Polar Ice

[BornFromTheVoid]

I have attached the list in Excel format, which you may or not find useful.

Thanks again, it should make things much easier!

[BornFromTheVoid]

We're still bottom of the last 8 years, by over 160,000km2, which is just over 360,000km2 below the 2003-09 average and almost 930,000km2 below the long term average.

[Gray-Wolf]

It seems that some of the more denialist sites are having a few issues with the ice extent.

We've not even hit the melt season proper (for the Arctic Basin) so I don't know how they will react once those drops start to occur? WUWT WUWT? (LOL)

[Solar Cycles]

It seems that some of the more denialist sites are having a few issues with the ice extent.

We've not even hit the melt season proper (for the Arctic Basin) so I don't know how they will react once those drops start to occur? WUWT WUWT? (LOL)

Don't count all your chickens before they hatch GW!

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi S.C. !

I seem to remember saying in 08' that if we had a start point below 07' then even a normal summer would lead to less ice than 07' so I guess I'm going to be measured by that come Sept anyhows!!!

I'm sure we'll reach a 'post perennial' level of summer ice (over the next 15yrs or so) but the 'exceptional summers' will lead to a 'seasonal' level of ice come ice min (leass than 1million sq km).

This summer may be our first chance to see exactly how the basin 'settles out' with the majority of the 'old perennial' now perished (so no interference from collapsing tonnages of perennial come Aug/Sept).

[4wd]

You only need look at 2006 to see what happens later is not sensibly predicted in June.

Polar temperatures have been below average lately I see.

[Gray-Wolf]

You only need look at 2006 to see what happens later is not sensibly predicted in June.

Polar temperatures have been below average lately I see.

I don't think it is safe to do that 4wd (look at 06'). Back in 06' we still had a 'banker' of old perennial. It may have drastically thinned but it was still the 'old stylee' glacial ice with deep snow cap (itself turning into glacial ice).

This year we have very little 'old perennial' in the open ocean. All we have is thin ,'new perennial' which has not had the years of deep freeze needed to allow that special crystal structure to form and it's brine to drain off. As it is we have sub 3m ice with a porous salt water interface and this summer will illustrate very nicely how well this endures.

When we have a purely seasonal pack then 'predicting in June' it's outcome will not prove a problem (lol) and I feel that ,with the demise of the 'old perennial/Halocline layer, we are on a one way street to that eventuality.

If someone can explain how we rebuild the unique structure of the Arctic ocean (that allowed such massive islands of perennial ice to maintain through summers) I'm sure that there are plenty of folk (out there) who would like to know how for ,without such potentials, we are left with no hope of a return to the Arctic we grew up knowing.

[Solar Cycles]

I don't think it is safe to do that 4wd (look at 06'). Back in 06' we still had a 'banker' of old perennial. It may have drastically thinned but it was still the 'old stylee' glacial ice with deep snow cap (itself turning into glacial ice).

This year we have very little 'old perennial' in the open ocean. All we have is thin ,'new perennial' which has not had the years of deep freeze needed to allow that special crystal structure to form and it's brine to drain off. As it is we have sub 3m ice with a porous salt water interface and this summer will illustrate very nicely how well this endures.

When we have a purely seasonal pack then 'predicting in June' it's outcome will not prove a problem (lol) and I feel that ,with the demise of the 'old perennial/Halocline layer, we are on a one way street to that eventuality.

If someone can explain how we rebuild the unique structure of the Arctic ocean (that allowed such massive islands of perennial ice to maintain through summers) I'm sure that there are plenty of folk (out there) who would like to know how for ,without such potentials, we are left with no hope of a return to the Arctic we grew up knowing.

Come on GW. NO return to the Arctic we grew up knowing, a bit strong to say the least!

[Gray-Wolf]

Come on GW you really need to get that medication sorted . NO return to the Arctic we grew up knowing, a bit strong to say the least!

Sadly it is the understanding I'm brought to S.C.

If folk could explain the building of the old Arctic without the use of the last ice age then I'd feel a little more hopeful but ,so far, it seems it was an essential ingredient. C-Bob is keen on showing that a return to an orbitally forced ice age is not going to happen any time soon so we truly are looking at the start/birth of a very different Arctic ocean than the one we grew up with.

With the Halocline gone we get the nutrient rich waters being brought into the 'sunlight zone' and this bring in the zoo plankton which in turn brings in their hunters which in turn......

