Ice Free Arctic

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

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

And the reason?

Um, let me guess - it is all to do with the legacy of Mrs Thatchers post end of 1970's/early eighties reforms?

Or there could be so many other reasons .....couldn't there be Devonian?

Edited April 1, 2010 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

Or there could be so many other reasons .....couldn't there be Devonian?

Well, I'm probably being simplistic but I would have thought that the basic reason is pretty straightforward - more ice is melting than is forming during each annual cycle. And with the behaviour of ice being (at it's basic level) pretty simple, surely there can only be one reason for increased melt of ice and decreased formation of ice - the average temperature of the environment where ice is a feature has increased. What other basic explanation can there be - surely if it had got colder ice extent would have increased, if there had been no change ice extent wouldn't have changed ??? Now the question as to why average temperatures have increased is of course an entirely different one...........

[stewfox]

Well, I'm probably being simplistic but I would have thought that the basic reason is pretty straightforward - more ice is melting than is forming during each annual cycle. And with the behaviour of ice being (at it's basic level) pretty simple, surely there can only be one reason for increased melt of ice and decreased formation of ice - the average temperature of the environment where ice is a feature has increased. What other basic explanation can there be - surely if it had got colder ice extent would have increased, if there had been no change ice extent wouldn't have changed ??? Now the question as to why average temperatures have increased is of course an entirely different one...........

Could you provide some links to these profound statements?. perhaps start with average ice volumes in the artic last 200 years ?

Ps I think in Antarctica if temps rose we would see more ice on average.

Edited April 1, 2010 by stewfox

[MR EXTREMES]

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

:wallbash: :wallbash:

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

sorry i edited it and removed the word.

i did not realise this thread is restricted to what you can say.

i do apoligise perhapes over exaggerated is a more fair term.

the point is that theres little evidence to say weather other periods in earths history have had more ice or less ice simple fact is that we are,

or maybe even have,

been in a warm period which could be shifting again.

this has been the planet feature for millions of years ice ages and warm periods co2 levels also have been higher than today.

if this is the case then if co2 was higher than today and the planet was warmer than today then i bet a bottom dollar sooner or later a new ice age will be apon us.

so many factors to take into account volcanic earthquakes sun the list goes on and on.

and in my opion theres be alot going on with our climate and the sun,

infact id say its been the most active time for some years.

pdo shift volcanic powerfull earthquakes deep cold.

so to simply say ice free arctic is apon us is rubbish we just dont know right now.

Edited April 1, 2010 by badboy657

[Devonian]

sorry i edited it and removed the word.

i did not realise this thread is restricted to what you can say.

I don't think it is. But isn't it better if we just disagree and debate the detail not what the people we debate with are like.

i do apoligise perhapes over exaggerated is a more fair term.

the point is that theres little evidence to say weather other periods in earths history have had more ice or less ice simple fact is that we are,

or maybe even have,

been in a warm period which could be shifting again.

this has been the planet feature for millions of years ice ages and warm periods co2 levels also have been higher than today.

if this is the case then if co2 was higher than today and the planet was warmer than today then i bet a bottom dollar sooner or later a new ice age will be apon us.

so many factors to take into account volcanic earthquakes sun the list goes on and on.

and in my opion theres be alot going on with our climate and the sun,

infact id say its been the most active time for some years.

pdo shift volcanic powerfull earthquakes deep cold.

so to simply say ice free arctic is apon us is rubbish we just dont know right now.

Right, we don't know - so, how do you know it's rubbish?

Ice in the Arcic is at historically low extents, the amount of multi year ice is very low as well. There is evidence that ice hasn't been this scarce for longer, much longer. And it's a reasonable inference to think that if the amount of multi year ice declines the resiliance of the ice pack to summer melting also decreases. If the climate predictions are right I think the Arctic ice, in summer, will be a thing of the past, if they're not then perhaps the ice wont go. But, I happen to think the science is broadly right, to be convinced otherwise I need more than my character being unflatteringly described.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Devonian

[stewfox]

Right, we don't know - so, how do you know it's rubbish?

We don’t which means for the next so many years on so many forums it can be ‘debated’.

[Devonian]

We don’t which means for the next so many years on so many forums it can be ‘debated’.

Indeed.

[jethro]

sorry i edited it and removed the word.

i did not realise this thread is restricted to what you can say.

The only restriction is politeness and a respect for others, the same rules apply to the whole forum. This name calling/labelling thing isn't very polite nor respectful, plus it tends to wind folk up who then retaliate and before you know it, the thread has descended into a battle with no scientific conversation.

