Polar Ice

[ScottSnow]

Are we now in free fall as GW predicted, are we due to eat large dollops of humble pie

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

The rate of decline after early to mid June is when we really need to start watching closely. Its far to early to predict any outcomes yet unless your GW.

[Gray-Wolf]

Just to repeat. There is 'no' prediction ,just a projection of what occurs when you spread 07's ice mass over 2010's sea ice extent......how could you even hope for any better than that?

Over 3 days we have fallen from highest extent in the IJIS series to mid pack. By June we are scheduled to be the lowest in the series and, as S.W. observes, thereafter is the test of the durability of the Arctic ice.

[cooling climate]

The rate of decline after early to mid June is when we really need to start watching closely. Its far to early to predict any outcomes yet unless your GW.

Your quite right of course, leave the alarmist nonsense to GW and his followers. If the summer produces a very negative

AO then you would expect to see more melt in the Arctic during the summer regardless of what happened in 2007

but even then we will still not see any where near the melt that occurred in 2007.

[stewfox]

but even then we will still not see any where near the melt that occurred in 2007.

Based on ?

I don't know what's worse alarmist nonsense or just 'because it wont happen'.

3^rd week of June is when things 'may start to happen'.

No one knows how the arctic ice will look by September 2010

[BornFromTheVoid]

As of the 6th May, 2010 stands at 3rd highest extent out of the last 8 years and 194,140km2 above the 8 year average. We are now 266,250km2 behind 2009, 36,719km2 behind 2008 and also 104,375km2 ahead of 2003 and 682,969km2 ahead of 2006.

We are running at the second highest rate of melt over the last 10 days (Apr 26 - May 6) with an average of 72,875km2/day. The 8 year average is 48,832km2/day, the highest rate is 2006 at 76,453km2/day (less than 4k more than 2010) and the lowest is 2008 at 17,609km2/day.

Arctic ice not looking great at the moment, of course things can change though. By tomorrow, bar a sudden slowdown, we will probably have the highest 10 day rate of melt in the series. A relatively mild Arctic winter, atop the ice still struggling to recover after 2007 leaves myself at least with the feeling the we need something special to avoid a very low extent come September.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm still struggling with the notion that we already have 'less ice' than at the 07' min.

If volumes are so low yet extent spread that volume across the whole Arctic basin (and outside) then I'm struggling to find any way of protecting that ice from the waters below and the 24hr days of solstice (and a potential of 12.64w per m2).

We should know by that time (solstice) what we can expect from the rest of the melt season (I figure) as we will see lots of ice in the central pack melting back from the winters frozen over leads. If the ice is very thin then it will fragment quite readily as wind blows floe into floe. With even more surface area exposed to atmosphere and ocean the ice will surely melt out? Once this phase is over it will be up to the ice itself (thickness) and the weather up there (sunny or not and wind direction/strength).

What I feel we don't need is any continuation of our 'blocked Atlantic' as this is feeding warm air in over Canada and flushing cold air down the Fram straights blowing the ice train with it.

[songster]

I'm still struggling with the notion that we already have 'less ice' than at the 07' min.

You're reading the graph wrong. It's not a measure of absolute volume, it's a measure of the volume anomaly, i.e. how much more/less ice there is than average for the time of year. In September 2007, there was about 8000 km3 less ice than the September average. Currently, we have about 8000 km3 less than the May average.

[Gray-Wolf]

That would explain it!!! Silly me....

[Gray-Wolf]

IJIS plot is still on the ski slope downwards. Amazing (or not) what a week can bring to 'extent' figures isn't it?

The last echo's of 'record extent' are still ringing in our ears and here we are mid-table all of a sudden!

Didn't some-one forewarn us all that this looked the most probable outcome for the spring phase of this years melt (once you looked at the conditions on the ground and projected the 'normal progression' onto these observations)?

I'm sure that soul will be back 'projecting' come late June when the summer melt begins in earnest!

[BornFromTheVoid]

IJIS plot is still on the ski slope downwards. Amazing (or not) what a week can bring to 'extent' figures isn't it?

The last echo's of 'record extent' are still ringing in our ears and here we are mid-table all of a sudden!

Didn't some-one forewarn us all that this looked the most probable outcome for the spring phase of this years melt (once you looked at the conditions on the ground and projected the 'normal progression' onto these observations)?