We see this in NW Greenland's shrimp fleets Ill's don't we? The shrimp moved north and the mackerel/cod with them. Didn't we read that the flagellations of all those little critter tails added up to all the mixing done by larger critters,wind and wave? So what of the Halocline then? eaten away from the edges by a seasonal invasion of life.

It's not just the return of normal oceanic processes (like we see in every other ocean) but the return of life itself ( of the scale that brings us our plankton blooms and attracts everything ,from Basking shark down, to our shores each year!) that will now strip away the very layer that allowed the Arctic to hold a year round ice presence.

And what of storms now entering the basin? what 'backbone' does the pack now have to damp out the swells and slow the ice drift? Dr Barber's description of the death of that ice flow ( and the pressure joints it cleaved into) shows me that a swell from half an ocean away played havoc with what once was 'common ice' throughout the Arctic Basin. What of the 'new stuff'? the sub 3m 'sea ice' with it's butt stuck into sea water (and pressed further into it/melted by it each snowfall it accumulates) and not surrounded by the supportive, cold, fresh Halocline we knew?

Come the late summer Hurricane remnants I'm sure we'll find out!!!

The way I have seen things evolve has left a pack that is self limiting in depth (like southern sea ice?) by the fact that the waters below are warm and salty.

The 50m depth of the Halocline is now compromised across the basin and the damage is greater each time the surface is open to allow ocean waves [up to 200m in depth off Hawaii] to form and run through the ocean.

Off Siberia (where Dr Barbers storm sent it's swell into Beaufort) has had nearly 10 years of summer open ocean, areas of Beaufort the same, Barents has been half clear for that length of time.

There comes a point that with any rapid growth of winter ice the increase in depth pushes the base of the ice into the warmer waters before that upper surface of ocean is 'prepped' for the ice by slow chilling of that level and a desalinisation of the ice above (leaving what you get below slow grow ice) so the ice base just melts. What of the ice with a snowstorm or two on top? do you get the wobbly ice that folk have been finding up there all spring long???

Let me see how this process can now be stopped ,reversed, and I'll concede I'm ahead of myself and will take off the black arm band but until then the 'Old Arctic ' is already gone, it's 'old perennial' like the unviable population of a small mammal bound for extinction........;-)

EDIT: C'Mon S.C. ! Worse things happen at sea!!!

It will prove an interesting time for folk like us, if we can survive the bickering then the opening up of a new area and the changes this will enable us to see is mind boggling (as a spectacle you understand!).

Be it novel weather, plant /animal invasions into near barren regions, mineral extraction, shipping routes, new ocean currents, new solar energy 'balance point' it's seemingly limitless.

We might not have thought we'd never see the day when the Arctic ocean was just that over summer but I'm bound we'll see more than that from the area in our lifetimes!!!

http://environmental.../yournews/42822

and an overview of how/why we are concerned?

http://soa.arcus.org...ski-wieslaw.pdf

And finally, this is what most folk fail to recognise.

They are so wrapped up in 07',, or the noughties they forget that this has been over 60yrs in the 'dying' (late 1800's the latest from Cambridge?) and so the final 'let go' of the past 18 years or so is all they see.

Before we get to the point where the Arctic can 'kick off' it's mantle of ice a lot has already occurred (the bulk of 'changes'?) before. We forget that this past 15yrs is nowhere near the 'norm' we know of up there. Up to 50% less ice 'extent' than the 50's, we grew up knowing a diddy little pack (but to 'us' it's our 'norm'!) and now that has been able to fragment (loss of peripheral ice holding it in station) and float off.

No matter if we altered the winds, storms, wind strengths, water temps, etc ,no matter at all, what is done is done an' all that.

Once the perennial is exposed and fractured then any reduction in surrounding pack integrity will allow it to edge out (year on year?) and be dragged off into Fram (you can see it happen on the animation)....the late 70's /early 80's were the time to see the changes but 'sat science' was new and we didn't know what we should be seeing (over a 3yr period).

The 'evidence ' of this ice loss /thinning is there in the images (from the earliest 'space shots') and new 'techniques' will allow us to see that ice thinning/loss from the 60's onward (I'm sure that there are 'snapshots' of the polar cap from the 60's whilst the 'moon missions' were under practise/operations? and Soviet footage???) so we extend our cover by 16yrs or so, thats 45yrs of loss and melt from sat. data alone (never mind Hadley's ships/buoy/aircraft data back to the early 1900's)!

