Ice Free Arctic

[cooling climate]

Dear oh dear nobody honestly believes there will be an ice free Arctic in the next 20,30,40 or

50 years surely. I very much doubt we will see another 2007 ice melt within the next 50 years

let alone ice free.

If so this is obviously not the thread for me, I tend to leave the science fiction stuff for the telly

and books.

[stewfox]

Dear oh dear nobody honestly believes there will be an ice free Arctic in the next 20,30,40 or

50 years surely. I very much doubt we will see another 2007 ice melt within the next 50 years

let alone ice free.

If so this is obviously not the thread for me, I tend to leave the science fiction stuff for the telly

and books.

Unfortunately whether the Arctic is free of ice in the next 20 50 or 500,000 years isn’t really down to ‘science fiction’.

I remain a sceptic but am happy to learn and happily read GW links and others thanks for sharing.

Edited March 30, 2010 by stewfox

[sunny starry skies]

Dear oh dear nobody honestly believes there will be an ice free Arctic in the next 20,30,40 or

50 years surely. I very much doubt we will see another 2007 ice melt within the next 50 years

let alone ice free.

If so this is obviously not the thread for me, I tend to leave the science fiction stuff for the telly

and books.

Comments like this are unhelpful. I don't suppose you have any evidence to back up your claims that we won't be ice-free in 50 years? The real state of the data on extent is that sea ice extent values are retreating much faster than predicted, therefore, as in the following link, seasonally ice-free Arctic is perfectly plausible before 2050:

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20070430_StroeveGRL.html

The other issue is of course that areas are misleading on many counts. As Stewfox puts very well, "give me its thickness any day above its area." a wide area of thin ice is far more susceptible to melting out than a smaller area of thicker ice. Monitor the melt on a pond or some such - the ice will gradually thin, and then rapidly disappear - if your eyes only saw the area of ice you'd see not much change for a while, then a very rapid transition from 'ice' to 'no ice'. In the Arctic, thickness studies (such as Barber's) are telling us that we've done most of the melting of volume, and so therefore we are heading into the phase where loss in area becomes more important. An increase in area (such as we've seen over the past month) is misleading if it is not accompanied by a concurrent increase in volume. And given that the trend in sea ice areas is downward and accelerating, 2007-scale extents are not only probable, but very likely within a small number of years, quite possibly this year if the pack is in as poor a state as observations suggest.

sss

[cooling climate]

Comments like this are unhelpful. I don't suppose you have any evidence to back up your claims that we won't be ice-free in 50 years? The real state of the data on extent is that sea ice extent values are retreating much faster than predicted, therefore, as in the following link, seasonally ice-free Arctic is perfectly plausible before 2050:

http://nsidc.org/new...StroeveGRL.html

The other issue is of course that areas are misleading on many counts. As Stewfox puts very well, "give me its thickness any day above its area." a wide area of thin ice is far more susceptible to melting out than a smaller area of thicker ice. Monitor the melt on a pond or some such - the ice will gradually thin, and then rapidly disappear - if your eyes only saw the area of ice you'd see not much change for a while, then a very rapid transition from 'ice' to 'no ice'. In the Arctic, thickness studies (such as Barber's) are telling us that we've done most of the melting of volume, and so therefore we are heading into the phase where loss in area becomes more important. An increase in area (such as we've seen over the past month) is misleading if it is not accompanied by a concurrent increase in volume. And given that the trend in sea ice areas is downward and accelerating, 2007-scale extents are not only probable, but very likely within a small number of years, quite possibly this year if the pack is in as poor a state as observations suggest.

sss

The likes of you, Grey Wolf extra that are desperate to see the Arctic ice melt jump to one assumption after the other

and it makes for silly posts such as yours. Since 2007 the Arctic ice has been increasing in area and thickness that is

a fact. After 2007 the Arctic ice was in a very vulnerable state due to the fact that a lot of multi- year ice melted but since

then it has recovered and is continuing to do so. A new jaxa maximum has just been reached for this season with

14,405,781 sq kms beating the previous maximum of 14,375,000 on March 8th.

This is the latest sea ice extent maximum on record (for jaxa).

