Polar Ice Extent

[doctormog]

Given all the other temperatures in the vicinity I suspect that could possibly be an anomaly.

That buoy (63641) has been reading high since July 27th where it jumped from 5.6 to 10.3 in the space of 3 hrs.

I guess it could be right but as it's 4 degrees colder a few hundred miles further south I have my doubts.

Edit: LOL @ GW you beat me to it but I like your theory

Edited August 24, 2010 by doctormog

[Gray-Wolf]

Great minds Dr M?....or something about fools.......

Talking of which;

http://www.fool-me-once.com/2010/08/arctic-sea-ice-is-just-fine-rebounding.html

if you have a little time well worth a looksee

[quest4peace]

I've looked through other SST graphics and anoms but see a cooler than average sea in that area? (granted it's the only area of the arctic that's colder!!) so I've no idea where the 'rogue' comes from? Maybe the Ruskies accidentally mussed with one of their discarded Nuke reactors whilst cleaning up the Northern sea route in July???

Thanks Gray Wolf Obviously a data error Lol!, i know the ocean has been warmer than it should be this year, but when i saw that i was slightly worried :o I can see on this link now that there is indeed quite a good cold anomaly now you just need to click the anomaly drop down.

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

The purple positive anoms seem to be cooling off alaska and canada though which can only be good The russian side looks scarily high still though :S

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

This off cryosphere today looks rather alarming to me too :S I do believe that nature is a amazing thing and sometimes we can't explain everything that goes on, but sometimes when pictures like that are in front of you it makes you wish you knew for definite what was going on such is science

Given all the other temperatures in the vicinity I suspect that could possibly be an anomaly.

That buoy (63641) has been reading high since July 27th where it jumped from 5.6 to 10.3 in the space of 3 hrs.

I guess it could be right but as it's 4 degrees colder a few hundred miles further south I have my doubts.

Edit: LOL @ GW you beat me to it but I like your theory

Might be faulty? Encouraging that there is in fact a bit of a cold anomaly there do you think? good for more ice in that area come winter?

Edited August 24, 2010 by quest4peace

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks for the C.T. image Q4P! it highlights well my earlier concerns about loosing the Siberian side of the pack (it being so skimpy and fragmented) with the Canadian side at risk from the slow drift into Fram and out of the Basin. The Beaufort side (S. Beaufort sea) was also a big repository for old ice and it was this 'loss' that so shocked Dr Barber this time last year. NSIDC made it plain that it's destruction was complete through late July/Aug so we are left with the bit over the Canadian Archipelago and Greenland.

If this mass is now open to degradation from the Beaufort side and flow loss through Fram you can readily see that the last of the 'thick ice' is now under real threat. Pretty soon the 'look' of the Siberian side of the Basin will be a basin wide 'look' and any return of the 07' synoptic will see most of the ice off.

Maybe we should be switching our attentions from the corpse of the pack to the new life of the ocean below and atmosphere above?

If all the energy 'saved up' in the ocean over the summer now has to bleed into the atmosphere before re-freeze of the Ocean can take place surely we can expect some changes to the way things used to work when this energy was bounced back into space before it could be absorbed and shifted down into infra red?

Surely we can expect such mega wattage to force different patterns and circulations?

[WindWatcher]

Thanks re. the data. As for the ship's route - you can keep an eye on it yourself here:

http://www.sailwx.info/shiptrack/shipposition.phtml?call=NEPP (You may need to soom out to get the track since 14th August)

Perhaps they always planned that route but it does seem to coincide with the areas of least ice.

You can find the planned routes here: 2010 Extended Continental Shelf Project click the map for a larger version.

Steve

[doctormog]

Many thanks for that link Steve.

[quest4peace]

Here is same resolution view of antarctica's ice

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

Quite a bit of dark shading down there as well in the ice extent and thickness, not as good as i was imagining (sp?) I do for now still believe in natures ability to re address it's balance's to whatever degree that may be :o whether that means off setting warming etc. I think a little part of every scientist would like the doomsday predictions regarding ice to happen because lets face it, is a percentage of science not about "what if" ie: The loss of ice "could" mean this or that, but one part of the scientists mind would be like "yes but wouldn't it be curious to see what happens if we did lose the ice" if you understand what i mean Lol!