I'm sure that soul will be back 'projecting' come late June when the summer melt begins in earnest!

Yup, things looking much worse as this free fall continues. If this rate of ice loss continues for just another 10 days we will be at the lowest in the series.

The areas responsible for the sudden fall are Bering Sea, which is still above average but has lost about 400,000km2 in the last month, the good thing is it's usually ice free by the beginning of June so won't be contributing the the free fall then. Okhotsk sea ice is in a very similar situation, having lost about 400,000km2 in the last month but by June will have hardly any ice left anyway.

The last main contributor has been the Barents ice which has lost almost 500,000km2 in a month but still has another 2 months melt to go!

Those 3 areas always lose their sea ice though so don't really contribute towards the overall eventual minimum extent so in that sense we still can hope that the main central ice and the Canadian archipelago can hold up a little better rather than continuing on the "ski slope".

[Gray-Wolf]

Yup, things looking much worse as this free fall continues. If this rate of ice loss continues for just another 10 days we will be at the lowest in the series.

The areas responsible for the sudden fall are Bering Sea, which is still above average but has lost about 400,000km2 in the last month, the good thing is it's usually ice free by the beginning of June so won't be contributing the the free fall then. Okhotsk sea ice is in a very similar situation, having lost about 400,000km2 in the last month but by June will have hardly any ice left anyway.

The last main contributor has been the Barents ice which has lost almost 500,000km2 in a month but still has another 2 months melt to go!

Those 3 areas always lose their sea ice though so don't really contribute towards the overall eventual minimum extent so in that sense we still can hope that the main central ice and the Canadian archipelago can hold up a little better rather than continuing on the "ski slope".

It's the 'Arctic Basin' figure you need to be watching through July/Aug. If other areas are cleared out by June/July then this provides more open water for that central pack to drift into and ,as you see from the yearly trends, this is not a good place for ice come July through Sept.

With an early disappearance of Barents, and the issues on the Svalbard/Frans Joseph side of the Arctic, we can expect some 'relaxation' of that central ice island into these areas (and maybe east Siberian?) and so erode it's normal 3 million min extent figure.

[Richie V]

IJIS plot is still on the ski slope downwards. Amazing (or not) what a week can bring to 'extent' figures isn't it?

The last echo's of 'record extent' are still ringing in our ears and here we are mid-table all of a sudden!

Didn't some-one forewarn us all that this looked the most probable outcome for the spring phase of this years melt (once you looked at the conditions on the ground and projected the 'normal progression' onto these observations)?

I'm sure that soul will be back 'projecting' come late June when the summer melt begins in earnest!

Things are looking rather worrying in my opinion.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png

Those yellow and green patches around northern greenland.

I never thaught I'd say this but..... I think we're headed for total flush out this summer and a record min extent. I will happily take bets on a record min extent now, Put your money where youre mouth is before responding!!!

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Chassisbot!

Don't be surprised if folk label the messenger 'doomsayer' or some such!!!

Yes, as you know I too am concerned about the potential for this summers melt.

The last couple of summers we've had the 'illusion' of far more ice in the basin as the last of the 'old perennial' (10m above sea level chunks with all the rest below) collapsing into smithereens and so making the extent look far healthier than it was. Of course when the 'old perennial' has collapsed what then? To me I see a situation where later in the season we start to see gaps in the ice we have never seen before. We'll see the north of Greenland swept clear of ice and the central pack being wind blown towards one coast or another and increasing it's losses as it's edges enters the shallower coastal waters or ,worse still, is ploughed onto the land surface to melt.

I would consider us most fortunate if the central pack does nothing more than rotate in the middle of the Arctic Ocean!

The most worrying thing is that this can happen without massive incursions of warm air across the pole (as the past two years showed with their pitiful final extents even when bolstered by collapsed/spread thin perennial).

At some point the folk who feel the position is 'save-able' must recognise that they have 'missed' a big part of the melt over the past 3 years even though the ice volumes kept plummeting as we all could see.

[songster]

Things are looking rather worrying in my opinion.

http://arctic.atmos....e.color.000.png

Those yellow and green patches around northern greenland.