The NSIDC have said that they expect less melt again this summer. The trend is most definitely upwards and it

is posters such as yourself and the other well known culprits on here that are posting alarmist nonsense contrary to

what is actually happening in the Arctic.

I am very confident we will not see a minimum sea ice extent in the Arctic this Autumn below 5,500,000 sq kms despite

the scare stories that will undoubtedly be posted on here and perhaps more alarmist nonsense we may see on the telly.

[laserguy]

........The NSIDC have said that they expect less melt again this summer. The trend is most definitely upwards and it

is posters such as yourself and the other well known culprits on here that are posting alarmist nonsense contrary to

what is actually happening in the Arctic..........

Erm,nicely put,CC! Personally I don't care whether Arctic ice extends to the equator or disappears overnight because there sure as hell ain't a damn thing we can do about it. What really,really gets me is the (sometimes!) unspoken inference that whatever goes on "up there" is somehow in response,either wholly or partly to what we as a species get up to. I've pretty much washed my hands of their staggering nonsense and am happy to let them wallow in their own self-delusion. Still fun,if a little frustrating at times to watch,though.

[Climate Man]

Well said Laser and CC. Not sure if my eyes are deceiving me but looking at all of the data that I am aware of, I can only see an inmproving trend.....

[Gray-Wolf]

There's gonna be a lot of 'word pie' eaten come August!

We know we don't want the changes we are amidst to be occuring but we have to remain within reality don't we?

The 'fact' that the 'new' perennial , as opposed to the old perennial, only manages 2m + as opposed to 5m+ must hint at something eh? We can no longer build the type of ice that could withstand an 07' melt season and ,we are told ,those summers are cyclical and so we will get another one . This time we do not have any 'old perennial' so the results will be even more devastating than we saw in 07'.

The current poor state of the high Arctic pack does not bode well for this summer (even if dominated by -ve AO.....the best conditions for retaining ice).

Place a solid sheet of ice in water and place a smashed up piece, that was the same size as the other, in water and see which melts away fastest.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Admiral_Bobski]

There's gonna be a lot of 'word pie' eaten come August!

We know we don't want the changes we are amidst to be occuring but we have to remain within reality don't we?

The 'fact' that the 'new' perennial , as opposed to the old perennial, only manages 2m + as opposed to 5m+ must hint at something eh? We can no longer build the type of ice that could withstand an 07' melt season and ,we are told ,those summers are cyclical and so we will get another one . This time we do not have any 'old perennial' so the results will be even more devastating than we saw in 07'.

The current poor state of the high Arctic pack does not bode well for this summer (even if dominated by -ve AO.....the best conditions for retaining ice).

Place a solid sheet of ice in water and place a smashed up piece, that was the same size as the other, in water and see which melts away fastest.

We don't have any old perennial? None at all?

CB

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

The likes of you, Grey Wolf extra that are desperate to see the Arctic ice melt jump to one assumption after the other

and it makes for silly posts such as yours. Since 2007 the Arctic ice has been increasing in area and thickness that is

a fact. After 2007 the Arctic ice was in a very vulnerable state due to the fact that a lot of multi- year ice melted but since

then it has recovered and is continuing to do so. A new jaxa maximum has just been reached for this season with

14,405,781 sq kms beating the previous maximum of 14,375,000 on March 8th.

This is the latest sea ice extent maximum on record (for jaxa).

The NSIDC have said that they expect less melt again this summer. The trend is most definitely upwards and it

is posters such as yourself and the other well known culprits on here that are posting alarmist nonsense contrary to

what is actually happening in the Arctic.

I am very confident we will not see a minimum sea ice extent in the Arctic this Autumn below 5,500,000 sq kms despite

the scare stories that will undoubtedly be posted on here and perhaps more alarmist nonsense we may see on the telly.

What an excellent post

Nothing much more I could add to that. Your comments about the vulnerability of the situation back in 2007 are very true, and that puts the recovery (relative to the situation in 2007) in a much better context than some of the alarmist nonsense you rightly refer to.

Edited March 31, 2010 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Gray-Wolf]

We don't have any old perennial? None at all?

CB

Why play the pedant C-Bob if not a measured response gauged to cause upset?