Not picking you up on it in particular, lots of folk do it and it's one of my personal bugbears, always has been.

Thanks for the apology and edit.

[Gray-Wolf]

Mud logs.

We know how much ice has been present at any time over the past tens of thousands of years.

If you don't believe it ,check out the science ,methodology, and data.

We have not had as little ice as we have today since before the start of our present glacial epoch.

Check the data. Listen to the science.

End of.

[laserguy]

We have not had as little ice as we have today since before the start of our present glacial epoch.

Check the data. Listen to the science.

End of.

Right you are,GW. Gonna get cosy with a box of popcorn and watch the show. When's it start?

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Now the question as to why average temperatures have increased is of course an entirely different one...........

Which, as you know, was the question I was (rhetorically) asking......

Seems to me that that this period coincides with the positive (warming) cycles of the PDO, AMO, as well as predominance of stronger el ninos on average than ninas plus in addition some noteworthy solar activity.

Add all that lot up to gether - jet stream further north, dominance of +AO/NAO synoptics - warmer air as a result into the arctic, effect on ice.

Reverse those cycles and synoptics start to change. No coincidence that synoptics have changed with a much more southerly jet stream since 2007, less warm air going north into the arctic and some stabilisation already of the ice situation. Yes, from a frail situation. But it is way too early to start to say that the negative feedbacks are not taking as much effect as they should. This has to be gauged over the coming future few decadal periods much as AGW proponents gauge the post 1970's period and try to claim that warming through that period is a result of AGW.

None of that is rocket science, once one stops thinking along the narrow tramlines of AGW causing the warming because AGW causes the warming.

Edited April 2, 2010 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Devonian]

Which, as you know, was the question I was (rhetorically) asking......

Seems to me that that this period coincides with the positive (warming) cycles of the PDO, AMO, as well as predominance of stronger el ninos on average than ninas plus in addition some noteworthy solar activity.

Add all that lot up to gether - jet stream further north, dominance of +AO/NAO synoptics - warmer air as a result into the arctic, effect on ice.

Reverse those cycles and synoptics start to change. No coincidence that synoptics have changed with a much more southerly jet stream since 2007, less warm air going north into the arctic and some stabilisation already of the ice situation. Yes, from a frail situation. But it is way too early to start to say that the negative feedbacks are not taking as much effect as they should. This has to be gauged over the coming future few decadal periods much as AGW proponents gauge the post 1970's period and try to claim that warming through that period is a result of AGW.

All these effect are the movement of energy around the climate system. None of them can cause the Earth's climate system as a whole to warm or cool because they are responses to the energy in the system not providers of it.

None of that is rocket science, once one stops thinking along the narrow tramlines of AGW causing the warming because AGW causes the warming.

That comes across as rather contemptious.

Humm, AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming. So you think people like me think Anthropogenic Global Warming causes Anthropogenic Global Warming? Seriously? or just a jibe?

Edited April 2, 2010 by Devonian

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

This has to be gauged over the coming future few decadal periods much as AGW proponents gauge the post 1970's period and try to claim that warming through that period is a result of AGW.

Absolutely NSSC, and this is the nub of this and all the other similar threads. We all have our positions, and the vast majority of those positions are held because what we have read has led us to those conclusions. And as you rightly point out, there will be no resolution to the debates for decades. So essentially what we are all engaged in is theoretical debating. The simple fact is there is no 'silver bullet' evidence in existence to conclusively prove any particular theory at this time, nor will there be till we are long gone. To paraphrase, the truth isn't out there !!! (at least for us)

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

All these effect are the movement of energy around the climate system. None of them can cause the Earth's climate system as a whole to warm or cool because they are responses to the energy in the system not providers of it.

You need to start to consider that a lot of AGW positive feedbacks, that you believe supplies the energy, are based on supposition and are assumptive. They are not fact. The suggested warming as per IPCC depends on these positive feebacks presenting themselves over coming decades. Thus far the overwhelming majority of decadal warming has come from the factors I mentioned above. Look at how the warming periods of the 20th century correspond with the two main +PDO periods - just for a start.

That's rather contemptious.

No, it isn't - it just doesn't fit what you believe

Humm, AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming. So you think people like me think Anthropogenic Global Warming causes Anthropogenic Global Warming? Seriously? or just a jibe?

One for you to ponder on Devonian I would suggest?