Edited August 24, 2010 by quest4peace

[arcticadventurer]

Latest temperatures from (Pops -13) shows temperatures of -11 degrees celsius.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi again Q4P!

I think you have to take a 'long view' of mother N. and though she adores balance she has many different 'balance points' as we see from the paleo record. In our recent geological past it's taken the Earth position in it's orbit (more heat or less heat from the Sun) to tip us into another 'balance point' be it glacial or interglacial (and the carbon cycle duly obliges by soaking up Carbon or releasing it to alter the earths thermostat).

The worry is that we have ,via the carbon cycle ,set the planets thermostat to 'hot' by our releases of GHG's. Of course mother N. doesn't know that we've rooted around in her bottom drawer and found lots of carbon reserves she had locked away in ages past and flooded the atmosphere with them. All she knows is it's getting warmer and so she can up the carbon cycle to 'Hot' setting. This involves the melting of the permafrosts and all the carbon being released therein and the reduction in the functioning of various 'carbon sinks' placing more GHG's into the system.

Mother N. will have her balance but we have made it so that balance will be found in a hotter world (with a lot less ice!)

[quest4peace]

Hi again Q4P!

I think you have to take a 'long view' of mother N. and though she adores balance she has many different 'balance points' as we see from the paleo record. In our recent geological past it's taken the Earth position in it's orbit (more heat or less heat from the Sun) to tip us into another 'balance point' be it glacial or interglacial (and the carbon cycle duly obliges by soaking up Carbon or releasing it to alter the earths thermostat).

The worry is that we have ,via the carbon cycle ,set the planets thermostat to 'hot' by our releases of GHG's. Of course mother N. doesn't know that we've rooted around in her bottom drawer and found lots of carbon reserves she had locked away in ages past and flooded the atmosphere with them. All she knows is it's getting warmer and so she can up the carbon cycle to 'Hot' setting. This involves the melting of the permafrosts and all the carbon being released therein and the reduction in the functioning of various 'carbon sinks' placing more GHG's into the system.

Mother N. will have her balance but we have made it so that balance will be found in a hotter world (with a lot less ice!)

Thanks for your thoughts really greatful As somebody who is learning, i read everybody's "valid" input on this subject and make no judgements as of yet :o as i am merely a hobbyist and do not feel qualified to judge but i find it all rather fascinating

Edited August 24, 2010 by quest4peace

[Gray-Wolf]

Looking at both the forcast weather and the state of the ice the Healy is encountering betond 80 degrees north (and the C.T. image supplied by Q4P) I'm worried that the skimpy Siberian side ice won't fare well under wind/wave never mind the drift. Put a peice of ice in water and watch it melt .Put the ice in water and constantly splash water over it and see what happens. Those Siberian Lows, Augmented by a strong Greenie High don't make pleasant viewing.

That said I feel my 4 million slipping through my fingers every 30,000 day that passes.......lol

[doctormog]

On the subject of the Healey I checked the archive to see if I could get a year on year comparison (location/date). This is the closest I could get for the current image:

2010: http://mgds.ldeo.columbia.edu/healy/reports/aloftcon/2010/20100824-1701.jpeg (24th Aug 17:00 - 80.4N 137.4W)

2009: http://mgds.ldeo.columbia.edu/healy/reports/aloftcon/2009/20090825-1001.jpeg (25th Aug 10:00 - 81.3N 137.4W)

2008: http://mgds.ldeo.columbia.edu/healy/reports/aloftcon/2008/20080828-1001.jpeg (28th Aug 10:00 - 81.6N 138.6W)

2007 and before either the location is not the same/similar and/or there is no Lat/Lon data provided

[Gray-Wolf]

Cheers for that Dr M!

Any chance of a link for a lazy ,child blighted Wolf?

I'm interested in the southern Beaufort Sea (as was) as this used to be an extension of the kind of ice we can see across the top of Greenland currently (and maybe thicker?)