We're human and so 'slow change ' passes us by.

This is slow but noticeable change (thanks to our knowledge of the past and our present day data)!

Past epoch's take much more than 100yrs to dismantle the polar ice cap (if you credit the evidence!) and it is a job nearing completion I'm afraid.

EDIT:EDIT;

Oh ,and here,

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/index.uk.php

this'll prove interesting over the coming months!

Limit yourself to 14 days until mid sept though!!!!

Edited June 7, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

And the Baltic ice that froze in the Ships?

http://ocean.dmi.dk/satellite/index.uk.php

set it to the '14 days' setting.

I even think this coming winter will be as bad/worse than the last S.C. (for us) , but I still think The old Arctic has gone though.

I know this is off track but we're silly to get locked in pedantic spat's whilst such defining moments unravel as a back drop to our quibbles? Should we not ,collapse of the Berlin Wall-esque, revel in the moment?

....it'll not come again in our life-times .........

[songster]

I see we're going through the changeover bit of the IJIS graph again - interestingly this year we seem to be getting a "blip", much like there still is for 2007/8/9 but not for earlier years following the recent adjustment. Wonder why that is? At a guess, I would say it has something to do with different ice composition leading to more melt ponding - first year ice is saltier and melts at a lower temperature than multi-year ice. Looking at the temp graph 4wd posted, the average temp is now high enough to start melting the 1st year ice from above.

[Gray-Wolf]

I see we're going through the changeover bit of the IJIS graph again - interestingly this year we seem to be getting a "blip", much like there still is for 2007/8/9 but not for earlier years following the recent adjustment. Wonder why that is? At a guess, I would say it has something to do with different ice composition leading to more melt ponding - first year ice is saltier and melts at a lower temperature than multi-year ice. Looking at the temp graph 4wd posted, the average temp is now high enough to start melting the 1st year ice from above.

ught they had done away with the 'blips'? Some of the other sites, with a more 'denialistic' lilt, have been bemoaning the 'con/manipulation' since it was instigated!

I'd agree that the 'new ice' is more prone to melt and the high temps lead to a more porous base and so more seawater perculating through it. My other worry is the snow burden on top of the ice. If sectors are sitting in sea water now, and not the Halocline layer, then the weight of snow will have depressed the ice into the melting zone taking out the lower levels of ice leaving a thin ice slab topped with compacted snow. If you've ever dropped compacted snow into water you'll know how quick it melts!!!

[songster]

ught they had done away with the 'blips'? Some of the other sites, with a more 'denialistic' lilt, have been bemoaning the 'con/manipulation' since it was instigated!

They've reduced the "blips", but they're not gone - as you can see from the graphs. Looks to me like the degree of "blip" varies from year to year and so they've tuned their smoothing algorithm for the average case. Likely they can't remove the "blip" from the more severe years without causing an opposite blip in the others.

The question is what if any physical meaning there is to this. My understanding is that the cause of the blip is melt ponding across the ice surface. This causes the measured extent to drop sharply as surface melt sets in, due the the apparent presence of open (surface) water. This is corrected for by using a different algorithm for summer / winter ice calculations. No idea of the detail of the algorithm, but the net effect must be to increase the calculated summer ice extent and thereby correct for the (false) open water signal of the melt ponds.

The exact date of surface melt onset will vary from year to year based on many factors:

1) Air temperatures - higher temperature = more melt

2) Wind speeds - clearing away snow cover and allowing sunlight to reach the underlying ice?

3) Ice distribution - what proportion of the ice is at lower latitudes

4) Ice age - younger ice melts at lower temperatures, but may (?) also drain differently.

(... plus lots I haven't thought of)

There would seem to thus be two possible physical explanations for the blip:

First, if melt ponding starts early, before the algorithm switch-over, what you'd expect is for the apparent extent to drop sharply (and erroneously), but then stay flat or even rise again as the correction kicks in and the curve returns to the true value. Alternatively, if melt ponding starts late, then the algorithm will switch over too early, keeping extent artificially (and erroneously) high before it drops back to the true level as surface melt kicks in. I have no idea how to work out which of the two is at play this year, but the fact that we're now in the falling phase of the "blip" indicates that surface melt is setting in.