Absolutely NSSC, and this is the nub of this and all the other similar threads. We all have our positions, and the vast majority of those positions are held because what we have read has led us to those conclusions. And as you rightly point out, there will be no resolution to the debates for decades. So essentially what we are all engaged in is theoretical debating. The simple fact is there is no 'silver bullet' evidence in existence to conclusively prove any particular theory at this time, nor will there be till we are long gone. To paraphrase, the truth isn't out there !!! (at least for us)

That is a good post - I agree with all that. Even if I do have my own reasoning as to why.

[Devonian]

All these effect are the movement of energy around the climate system. None of them can cause the Earth's climate system as a whole to warm or cool because they are responses to the energy in the system not providers of it.

You need to start to consider that a lot of AGW positive feedbacks, that you believe supplies the energy, are based on supposition and are assumptive.

Please don't tell me what I believe . Greenhouse gasses slow the outward movement of energy from the Earth. Increase ghg's and that slowing effect increases = more energy in the system = a warming effect. That's what I know.

One for you to ponder on Devonian I would suggest?

You could try answering - because, yes, if I ask a question and you answer with a question then I don't have an answer...

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Pennine! I think that NSSC isn't being totally fair in that statement.

We are all in close agreement when it comes to the impacts of normal, cyclical climate swings we only differ in the 'extra mile' that is AGW forced changes.

Sure we've had a warm phase but we've also had 'warm phases' before and they haven't caused to extent of melting across the Arctic (lost perennial) or the changes to the ice sheets of Greenland/W.Antarctic and it is this 'extra' that needs explaining.

Science tells us the changes mankind has imposed up on the planet are the most likely cause (and I use 'most likely' as a scientist would, meaning 'is' in our speak).

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100412121014.htm

Seems that the Arctic is melting. Even the ice caps on the islands in the Canadian Archipelago are now shrinking. I'm sure I've never heard of such happening before in any cyclical type retreat/growth cycle. Cryosat2 will bring us better data resolution of such events.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Jethro!

I am incredibly dense and so I only have the faintest idea of the impacts loosing our "air conditioner" will have but plenty of climate scientists will point you to some grim scenarios from such a change and none of them are via a gradual process.

The impacts on general circulation might be a good place to start (both air and ocean currents). The loss of Monsoon winds is one that sticks in my mind as so many people depend on them but a shift in the trade winds?, Jet stream positions? (no polar jet???) and an acceleration in the 'widening of the tropics'?, alterations in all the 'cyclical ' patterns (PDO,AO,ENSO,SO, etc) are also accepted as a consequence of an ice free Pole.

The list is endless as, basically, it impacts everything. Not the sort of genii you want to let out!

[Gray-Wolf]

Seeing as China are mapping out their responces to an ice free pole and even Jow B' over on accuweather is toting a 'second lowest' ice extent this summer I was wondering if anyone else out there has any notion of the wider impacts of an ice free pole?

Jethro does not seem to have too many ideas as to how far reaching such a situation will be. I know it will be fundimental in driving the changes we are to expect from AGW but find them too wide to lay out in a single post.

Would Anyone out there like to explain the impacts on ocean currents as the polar ice becomes seasonal (and whether we , in W.Europe have anything to fear from freshwater impacting the Gulf Stream.

I'd also be interested to hear from folk about how they see precipitation patterns, in the temperate regions, being impacted by a new 'polar reservoir' over summer? Could we imagine L.P. systems forming over the open polar waters?

Will this mean more savage interchanges between a new type of 'polar maritime' and Tropical continental airmasses (more tornadic outbreaks) ?

With L.P.s over the high pole could we envisage warmer air being pulled further up into the Arctic?

[jethro]

Jethro does not seem to have too many ideas as to how far reaching such a situation will be. I know it will be fundimental in driving the changes we are to expect from AGW but find them too wide to lay out in a single post.

I'd also be interested to hear from folk about how they see precipitation patterns, in the temperate regions, being impacted by a new 'polar reservoir' over summer? Could we imagine L.P. systems forming over the open polar waters?

Will this mean more savage interchanges between a new type of 'polar maritime' and Tropical continental airmasses (more tornadic outbreaks) ?

With L.P.s over the high pole could we envisage warmer air being pulled further up into the Arctic?

You're right there, I don't know what changes there will be, if any. I don't see how you can know that there will be changes, much less how it will be fundamental in driving changes expected due to AGW.

On a purely basic level, the less of a contrast there is between two different airmasses, the less impact there will be so it could be argued that there will be less tornadic outbreaks.