Dr Barbour's floe was many km long and thick enough to land their 'copter on (before swells from the siberian side of the basin had it collapsed over a 20 min period) and it would be nice to see if any of this type of floe was captured in past years?

[doctormog]

Here you go: http://mgds.ldeo.columbia.edu/healy/reports/aloftcon/

It's a bit of trial and error though as it gives dates rather than locations but there are tonnes of images.

[Gray-Wolf]

Here you go: http://mgds.ldeo.col...ports/aloftcon/

It's a bit of trial and error though as it gives dates rather than locations but there are tonnes of images.

Nice one Dr M!

I can now tell the kids to s** off I'm busy.........

EDIT: I think you guys should have a look at some of the past images.

I'm starting in 07' and straight away you can see the ice is different. you can see the ice below the water for a start! (and what a lovely aquamarine it is!!) and it is far more extensive across most areas?

Anyhoo's thanks again Dr M, it's an education!

EDIT:EDIT: Well , not that I needed convincing but I'm gonna have to trawl through this years and look for my 'deep ice' with it's glacier blue colours and freeboard over 6 inches...........happy days.....

Edited August 24, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[stewfox]

I'm starting in 07' and straight away you can see the ice is different. you can see the ice below the water for a start! (and what a lovely aquamarine it is!!) and it is far more extensive across most areas?

Anyhoo's thanks again Dr M, it's an education!

EDIT:EDIT: Well , not that I needed convincing but I'm gonna have to trawl through this years and look for my 'deep ice' with it's glacier blue colours and freeboard over 6 inches...........happy days.....

I think we can say 2007 and 2008 are just distant memories we wont get close to those min ice extents

I can’t see another 1,297,657 loss of sea ice to equal 2007 . Or 1,500,000 GW if your correct with your prediction.

A small chance 2009 and 2005 could be beaten must admit didn’t expect any chance of that a few weeks ago, although it’s unlikely.

Still looks like that we end up between 2008/9 .

Admittedly that’s based on the last 50 days of data rather then looking at pretty pictures so I may be wrong.

[Gray-Wolf]

As I say stew I'm feeling a little shaky about my punt now (though stranger things have happened and a lot of ice is on it's 'last legs' right now!) but as to the final figure (or re-freeze date) I've no idea.

I've been working on a 15th sept figure as an arbitury 'cutoff point' but who's to say?

A wild and windy Arctic this Sept and we may see losses into the 20 odd's of Sept (or a very delayed upturn like last year?) and a lot of the Siberian side of the pack going? I think we have to retain what's left of the Canadian thick ice (no bleed out through Fram) or we face next year with all the pack looking like the Siberian side (or the images from Healy?)

[sunny starry skies]

stewfox - are you getting your dates confused in some points ? We're below 2009 at present, and only just above 2008 - so a minimum betwen 2008 and 2009 is not only likely, it would take remarkable conditions in either direction to take us outside those two minima. See the chart I posted the other day. Admittedly that's only based on the last 7 years of data and not the last 50 days so I could be confused . But the last 50 days takes us on exactly that trajectory, into 3rd place on the all-time low list. The quadratic trend (the best fit for the data) in declining September extents takes us below 2008 or 2007 within the next few years, presumably in the next year where weather conditions even remotely resemble 2007.

[Gray-Wolf]

Again I'd like to emphasise that 'extent' is just a bit of fun and not , I repeat not, a measure of how well the pack is faring. for that we need volume measurements.

If you look at the amount of open water across the pole/Siberian sector the amount of room for compression would take us below 07's 'extent' figure yet we're still talking about the two together?

Any look at 07's final extent map will show a very neat and tidy compacted core (all that weather talk made flesh?) whereas the past 3 years have had quite a spread out messy pack (with volumes growing smaller year on year).

The next week or so's weather does put pressure on the central pole and drift it towards the Canadian side so I'd still not dismiss some high figures of 'extent' loss as autumn draws near.