I'll let you answer your own question.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Why play the pedant C-Bob if not a measured response gauged to cause upset?

I'll let you answer your own question.

I'm not being pedantic at all - you stated that "we do not have any old perennial", which is clearly not true. Am I upsetting you by calling you on that fact? If so then I apologise, but my point still stands and is patently not pedantic.

CB

[Devonian]

The likes of you, Grey Wolf extra that are desperate to see the Arctic ice melt jump to one assumption after the other

and it makes for silly posts such as yours. Since 2007 the Arctic ice has been increasing in area and thickness that is

a fact. After 2007 the Arctic ice was in a very vulnerable state due to the fact that a lot of multi- year ice melted but since

then it has recovered and is continuing to do so. A new jaxa maximum has just been reached for this season with

14,405,781 sq kms beating the previous maximum of 14,375,000 on March 8th.

This is the latest sea ice extent maximum on record (for jaxa).

The NSIDC have said that they expect less melt again this summer. The trend is most definitely upwards and it

is posters such as yourself and the other well known culprits on here that are posting alarmist nonsense contrary to

what is actually happening in the Arctic.

I am very confident we will not see a minimum sea ice extent in the Arctic this Autumn below 5,500,000 sq kms despite

the scare stories that will undoubtedly be posted on here and perhaps more alarmist nonsense we may see on the telly.

Is it possible to have a view different to yours or LG's about the future of the Arctic ice and not be an alarmist? If so, at what point in the spectrum of views does one become an alarmist?

Fwiw I think the evidence that the long term trend of Arctic ice cover is downward and that if we as a species don't curb or GHG emitting ways that Arctic summer sea ice cover will be a thing of the past before centuries end. If that's enough to provoke me being called an alarmist so be it

[Admiral_Bobski]

Is it possible to have a view different to yours or LG's about the future of the Arctic ice and not be an alarmist? If so, at what point in the spectrum of views does one become an alarmist?

Fwiw I think the evidence that the long term trend of Arctic ice cover is downward and that if we as a species don't curb or GHG emitting ways that Arctic summer sea ice cover will be a thing of the past before centuries end. If that's enough to provoke me being called an alarmist so be it

In all fairness though, sea ice decline isn't actually caused by CO2 per se, is it? It's caused by other things, such as temperature increases and (perhaps even moreso) weather patterns. Which does bring us back to the issue of CO2, I grant you, but it's a bit more complicated than that.

CB

[Devonian]

In all fairness though, sea ice decline isn't actually caused by CO2 per se, is it? It's caused by other things, such as temperature increases and (perhaps even moreso) weather patterns. Which does bring us back to the issue of CO2, I grant you, but it's a bit more complicated than that.

CB

I said GHG not just CO2 . And, I think I should add black carbon, and land use changes as well to the mix.

As to other reasons for sea ice decline, I think the root cause for sea ice decline (and this is my opinion, alarmist or not) is (or will be since I was talking about later in the century) those of our activities that impact the climate.

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

The likes of you, Grey Wolf extra that are desperate to see the Arctic ice melt jump to one assumption after the other

and it makes for silly posts such as yours. Since 2007 the Arctic ice has been increasing in area and thickness that is

a fact. After 2007 the Arctic ice was in a very vulnerable state due to the fact that a lot of multi- year ice melted but since

then it has recovered and is continuing to do so. A new jaxa maximum has just been reached for this season with

14,405,781 sq kms beating the previous maximum of 14,375,000 on March 8th.

This is the latest sea ice extent maximum on record (for jaxa).

The NSIDC have said that they expect less melt again this summer. The trend is most definitely upwards and it

is posters such as yourself and the other well known culprits on here that are posting alarmist nonsense contrary to

what is actually happening in the Arctic.

I am very confident we will not see a minimum sea ice extent in the Arctic this Autumn below 5,500,000 sq kms despite

the scare stories that will undoubtedly be posted on here and perhaps more alarmist nonsense we may see on the telly.