Yes, very worrying. I wish I could find out how unusual this is. Unfortunately the historical images from that site are uninformative as the historical image set uses a different mapping from extent -> colour. On the daily gif, yellow indicates a concentration of ~85%, while on the historical gifs, everything from 85% up appears as subtly different shades of magenta. Looking at http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=05&fd=11&fy=2007&sm=05&sd=11&sy=2010 for example (comparison of extent for May 11th 2007 / 2010), there seems to be not a lot of difference. Those subtle shadings could be concealing a world of hurt though.

[MR EXTREMES]

Your quite right of course, leave the alarmist nonsense to GW and his followers. If the summer produces a very negative

AO then you would expect to see more melt in the Arctic during the summer regardless of what happened in 2007

but even then we will still not see any where near the melt that occurred in 2007.

agreed ive not commented for sometime because its like banging my head against a brickwall.

but i cant see ice levels falling near 07 and im 99.9% sure its not man made and that its a totally normal cycle that happens every year.

i can also see the polar freeze being better around sept onwards starting early this year.

gw each year is different i can truely say even if the ice totally melted it will be back.

im not concerned at all.

Edited May 12, 2010 by badboy657

[Gray-Wolf]

gw each year is different i can truly say even if the ice totally melted it will be back.

I'm not concerned at all.

I'm sad I've banged on so much you habitualised it into 'white noise' bb. Every year used to be pretty similar actually, 40%+ perennial pack 30 odd % 2nd and 3rd year and then new ice. Under that regime the unique zoning stayed protected and allowed deep ice to both form and maintain in a massive spread from Svalbard across to the Canadian archipelago and into Barents. On the Siberian side the shelf sea was near frozen and the halocline touched the submerged permafrost below keeping it frozen solid.

For the first time in human history we are losing the halocline layer, we are thawing the permafrost, we have a minority perennial (even if we include the 'new perennial' which does not appear to gain extra thickness/depth after year 2?) ,for the first time ever we are poised to have the central Arctic ocean pack fully fragmented and mobile with no perennial 'ice arches' across Fram or Nares to stem ice flow out of the basin.

We also have Grolar bears, hybrid seals and Narwhals breeding with warmer water whales.........all is well oop North Lad!

[4wd]

For the first time in human history we are losing the halocline layer, we are thawing the permafrost, we have a minority perennial (even if we include the 'new perennial' which does not appear to gain extra thickness/depth after year 2?) ,for the first time ever we are poised to have the central Arctic ocean pack fully fragmented and mobile with no perennial 'ice arches' across Fram or Nares to stem ice flow out of the basin.

That's the wildest exaggerating scare post I ever saw.

It is not known if most of the ice had largely thawed in summer many times in the past.

Most of humanity didn't know it was there at all, let alone have means to record how extensive it was.

Sea ice can clearly vary considerably within a few years.

And what's all this implying that "we" have done all this supposed melting.

There is no evidence of anything much beyond natural variability going on unless you have a heavy warming promotion agenda.

I would expect the recent recovery in extent will continue.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi 4wd and welcome to the thread!

I'm sure we've always had natural variability across the post glacial pole with leads opening up due to natural forces and polynya forming off shore from regional warm spots but nothing on the scale we see today. We find no evidence in the paleo record to support diatoms or foram's that would indicate such widespread open waters nor rocks/pebbles drooped by melted shelves/bergs calved from glaciers across the ocean floor or 'ploughed furrows' where the bergs grounded out.

I know from my time under my old prof that the oil/gas comp.s really scrutinise the sea bed where ice has been to plan the pipeline routes as Bergs can act like giant ploughs leaving a furrow and ploughed mound on one side (not where you'd want to run a pipeline across) so the current mass of 'exploration' across the high Arctic (along with the nationalistic posturing for who owns what) would have yielded much more of such data than the purely scientific studies would yet we have zilch,zip ,Nada evidence that any of this has occurred since the ocean froze over last.

This ,of course , includes the warm up that let our species/tribe to evolve.

The fact that folk are finding the zoological markers entering the basin and we are witnessing shelf collapse/accelerated berg calving would suggest if we started looking today we'd find evidence of our current Arctic Ocean's transition (Esp. over the Siberian side which has been 'open water' for nearly 10 years now come summer).

To be 'Alarmed' suggests surprise and the current Arctic collapse has been observed for over 50yrs now so where is it 'Alarming'? how could you be 'Alarmist' over something so expected?