What difference would it make if it rained over open polar waters? It would wash some CO2 out of the atmosphere.

The latest studies indicate that the pressure belts are depressing warmer air further South, not Northwards; the predictions are for winter here to become cooler as a result. The synoptic pattern thus far this year seems to support this.

[Gray-Wolf]

You're right there, I don't know what changes there will be, if any. I don't see how you can know that there will be changes, much less how it will be fundamental in driving changes expected due to AGW.

On a purely basic level, the less of a contrast there is between two different air masses, the less impact there will be so it could be argued that there will be less tornado outbreaks.

What difference would it make if it rained over open polar waters? It would wash some CO2 out of the atmosphere.

The latest studies indicate that the pressure belts are depressing warmer air further South, not North wards; the predictions are for winter here to become cooler as a result. The synoptic pattern thus far this year seems to support this.

During it's ice covered' period the polar north was effectively an 'ice desert' so , once you have open water you can have evaporation, cloud formation and all that goes with 'weather making'. My limited understanding tells me that you can't move from one extreme to the other without that having impacts.

The panic at the Catlin base camp on April 11th (because of the rain) is something I'd not imagined but I suppose pouring water on ice does tend to melt it very quickly......not too good if you are camped on it!

Also if you evaporate water you get water vapour and it can then hold onto heat better than 'dry air'.Come autumn (and the shedding of the accrued summers heat) you have another 'blanket' in the atmosphere holding onto warm air where once there was just cold. Surely that reservoir of warm air makes different things happen there compared to the 'old situation'?

As for warm air being held further south .....hmmmmm......Check out the past 4 months over Alaska and Canada and tell me we are not just suffering from a more sinuous jet (cold plunges in some areas ,warm surges in others) at present!!

The last time I looked there had been no reversal in the poleward march of both tropics so I'd be rather interested in any new research that shows as much!!

The same can be said of the 10c isotherm in the Oceans and would imagine that this too would retreat towards the equator if the heat was being drawn and trapped there.

Because it used to be an ice desert the 'old stylee' polar plunges did not carry much moisture with them so we didn't get 2 saturated air masses playing out together. With the new setup do you not think we will be facing the same type of airmass confrontation as we see over the great plains in the U.S.?

I was also of the understanding that the polar warming had driven a differing setup around the pole (tri-lobal to bi-lobal) meaning that air masses now exchange more North/South than the old NE/SW or NW/SE so the 'air' arrives via a more direct route and so is less modified on arrival. Were this trend to be sustained (and not another step towards the removal of the polar jet) then it would take a while for the general warming to 'warm' these direct plunges to the temps of 'old' modified air masses.

I'm obviously a couple of years out of date with my 'world view' and so would thank anyone who can drag me up to date on this southerly suppression of pressure belts etc.

[jethro]

During it's ice covered' period the polar north was effectively an 'ice desert' so , once you have open water you can have evaporation, cloud formation and all that goes with 'weather making'. My limited understanding tells me that you can't move from one extreme to the other without that having impacts.

The panic at the Catlin base camp on April 11th (because of the rain) is something I'd not imagined but I suppose pouring water on ice does tend to melt it very quickly......not too good if you are camped on it!

Also if you evaporate water you get water vapour and it can then hold onto heat better than 'dry air'.Come autumn (and the shedding of the accrued summers heat) you have another 'blanket' in the atmosphere holding onto warm air where once there was just cold. Surely that reservoir of warm air makes different things happen there compared to the 'old situation'?

As for warm air being held further south .....hmmmmm......Check out the past 4 months over Alaska and Canada and tell me we are not just suffering from a more sinuous jet (cold plunges in some areas ,warm surges in others) at present!!

The last time I looked there had been no reversal in the poleward march of both tropics so I'd be rather interested in any new research that shows as much!!

The same can be said of the 10c isotherm in the Oceans and would imagine that this too would retreat towards the equator if the heat was being drawn and trapped there.

Because it used to be an ice desert the 'old stylee' polar plunges did not carry much moisture with them so we didn't get 2 saturated air masses playing out together. With the new setup do you not think we will be facing the same type of airmass confrontation as we see over the great plains in the U.S.?

I was also of the understanding that the polar warming had driven a differing setup around the pole (tri-lobal to bi-lobal) meaning that air masses now exchange more North/South than the old NE/SW or NW/SE so the 'air' arrives via a more direct route and so is less modified on arrival. Were this trend to be sustained (and not another step towards the removal of the polar jet) then it would take a while for the general warming to 'warm' these direct plunges to the temps of 'old' modified air masses.