Maybe someone with more time than sense would like to have a look at the various data sets before and after the recent adjustment and look for the falling phase of each year's blip. That might give us an idea of whether surface melt is setting in consistently earlier or later each year. Or it might not - depends on the detail of how/when they switch over between the algorithms. :-)

[4wd]

Neither Ice Extent nor volume in June correlate well with the eventual minimum in September.

The best indicator is ice thickness.

Interesting read on Wattsup which is not partisan in approach so even GW might care to peep briefly.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/06/wuwt-arctic-sea-ice-news-8/#more-20240

Also note the points about low sea temperatures in North Pacific and Atlantic Ocean - and reluctance of any melting off Alaska this year.

It is not looking like a record breaking melt to me, regardless of endless ranting above ^

[Gray-Wolf]

I think you'll find mr Goddard doesn't gain the respect of many in the field of Arctic studies, quite the opposite in fact. I believe we are at 'update 8' in his series and if you look back to 'update 5' I bet you'll smile!!! (the earlier updates are even dafter!!!)

I was refering to when we have a seasonal pack 4wd......no problem guessing sept figures then from June figures eh?

The fact that both the Atlantic and Pacific are still fluid makes me think that ice will melt when in contqact with it (LOL) most of the melt is via the waters below with temps up top playing a lesser role. I think the studies on Greenlands glaciers (which are being eaten away by sub-tropical waters) have a difference in melt rates between air and ocean that is measured in the thousands of percents?

Anyhow, once the melt season starts properly in the basin I'm sure you'll updfate your views (along with WUWT......).

[4wd]

I think you'll find mr Goddard doesn't gain the respect of many in the field of Arctic studies, quite the opposite in fact. I believe we are at 'update 8' in his series and if you look back to 'update 5' I bet you'll smile!!! (the earlier updates are even dafter!!!)

I think if you looked at the article, it offers fairly straightforward comparisons which don't depend on what various other groups think of him or what he did ten years ago.

Obviously, since it doesn't predict imminent Ice-Armageddon, it will not be to your taste

[Devonian]

I think if you looked at the article, it offers fairly straightforward comparisons which don't depend on what various other groups think of him or what he did ten years ago.

Obviously, since it doesn't predict imminent Ice-Armageddon, it will not be to your taste :blush:

Oh, so when 'Steve Goddard' says "Based on current ice thickness, we should expect September extent/area to come in near the top of the JAXA rankings (near 2003 and 2006.) However, unusual weather conditions like those from the summer of 2007 could dramatically change this. There is no guarantee, because weather is very variable." he's just covering himself so that whatever happens he can crow?

Also (going by the latest comments to his post) he's made errors in his post.

Edited June 7, 2010 by Devonian

[4wd]

However, unusual weather conditions like those from the summer of 2007 could dramatically change this. There is no guarantee, because weather is very variable." he's just covering himself so that whatever happens he can crow?

Isn't that a perfectly reasonable caveat?

It isn't supposed to be a cast iron prediction but a most probable September situation - unless there's an unusually persistent warm High over the Arctic Ocean as happened in 2007.

[Devonian]

Isn't that a perfectly reasonable caveat?

So, 'Goddard' doesn't rule out your 'imminent Ice-Armageddon'?

It isn't supposed to be a cast iron prediction but a most probable September situation - unless there's an unusually persistent warm High over the Arctic Ocean as happened in 2007.

Oh, so you don't rule out something like a 2007 either? Scaremonger

[Gray-Wolf]

That's OK then, we have our own fleet of guy's promising a 'cooling year' (PDO-ve, -ve AO, La Nina and all manner of other factors.......) so no repeat there then!!!

Just because we are finding humour in the scurry of skeptic backtracking, fibbing and fabricating does not mean we do not care about the state of play in the Arctic. I'm sure the Lurkers will appreciate just how big a '180' the denialists have had to pull since late March/Early April (our posters are lucky I can't be bottomed to pull up their posts from then..... though it's worth having a quick squizz at!!!LOL).

EDIT: No! I daren't do it!!! I 'predicted' approaching 07' by mid Aug and sub 07' by seasons end............

Edited June 7, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[4wd]

When a thread is entirely dominated by ever more outrageous fantasy scenarios it does need a shunt back towards reality.

There are alternative viewpoints to the ever-declining scenario.

Almost nothing only goes one way - everything tends to follow wave patterns with minor ups and downs along the line of a bigger set of curves.