EDIT: I found this interesting;

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/scientists-stunned-as-grey-whale-sighted-off-israel-1971890.html

The 'experts' reckon it used the NW Passage as it's route into the Atlantic......not just the ice taking that route then?

Edited May 13, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[noggin]

For the first time in human history we are losing the halocline layer, we are thawing the permafrost, we have a minority perennial (even if we include the 'new perennial' which does not appear to gain extra thickness/depth after year 2?) ,for the first time ever we are poised to have the central Arctic ocean pack fully fragmented and mobile with no perennial 'ice arches' across Fram or Nares to stem ice flow out of the basin.

We also have Grolar bears, hybrid seals and Narwhals breeding with warmer water whales.........all is well oop North Lad!

Wolfie, you have surpassed even yourself now. "For the first time in human history" really does take the biscuit. What monitoring of ice extent was going on thousands and thousands of years ago, eh? I'll tell you .........none, zero, zilch. When did mankind become aware of "layers", be they in the atmosphere or on/in the Earth? I'll tell you...........so recently that it is impossible to claim to know what natural cycles there may be. The knowledge that we have of these things doesn't even qualify as a snapshot.

Also, animals evolve all the time, to suit their surroundings. No-one, ( well, no normal people) for example, goes around killing polar bears, but if their surroundings change, they will either have to adapt over the years or they will become extinct. Animals do adapt. If a polar bear was a horrible colour, had scaly skin, hissed and spat, stank to high Heaven and had all sorts of other nasty characteristics, would people care so much if they became extinct? Would you care so much? Slowly becoming exinct is not the same as killing living creatures.

.......and, correct me if I am wrong (it is possible ), my understanding is that if mankind was to die out, Earth would soon be colonised by insects and they would become the dominant species. That seems a really rubbishy thing to happen, but that is how it goes. How do you feel about that? The thought of it makes me mad........some insects are poxy horrible things, whose purpose on this Earth totally escapes me......for example, moths. The damage caused to my wool carpets some years ago by a moth infestation has to be seen to be believed and I see it every day in the great bald patches. It ain't funny......these carpets were supposed to outlive me. I paid good money for them and cannot afford to replace them. Yet these moths are the types of creature that would, apparently, take over the planet if/when mankind is gone. That makes me a bit angry, but that's the way it will be (apparently).

Do I make any sense or am I just wittering again? :o

[stewfox]

.......and, correct me if I am wrong (it is possible ), my understanding is that if mankind was to die out, Earth would soon be colonised by insects and they would become the dominant species. That seems a really rubbishy thing to happen, but that is how it goes. How do you feel about that? The thought of it makes me mad........some insects are poxy horrible things, whose purpose on this Earth totally escapes me......for example, moths. The damage caused to my wool carpets some years ago by a moth infestation has to be seen to be believed and I see it every day in the great bald patches. It ain't funny......these carpets were supposed to outlive me. I paid good money for them and cannot afford to replace them. Yet these moths are the types of creature that would, apparently, take over the planet if/when mankind is gone. That makes me a bit angry, but that's the way it will be (apparently).

Do I make any sense or am I just wittering again?

Moderator shouldn't this be moth balled ,no reference to Arctic Ice at all ?.

The point regarding the 'first time in human history', is often used by alarmist (they mean the last 30yrs)

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Guy's!

I will rely upon the 'indicators', that we know and trust, in lieu of written testimony as to the states that the Arctic ice pack has endured since the last time it 'DID' melt out (at least 600,000yrs ago).

You must find it very convenient to have the 30 year record card in your hand and ,should that be the only 'evidence' you find you can rely upon, then so be it and we'll find other ways to explain why the pack has never reached this level of ablation during our short time on this planet.....though it may just come to pass that we drop below the 1m sq km 'seasonal ice' limit whilst we figure it out. By the time this 'seasonal pack' has settled into it's 'natural rhythms' it should be clear from the other impacts it drives that this was indeed the 'novel' event which science takes it to be.......and there will be no room for argument from anyone.

I think the 'lurkers' will have to do their own further study as to 'why' we know this to be a 'novel' occurrence following the guides I have lain out (and also figure if this isn't what is occurring by the weight of evidence to the contrary!).

