Arctic Ice 2009/2010

[Gray-Wolf]

Looks like we are 'catching up ' on the 07' rebuild figure more like!

I cannot emphasise enough the poor state of the arctic ice as we enter into winter. The 'skimpy ' nature of most of the pack cannot be ignored and the fact that we see such a slow rebuild from a position of 'recovery' must cause concerns.

Are we not to worry at the positioning of the remnant perennial as it positions itself across the major 'flush out' current in the Arctic? Whilst the remnant pack was hard up against the Canadian archipelago and to the north of Greenland it was not as exposed but now?

What the Canadian parliament was told of the nature of the pack (that their lead Arctic ice specialist encountered on his last mission into the 'remnant perennial') must ring alarm bells (for some).

Thin ice and windblown/current driven floes do not make for a stable pack. I would suggest that the last thing the arctic current needs is a fleet of giant ice floe 'icebreakers' messing up the structure of the pack in that vicinity and allowing movement throughout winter.

What happens next?

[J10]

Looks like we are 'catching up ' on the 07' rebuild figure more like!

Only half the story.

The Fact is 2009 is now catching up with both short term averages, and especially long term averages as can be easily seen by looking at my figures over the past few weeks.

2007 is now catching up with with 2009, but also catching up fast on both short term and long term averages. As a result the 2007 figure is now not as relevant as it was in August/September but still an important benchmark figure.

As we move into November the spread of sea ice becomes much less. So to take 2 examples, 2009 has gained over 700,000sqkm on long term averages over the past 3 weeks and has lost over 600,000 comparatively to 2007 in the same time. Simply put, as the Arctic becomes full of ice, there is less ice to freeze, and Slow recovery years such as this year and especially 2007, then tend to catch up quite quickly.

It is important to all facts to avoid the danger of cherry picking figures, which is a common problem on this.

As for multi year ice, there was a huge growth in 2nd year ice this summer, from 8% to 32% of the ice pack, in effect rebuilding from 2007, is this still relevant.

------------------------------

I found this on another forum.

http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=346&page=131

http://www.carboncapturereport.org/cgi-bin/biodb?PROJID=3&mode=viewpersonname&name=david_ljunggren

Definitely some debate on there about the independence of the report from David Ljunggren.

[Iceberg]

It is still relavent if it goes on to produce ice which is 3,4, or 5 years old. Which it might well do.

However the loss of the older ice is still relavent as well.

Going back to the IJIS figures, tbh there will be lots of natural flucuations with some weeks gaining lots, some gaining less.

Just becuase the figure is currently the 2nd lowest recorded/observed it doesn't change this fact, obviously it's more preferable to have more ice than we have at present. But the most important thing is how the ice situation is come the start of the melt season.

Last year we were in a good position relatively, hopefully we can match that this year.

Although I've just said all the above, the arctic has spent more time with less than 8M sq km's of ice than any year other than 2007 and the impact on the wider Arctic will be felt, good or bad.

[oldsnowywizard]

please remember that the cold air has for the most part been pushed into Siberia, looking at the archives i havent seen such a larger cold pool for so early in the season.. good for holding in the methane in Siberia.. not so great for fast ice growth. things however are set to change over the next few days as cold pooling develops over the arctic with widespread -20 2m temps. expect to see ice levels increase faster.

interesting debates as always.

[Gray-Wolf]

please remember that the cold air has for the most part been pushed into Siberia, looking at the archives i havent seen such a larger cold pool for so early in the season.. good for holding in the methane in Siberia.. not so great for fast ice growth. things however are set to change over the next few days as cold pooling develops over the arctic with widespread -20 2m temps. expect to see ice levels increase faster.

interesting debates as always.

Methane.

Sadly melted permafrost physically 'squeezes' out the methane as it freezes over winter leading to another spike in production (the new ice takes up more volume than the water in the peat and so expels the gasses as it expands into the available spaces).