I can't see any posts suggesting what you're saying isn't true. I think the point is that over an extended, meaningful time period ice extent in the Arctic has definitely been significantly downward. Are you confidently saying that this trend has now stopped, that any ice loss over the last 20-30 years has now halted, that we're 'out of the woods' and that we can look forward to a steady re-growth of perennial ice ? Obviously only time will tell, but try as I might I can't find any evidence to suggest that an 18-24 month partial (some might even say tenuous) reversal of a long-term trend is actually the beginnings of a real long-term upward trend for perennial Arctic ice.

On another note, I do admire the patience of G-W, Devonian, Iceberg and others. History has shown that regardless of the evidence there will always be plenty of Neros and Canutes around...............

[laserguy]

On another note, I do admire the patience of G-W, Devonian, Iceberg and others.

Dont'cha admire the patience and persistence of the likes of moi ? Feel like David battling the AGW Goliath at times. Um,Ok Dev - you're an alarmist.

[Devonian]

Dont'cha admire the patience and persistence of the likes of moi ? Feel like David battling the AGW Goliath at times. Um,Ok Dev - you're an alarmist.

As a quid pro quo can I call you (as wrongly) complacent and careless?

Edited March 31, 2010 by Devonian

[jethro]

How about no one calls anybody anything eh chaps, surely that's possible?????

[pottyprof]

How about no one calls anybody anything eh chaps, surely that's possible?????

Corse it is jethro... Provided nobody mentions GHG, Ice in any size or depth, Planes, trains and automobiles (was a good film)... errrrrrrrr anything that has to do with climate change whatsoever even if if is natural or man made... Broccoli consumption or the export to the third world of baked beans...

Best thing of all we shouldn't mention, is the abuse of felt tip pens on satellite photos...

:lol:

[jethro]

How about knitting, do you reckon that's safe? On second thoughts....natural dye, chemical dye, wool, cotton, acrylic - there's another world of trouble.

[pottyprof]

Knitting belly button fluff.. Obvious source of free insulation for anyone wanting to head up to the top of the world.. Either that or a big boat and a few aeroplanes and a huge range of sponsors behind you that carry on polluting regardless for the range of equipment you need to carry.....

[MR EXTREMES]

lol there great comments in here pp.

i think its easy to add in the co2 effect,

although im pretty sure like others it dont have the impact that some are calling.

Over the last couple maybe few years things have started to show difference leaning towards cooler,

of coarse so much ice has been lost over the warmer years so ofcoarse it will take longer to build,

first the sea temps must drop before we can build multi year ice once this starts happening then things could recover very quickly indeed.

i do not think co2 is the issue,

if you look at the milder years where ice never stood a chance,

but now much more favourable towards building back again.

Neg pdo must have a bigger effect on climate patterns and weather patterns,

which are key to how the ice acts.

So what do we have now well we seen the easterly of winter become more regular,

much colder patterns across the uk america and russia with blocking much more robust than the milder years.

Infact all the northern hemisphere has suffered cold and lengthly its been,

not just this year but last year aswell,

this is not fluke or freaky event this is because of a climate shift just like the one from late 80s until 2006/2007,

also key to remember although not really supported,

is the suns effects.

During the arctic meltdown there was a very active peroid of solar activity this could be key to the large effects of heating in the arctic region along with other periodic shifts through out earths history.

and as our sun is still in a minimum,

i dont expect any major ice loss so as long as the current idears stay the same,

if things where to continue like the late 80s onwards id expect the outcome predicted by the likes of gray wolf to happen.

But at this moment in time i think its a good idear to step back at look at the real reasons to why the global warming theory has gone so wrong infact to be honest i think a spanner has been thrown in the works.

But with time we will find out,

its been a good year in the arctic i expect this year to be about the same,

each time the arctic gains ice over the 2007 record losses then theres less to worry about.:lol:

Edited April 1, 2010 by badboy657

[Devonian]

How about no one calls anybody anything eh chaps, surely that's possible?????

Clearly not since the word alarmist appears again...

[jethro]

Clearly not since the word alarmist appears again...

I know, drives me mad too, aaaaaaargh!!! Why, of why, oh why, it's so pointless.

:lol: :wallbash:

Oh to have access to the swear filter.......

[Devonian]

Here is a chart of February ice extents. The trend is clear.