Insofar as 'novel' animals, migration routes, invasion of species are concerned if you take each in isolation then you could being forward the argument that this is nought but natural selection in action but when we find a broad cluster of bug's and beasties migrating north-wards, plant species invading newly opened permafrost, novel inter breedings of warm/cold climate family members,early flowering dates for plant species, health warnings to Inuits about the dangers of wasps and bees, then surely we need take note of them as an 'indicator' of changes to the ecosystem/seasons and not just individual happenstances?

As for a bug taking over the planet......the changes may be extreme for the likes of us (and up-wards of 20% of all other living things currently exploiting the old climate niches) but it would not be such as to wipe out mammalian species and I would imagine that some other 'social' creature will eventually arise, and modify it's surroundings to the point that it has enough brainpower and leisure time to elevate it above 'natural selection' as we did.

Though it won't reduce the moth risk should they care to use wool as a raw material!!!

Edited May 13, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[4wd]

You proposed it might all melt and/or flush out this summer.

That's quite a change from near average extent; how do you know that it hasn't briefly melted/flushed during unusual melt seasons before?

No way can brief melt outs be detected centuries later.

There's a stupid amount of exaggerated speculation on this subject.

Ice area varies due to localised weather effects as much as anything, it's a very poor indicator of global climate.

Also the ice free period if it happened would be very few days or weeks in early Autumn - this does not equate to some kind of catastrophe in the unlikely event it did happen.

[Richie V]

You proposed it might all melt and/or flush out this summer.

That's quite a change from near average extent; how do you know that it hasn't briefly melted/flushed during unusual melt seasons before?

No way can brief melt outs be detected centuries later.

There's a stupid amount of exaggerated speculation on this subject.

Ice area varies due to localised weather effects as much as anything, it's a very poor indicator of global climate.

Also the ice free period if it happened would be very few days or weeks in early Autumn - this does not equate to some kind of catastrophe in the unlikely event it did happen.

I'm not defending here nor am i a manmade global warming believer. Gray wolf is speaking sense and people should sit up and listen now. I highly believe we're looking at an ice free pole very very shortly indeed however, I DON'T believe this is caused by man and I DON'T believe this will have severe impact on the planet either. Throughout history the NH has largley been ice free anyway.

[MR EXTREMES]

You proposed it might all melt and/or flush out this summer.

That's quite a change from near average extent; how do you know that it hasn't briefly melted/flushed during unusual melt seasons before?

No way can brief melt outs be detected centuries later.

There's a stupid amount of exaggerated speculation on this subject.

Ice area varies due to localised weather effects as much as anything, it's a very poor indicator of global climate.

Also the ice free period if it happened would be very few days or weeks in early Autumn - this does not equate to some kind of catastrophe in the unlikely event it did happen.

absolutely makes lots of sense.

as for sitting up a listening not me and many others because its all speculation,

if i remember rightly,

gray wolf you have said the same things year in year out old news as far as im concerned.

this story has been banging on for years now and since 2007 it has been elevated only for the arctic to turn round and bite people in the butt,

this dont mean that if we were to shout massive recovery for the arctic to do the oposite this just goes to show how cycles work.

the key is wait and see because theres sod all anyone can do.

Edited May 13, 2010 by badboy657

[Gray-Wolf]

I do believe that there is a 'man made' element to the current melt. Be it CO2, Icebreakers or subs props smashing the Halocline from below (LOL). I am not ,however, saying it is all mans fault. We are at the Bactrian, prolapsed disc and straw analogy I'm afraid

In the same way we are 'tricking' the Carbon cycle into believing we are in a 'normal' warming period we have 'tricked' the Arctic to start to operate on it's 'warm setting'.

I find it hard to believe that the 'old perennial' , which we were told contained ice the size of office blocks (and that is what you see ABOVE water) can come and go as fast as you seem to be hinting at.

To me ,like the formation of a deep enough, fresh enough, pool of water to keep the bottom of such fantastic ice mountains frozen, takes time. I would say many human generations of time.

As ever the 'readership' will decide which is most believable, the ' come and go ' perennial or the 'slow agglomeration of ice being rammed into ice and compounded by snow that is thick enough to start to form glacial ice ,over lengthy spans of time, type of 'perennial''.

The formation of the Halocline to an average depth of 50m is something you 'come and go' folk seem loathe to address. Let our readership understand how long it takes for such a layer to form and how long it takes normal open water processes to destroy it once the ocean is open to wind and wave action.