Looks like we are still closing on being joint lowest for the time of year (IJIS) which , for the time of year, does not look like a recovery.If I went from 3rd bottom to joint bottom in a race would I be improving?

[stewfox]

please remember that the cold air has for the most part been pushed into Siberia, looking at the archives i havent seen such a larger cold pool for so early in the season.. good for holding in the methane in Siberia.. not so great for fast ice growth. things however are set to change over the next few days as cold pooling develops over the arctic with widespread -20 2m temps. expect to see ice levels increase faster.

interesting debates as always.

2009 has gained 700,000 sqkm on long term avergaes in the last 3 weeks, how that equals 'not so good for fast ice growth' confuses me. Anyway your suggesting even faster ice growth.

We are in a 5km race and it looks like 2009 will catch up with 'the pack' after about 400m of the race

September 2010 will be the interesting point where 2009 is at the end of the race.

Methane.

Looks like we are still closing on being joint lowest for the time of year (IJIS) which , for the time of year, does not look like a recovery.If I went from 3rd bottom to joint bottom in a race would I be improving?

As I said the race has just started and we (2009) are catching up with the pack but we are only 5% into the race. See how we finish in Sept 2010

Edited November 5, 2009 by stewfox

[oldsnowywizard]

lets just say a wide area of -20 temps will form ice faster than a small area of -10s (being the case most of this winter so far). This year we are now only really seeing widespread cold temps over the arctic

looks like we will meet up with 2006 values soon...

[oldsnowywizard]

Methane.

Sadly melted permafrost physically 'squeezes' out the methane as it freezes over winter leading to another spike in production (the new ice takes up more volume than the water in the peat and so expels the gasses as it expands into the available spaces).

Looks like we are still closing on being joint lowest for the time of year (IJIS) which , for the time of year, does not look like a recovery.If I went from 3rd bottom to joint bottom in a race would I be improving?

i would have thought we would prefer an early spike and extended freeze season though...

[Iceberg]

Well 2009 is albeit just today hit the lowest recorded ice for this date, below 2007.

The figures (at least on IJIS atm) are 8667656 for 2009 and 2672813 for 2007.

Is it a recovery to move from the 3rd lowest to the 2nd and then to the lowest. ?.

To me at least things seem far from good up there, yes ice is increasing(it would be a freak of physics if it wasn't in November).

Still lots of time for things to get better before March next year. (they couldn't really be much worst).

[stewfox]

Well 2009 is albeit just today hit the lowest recorded ice for this date, below 2007.

The figures (at least on IJIS atm) are 8667656 for 2009 and 2672813 for 2007.

Still lots of time for things to get better before March next year. (they couldn't really be much worst).

2009 could be a lot worse it could be 2672813

2009 ice seems to me to be treated like the terrible twins on X factor, no one likes them but they stay around.

To be honest it was always going to be a tall order for 2009 to keep up with 2007 recovery which was the fastest ice recovery on record.

2009 has nearly caught up with the rest of the pack. you have to remember depsite another year of sustained summer recovery, 2009 was for example 1m sq km behind 2003 in early September.

There will always be catch up.

We of course have far more Multi year ice now, so doom and gloom hats can be put on hold for now and the synoptics look good (for increased ice recovery)

Edited November 6, 2009 by stewfox

[Gray-Wolf]

looks like we will meet up with 2006 values soon...

Were they not the lowest Max. recorded?

We of course have far more Multi year ice now, so doom and gloom hats can be put on hold for now and the synoptics look good (for increased ice recovery)

I would be loathe to lead your opinion but I suggest you read up on both the 'old perennial' and the ice thickness levels recorded (by ICESat) as to the lack of depth in current 2/3/4 year old ice.

Were we to be seeing a similar growth pattern to that of the 70's and 80's we could be jollied up by the amount of second year ice ,sadly that was then ,this is now.

[stewfox]

Were they not the lowest Max. recorded?