I'm obviously a couple of years out of date with my 'world view' and so would thank anyone who can drag me up to date on this southerly suppression of pressure belts etc.

Warmer air holds onto more moisture so I can kind of see where you're coming from but it's the degree of impact you're projecting that I would question.

The role of clouds is two-fold, yes water vapour warms by trapping heat but those clouds which form as a result in turn reflect Solar energy and cool. Overall, it is thought that clouds are a negative feedback but they are one of the great un-knowns.

http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/254.html

No, I do not see us facing the same type of airmass confrontation as happens over the great plains - IMO that's a drastic, doomsday description.

If there are warm plunges in some parts, cold ones in others, does that not indicate to you that there is a balance there? It may result in a change of ice distribution but it wouldn't indicate no ice at all.

The tri-lobal/bi-lobal situation is subject to many different influences, AGW being towards the bottom of the list - I believe much higher up the list is the state of the Stratosphere and ozone levels, both of which have been shown to be highly influenced by Solar output.

The papers with the latest studies about pressure systems was linked to on here a few pages back, where did you get the idea that the Tropics were moving?

[Gray-Wolf]

, where did you get the idea that the Tropics were moving?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071203-expanding-tropics.html

here back in 07' Jethro, I'm sure it was discussed at the time?

[jethro]

Here's an interesting historical report on the state of the Arctic: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/02/catastrophic-retreat-of-glaciers-in-spitsbergen/

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm sure that ,pretty soon, you'll find that you have to accept that this change in the Arctic is above and beyond any past regional warmings driven by 'local' weather patterns similar to our current 'Atlantic blocking' .

The current pattern of blocking is affecting Alaska ,Canada and the Barents sea areas. As we saw ,over the later part of winter, areas of exceptional cold developed across Bering, Siberia and the northern end of the China Sea (driving the high 'extent' we saw in March).

Sadly these cold affected areas are not positioned to retain ice ( you watch the Siberian sea ice melt out over summer, even whilst in this 'cold phase', due to the loss of the halocline layer over the past 15yrs of warmth and ice free summers) and the 'warm affected' areas are crucial in the current phase of meltdown as they both retain the last of the multi year ice and are also the historic place where the 'old perennial' formed and housed itself (due to the geography and synoptics of the Arctic Basin).

With the 'volume of ice' in the Arctic equalling the record low of 07' before the melt really begins

(and begun it has)

how low will ice volumes fall this year?

When the bulk of the peripheral melt is over (late June /early July) come back and tell me that this has happened before (across the whole Arctic region) and that we just 'missed' seeing all that open water (both fisheries and aboriginal Arctic peoples) and open sea lanes and that the mud log records somehow 'miss' this 1930's 'ice free' episode and why the Arctic glaciers (esp. Greenland) do not reflect the type of melt they have endured over the past 15yrs or why the ice shelfs on Ellesmere Island chose now to melt/collapse or why ,during this 30's 'exceptional Arctic melt period', the permafrost records no signs of melt and re-freeze across the whole of the Canadian or Siberia Tundra.

I know we don't want this to be happening right now Jethro and that it is natural to scrabble around to find reassurance that it is 'normal behaviour' of the arctic pack but eventually we have to accept that this time, this 'melt' is beyond natural ,regional variation and has advanced to the point that we no longer have the Arctic we grew up with. We will all (eventually) accept that there is no 'instant rewind' to that place with the current destruction of the halocline and the loss of the perennial ice (that used to form the bulk of remaining ice come summers end) now creating a self reinforcing warming phase across the Arctic basin.

I had highlighted the continued collapse of sea ice volumes over the last 2 years but it seems folk (who post here) were too enamoured with 'extent' to take heed of my 'heads up'.

Let those who 'live by the extent ,die by the extent' I say (and have done over this period) as they will need to do a lot of explaining, come Sept. this year, as to how such a grand recovery collapsed into a worse position than the exceptional 07' season.

I can't wait for the WUWT posturing over the figures come September (I see they are currently messing around with 'who measures what and how' as far as ice extent is concerned yet not 2 months ago they were using the same data to show what a scam AGW and the collapse in Arctic ice was!).

For those 'Lurkers' out there I'd advise using NSIDC

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

(and the News and Events section)

IJIS website for ice extent 'plots'

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

And both NASA (IceBridge mission) and ESA (Cryosat2) for current ice volumes/rate of decline.