To jump on a small segment of history and insist that things will surely continue the same trend is simply foolish short-termism.

[Devonian]

When a thread is entirely dominated by ever more outrageous fantasy scenarios it does need a shunt back towards reality.

There are alternative viewpoints to the ever-declining scenario.

Almost nothing only goes one way - everything tends to follow wave patterns with minor ups and downs along the line of a bigger set of curves.

To jump on a small segment of history and insist that things will surely continue the same trend is simply foolish short-termism.

I agree to an extent. I don't think the Earth is easily moved off it's climate direction and (despite your description of people like me) I didn't come to my view about all this easily or glibly or out of a need to scare people or foolishness. I also think there are ups and downs on bigger curves. But, where we part is I think the evidence is reasonable that Arctic ice is on a long term (decadal) downward trend and we're (humanity) the cause - I think that is the reality.

Btw, nothing goes one way for ever - except the dismissal of the ever declining scenario by your ilk...?

[Gray-Wolf]

I agree to an extent. I don't think the Earth is easily moved off it's climate direction and (despite your description of people like me) I didn't come to my view about all this easily or glibly or out of a need to scare people or foolishness. I also think there are ups and downs on bigger curves. But, where we part is I think the evidence is reasonable that Arctic ice is on a long term (decadal) downward trend and we're (humanity) the cause - I think that is the reality.

Btw, nothing goes one way for ever - except the dismissal of the ever declining scenario by your ilk...?

I think I need to bring a bit of 'my' perspective here (if only so I know folk know 'what ' I'm talking about....kinda). The ice has been in decline for over 80yrs, this includes many 'wheels within wheels' of up's and down's but the trend remained 'Down'.

I think it's Cambridge Uni that have the papers on the past 100yrs of Arctic decline (must have a dig........don't you hate it when the PC goes Boobs up and takes all yer 'favourites' and links with it????) but the evidence for the decline is there and in print.

I digress. The 'decline ' in Arctic ice has been and gone and we are now at the 'final phase' of ice loss. This is what is so very different from recent geological history, in the past ice has stabilised and re-built,now we are beyond the hope of a rebuild and the only direction the Arctic Ocean can now move in is towards a seasonal pack. There are no 'ifs' or 'maybes' anymore.

Don't worry, things are happening a lot faster than science had planned so we won't have long to see the first year of 'seasonal ice'.

Once we see that can you guy's, looking for a cyclical 'rebuild', just re-check the data on what it took to 'build' the old arctic and whether those conditions look likely anytime soon?

4wd, Time ,like the Arctic ice, goes in one direction.

Edited June 7, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[4wd]

It's not "The Final Phase" there is no such thing until the Sun becomes a red giant and envelopes the earth.

The very fact you are so keen on mentioning - that it has been declining slowly for at least a hundred years makes an anthro dominated explanation unlikely.

A few steam engines chuffing about a hundred years ago did not initiate a melting countdown.

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

I think I need to bring a bit of 'my' perspective here (if only so I know folk know 'what ' I'm talking about....kinda). The ice has been in decline for over 80yrs, this includes many 'wheels within wheels' of up's and down's but the trend remained 'Down'.

I think it's Cambridge Uni that have the papers on the past 100yrs of Arctic decline (must have a dig........don't you hate it when the PC goes Boobs up and takes all yer 'favourites' and links with it????) but the evidence for the decline is there and in print.

I digress. The 'decline ' in Arctic ice has been and gone and we are now at the 'final phase' of ice loss. This is what is so very different from recent geological history, in the past ice has stabilised and re-built,now we are beyond the hope of a rebuild and the only direction the Arctic Ocean can now move in is towards a seasonal pack. There are no 'ifs' or 'maybes' anymore.

Don't worry, things are happening a lot faster than science had planned so we won't have long to see the first year of 'seasonal ice'.

Once we see that can you guy's, looking for a cyclical 'rebuild', just re-check the data on what it took to 'build' the old arctic and whether those conditions look likely anytime soon?

4wd, Time ,like the Arctic ice, goes in one direction.

Hi Gray Wolf,

Although I appreciate you have a point of view, I personally think that there are so many factors affecting the Ice, that we cannot be certain of the cause of melt and we only have a small snapshot in time terms, there are records ( by the Chinese of the Arctic being virtually ice free during the Medieval Warm period, so we have been here before. And don't forget that overall ice mass is up, not down due to the Antarctic ice extent.