm his voyage and it's route and the ice levels encountered but ,at the moment, we only have his 'words'.

We know 'newspapers' are in it for the 'copy' they sell but please allow us the good sense to read between the lines esp. when quotes are used (across all the papers I have found the article the "Quotes" are the same).

We all wish for 'recovery' but the trends do not give me much cause for optimism.

When do we start believing what the experts are finding and stop wanting ever more proof (which tends to keep arriving in depressing amounts)

A couple of points, this is the thread which relates to Arctic Sea Ice, and its current position, it is not a discussion about the merits and demerits of Global Warming per se.

I look at facts objectively, therefore the ice of figures helps with this. I remain suspicious of articles on both sides of the arguments, which appear to have been spun. This whole issue is serious enough to allow the facts to speak for themselves.

Anyway I respectfully request that we move on from this issue on this thread, as it is going off topic.

[osmposm]

J1, with the best will in the world, if we (or others - I avoid these discussions nowadays) cannot discuss evidence of the prevalence or not of multi-year ice in the Beaufort on this thread, and its implications, then where on earth can it be discussed? It is entirely on-topic.

Your straightforward presentations of the figures are hugely valuable and appreciated, but the thread is not reserved for them. Anecdotal evidence is still evidence, albeit of less weight than the numbers, and whichever way it points it is of value - especially when it comes from the mouths of scientists. This is true even when its presentation is admittedly rather sensationalist. It is our job to read it, evaluate it, pick holes in it where appropriate, argue against it if you think it's not robust. But not, to my mind, to ask for it not to be discussed any more at all.

[J10]

J1, with the best will in the world, if we (or others - I avoid these discussions nowadays) cannot discuss evidence of the prevalence or not of multi-year ice in the Beaufort on this thread, and its implications, then where on earth can it be discussed? It is entirely on-topic.

Your straightforward presentations of the figures are hugely valuable and appreciated, but the thread is not reserved for them. Anecdotal evidence is still evidence, albeit of less weight than the numbers, and whichever way it points it is of value - especially when it comes from the mouths of scientists. This is true even when its presentation is admittedly rather sensationalist. It is our job to read it, evaluate it, pick holes in it where appropriate, argue against it if you think it's not robust. But not, to my mind, to ask for it not to be discussed any more at all.

Specific comments about Arctic Ice and related comments about (A)GW to an extent are valid, and as such the posting of the Reuters article is entirely valid, the discussion of the validity of this is also valid.

However when we are going onto specific comments about (A)GW and whether it is real or not that is off topic from my intended purpose when the thread was set up.

There are more than enough such topics on the internet, and by keeping this specifically on Arctic Ice extents and volumes this thread benefits from this IMO, by keeping this tighter remit and avoiding the circular debates we see elsewhere.

You ask where it can be discussed - quite simply on this thread http://www.netweather.tv/forum/topic/56056-general-climate-change-discussion/page__st__920 where GW/AGW and its reality or not can be discussed fully. And if you want to set up another thread which looks more fully into Arctic Ice and GW implications you are more than free to do so.

By the way I do look at all data whichever way it points more than most, indeed that is why I compile the data to provide an unbiased look at the figures. If there is additional data which can be statistically analysed, or further work you want done on existing data, please let me know.

Hopefully this answers your question in a bit more detail than my original reply which was done too late in teh evening.

[J10]

Jethro, the Arctic datasets from 1972-2007 can be found here:

http://polynya.gsfc.nasa.gov/seaice_datasets.html

This is the source of the old data , I have been using with IJIS to create long term averages.

[J10]

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.

On the IJIS figures Arctic Ice now stands (Provisionally) at 8,311,563, the sixth highest in the series (of 7) and around 365,000 below the 2002-2008 average. The average growth over the past week has risen to around 110,000 per day, which is above the average growth at this time of year.

We are now 1,108,300 below the 1979-2007 average figures, and slowly catching up quite quickly,we remain at 30th out of 31st in the listings.

After a very slow start to the regrowth season, we are now catching up with previous years.