I would be loathe to lead your opinion but I suggest you read up on both the 'old perennial' and the ice thickness levels recorded (by ICESat) as to the lack of depth in current 2/3/4 year old ice.

Were we to be seeing a similar growth pattern to that of the 70's and 80's we could be jollied up by the amount of second year ice ,sadly that was then ,this is now.

GW you seem to want it all ways

When the IJIS figures dont go you way there not to be trusted (percentage/depth etc). When they are they are the gossple.

You talked previously of the disaster of having 75% + of Artic ice being made up of single year ice.

When we see a increase in multi year ice ,its now not deep enough.

I dont think anyone is suggesting the Artic ice is in a Robust state but Im still taking the old lady of the venterlator. The old lady took a bad turn in 2007 but she has been on the up and up ever since, you still wanting to pull her the plug, shame. She may still need a walking frame but hitting her with a stick at every opportunity wont help

March 2010 and September 2010 will be key indicators.

[J10]

It is still relavent if it goes on to produce ice which is 3,4, or 5 years old. Which it might well do.

However the loss of the older ice is still relavent as well.

Going back to the IJIS figures, tbh there will be lots of natural flucuations with some weeks gaining lots, some gaining less.

Just becuase the figure is currently the 2nd lowest recorded/observed it doesn't change this fact, obviously it's more preferable to have more ice than we have at present. But the most important thing is how the ice situation is come the start of the melt season.

Last year we were in a good position relatively, hopefully we can match that this year.

Although I've just said all the above, the arctic has spent more time with less than 8M sq km's of ice than any year other than 2007 and the impact on the wider Arctic will be felt, good or bad.

Not a bad summary to be fair, The 2007 year had a very bad impact, and there was little base for multi year growth, and hopefully since the recent growth of young multi year can turn into older multi year ice. Certainly there is a better base at 32% compared to 8% for this to happen but it does depend on next years conditions.

The difficulty is of course that effects of 2007 in the Arctic will continue for several years and we do not really know of the impacts. In many ways this makes things even more troublesome, as things may be worse (or better) than anticipated.

IJIS does indeed show today's figures below 2007 which is disappointing. Will it stay there or is it a blip, we are still around 300-400k around short term averages. Over future weeks at this time of year 2006 ice growth stalls, so we would hope expect to see 2009 figures going above 2006 significantly by the 20th November.

I will do my next update on Sunday.

[Gray-Wolf]

The above shows well the past 2 years of 'recovery'

It also highlights the importance of the 'Arctic Amplification' on sea ice rebuild over Autumn and shows the strength in that signal in it's ability to turn a slight recovery into continued loss when all the figures are converted into the yearly trend lines.

[Admiral_Bobski]

The above shows well the past 2 years of 'recovery'

It also highlights the importance of the 'Arctic Amplification' on sea ice rebuild over Autumn and shows the strength in that signal in it's ability to turn a slight recovery into continued loss when all the figures are converted into the yearly trend lines.

It doesn't really show anything.

We're talking about recovery from 2007's low point, yes?

Well, the graph shows spring, summer and winter datapoints for 2008, but seems to be missing the autumn and annual 2008 figures. There are no datapoints for spring or summer 2009.

The spring, summer and winter 2008 datapoints all show an increase from 2007.

So, from a possible 10 datapoints that might prove your point (spring, summer, autumn, winter and annual for 2008, and the same for 2009) we have only 3.

So what is your point, exactly?

CB

Edited November 7, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[Gray-Wolf]

You appear to be right C-Bob! I'm pointless!!

[Gray-Wolf]

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039810.shtml

[J10]

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.

On the IJIS figures Arctic Ice now stands (Provisionally) at 8,788,594, the lowest in the IJIS series and on the combined figures for all 31 years. BAD NEWS

The average growth over the past week has fallen to around 68,000 per day, which is slightly below recent ice growth of 73,000 (2002-2008) and slightly above long term ice growth of 60,000 sqkm per day (1979-2007)

We are now 1,057,206 below the 1979-2007 average figures, and 403.203 below 2003-2008 figures.

So after recent improvements ice growth has stalled somewhat, with ice growth being a problem especially around the Barents Sea and the Chuckchi Seas. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

[karyo]

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039810.shtml

I would have thought the smiley would been more appropriate if the links were showing good news? Just saying...

Karyo

Edited November 8, 2009 by karyo

[Gray-Wolf]

I would have thought the smiley would been more appropriate if the links were showing good news? Just saying...

Karyo

I use the 'smiley' as a non- offencive, non-aggressive symbol at the end of post's.Sorry if you find it disturbing

Yes J1, I'm not liking this lack of development.

For us to 'regrow' our lost perennial we need consistent extra growth (as with the past 2 years) to slow the losses later on in the season.

I do not know the figures but I'd guess that we have still lost a lot of ice over the past 2 summer seasons and our 'high' start point has enabled the recovery we have been seeing. If we end up with an average or low (06' level) start to the melt season then any gains could be lost over 1 season.

With the perennial lined up behind Svalbard any early start to the flow south could also cost us the last of the 'old perennial'.

[Skiwi]

What the heck is going on in the artic basin? ijis suggesting the ice extent decreased over the last day?? surely not at this time of year and with so little ice currently in the basin. admittedly it is warm in the barents sea but you would think the cold pooling in the east siberian sea and chuckchi sea would easily offset any small loss in this area??

any thoughts on the cause of this and prospects for ice growth?

Edited November 9, 2009 by Skiwi

[Gray-Wolf]

What the heck is going on in the artic basin? ijis suggesting the ice extent decreased over the last day?? surely not at this time of year and with so little ice currently in the basin. admittedly it is warm in the barents sea but you would think the cold pooling in the east siberian sea and chuckchi sea would easily offset any small loss in this area??

any thoughts on the cause of this and prospects for ice growth?

I've just been looking at the present 'flatline' myself.

All I can think of is compaction of ice in areas that are not 100% ice cover (as it is within the basin itself). Early days though.Should we stall for an extended period (3 or 4 days) then the impacts will be really noticeable due to the high growth rates we expect at this time of year.

[jethro]

But it will freeze before winter is over, won't it? Shouldn't make any difference to the overall figures, should it? Just the date for when it freezes will different surely?

Am I being dim????

[Gray-Wolf]

If you look at 06' you'll see what a disrupted 'early' season can mean to final figures.

The paper on the changing track and intensity of arctic storms, and the recent experience of a stalled low next to a H.P. (and the introduction of southerlies into the basin), make me wonder if things are now starting to act differently over autumn in the arctic basin. The loss of all that ocean heat (from the 'new' dark waters exposed over summer) would appear to have had some impact over the Siberian side of the Basin as this is where the recent warm air influx took place.

We know that the summer of 07' was driven by exceptional weather conditions but it did wipe out the majority of the 'old perennial' in one foul swoop so if winter 09'/10' leaves us with a similar final extent figure then no 'exceptional weather' would be needed to complete a similar job (due to the skimpy nature of the majority of the pack now).

Seeing as the Nino' seems to be becoming stronger (sitting between high moderate and 'strong') we should expect a stormy winter for America's west coast (in line with the impacts of a powerful Nino') and surely some of that energy will make it poleward (your 'earth burp' of stored heat) and enter the basin through the straights?

Talk of swells, generated on the Siberian sector, smashing perennial across the basin off the Canadian Archipelago (the Canadian ice breaker sage?) makes me wonder what strong storm swells (generated from Californian storms) will do in the Bering sea and North if the intergrity of the pack is now so compromised?

Edited November 9, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

On that note, here's some info on the winter prediction for the USA:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Winter_of_0910.pdf

My understanding was that the NAO and the AO are the most important factors for Arctic weather, not ENSO.