EDIT:

Fram

http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b013486731d55970c-pi

Neven animation shows a lot more ice on the move to Fram than I imagined was possible! I hope someone throws the breaks on before that big bulge reaches there (not for 'extent' figures but for the sake of the Arctic ice in general as this is the last of the thick ice up there)

Edited August 25, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[stewfox]

stewfox - are you getting your dates confused in some points ? We're below 2009 at present, and only just above 2008 - so a minimum betwen 2008 and 2009 is not only likely, it would take remarkable conditions in either direction to take us outside those two minima. See the chart I posted the other day. Admittedly that's only based on the last 7 years of data and not the last 50 days so I could be confused . But the last 50 days takes us on exactly that trajectory, into 3rd place on the all-time low list. The quadratic trend (the best fit for the data) in declining September extents takes us below 2008 or 2007 within the next few years, presumably in the next year where weather conditions even remotely resemble 2007.

I said it was unlikely, it’s just an observation.

To beat 2009 figures we would have to see less then 302,344 fall in the remaining of the season.

To beat 2005 we would have to see less then 237, 032 fall in the remaining of the season.

I do agree however it is a ‘remarkable position’ to be in given the gloom of 2007 predictions :winky:

Looking back at the 2007 BBC forecast of an ice free Arctic by summer 2013 it’s a remarkable recovery.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm

It’s a pity we already have people dismissing the validity of IJIS figures because it’s not showing what they want.

Bring on the volume figures for next year; I can see the headline now ice volume less then 50% of what it was in 1979.

Edited August 25, 2010 by stewfox

[Gray-Wolf]

Recovery? I'm sorry but I must take issue to that statement.

If we are talking about the past 4 years of Arctic ice then we have not plunged into the same 'extent' level of 07' but we have surpassed the min ice volume each year since 07'. As for the plot of Arctic decline (trend line) all the past years have achieved is bringing us back up to the 'trend line' and no more (this year may well see us below it again?)

I think it is as unfair as leading folk on this spring as to a 'recovery' in the Arctic when in reality it was a continuation/acceleration of volume losses we have seen for over a decade.

There is NO recovery occurring in the Arctic. In fact the figures show (and will show) continued loss of ice volume ,ice shelfs volume ,ice sheet (esp Devonshire island, the largest one left in the Arctic) volume, ice mass loss from Greenland, acceleration of glacial ice loss from Greenland, increased depth of permafrost melt, increased coastal erosion (due to sea ice loss and loss of permafrost to 'bind' the ground together), and increased freshwater runoff as tundra lakes drain (once their bases melt and become permeable).

If you want to see a recovery in the Arctic show me a turnaround in 50% of what I've just outlined and we may agree.

Rant over.:unsure:

Edited August 25, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[sunny starry skies]

So one study equals the general scientific viewpoint does it? I thought the general research view on the Arctic was several more decades of decline before hitting zero at minimum ice?

However...

Maslowski may yet be not far off the mark if PIOMAS is right with ice volumes...

But however you look at it, the trend is unfortunately downwards, and there's no real reason to suspect a reversal of that decline.

There's a nice takedown of the 'recovery' illusion here:

http://www.skeptical..._Just_Fine.html

[Gray-Wolf]

So one study equals the general scientific viewpoint does it? I thought the general research view on the Arctic was several more decades of decline before hitting zero at minimum ice?

However...

Maslowski may yet be not far off the mark if PIOMAS is right with ice volumes...

But however you look at it, the trend is unfortunately downwards, and there's no real reason to suspect a reversal of that decline.

There's a nice takedown of the 'recovery' illusion here:

http://www.skeptical..._Just_Fine.html

Hi S.S.S.!

I'd posted up the video presentation from "fool me once" yesterday but recieved no feedback?

[doctormog]

So one study equals the general scientific viewpoint does it? I thought the general research view on the Arctic was several more decades of decline before hitting zero at minimum ice?

However...

Maslowski may yet be not far off the mark if PIOMAS is right with ice volumes...

But however you look at it, the trend is unfortunately downwards, and there's no real reason to suspect a reversal of that decline.

There's a nice takedown of the 'recovery' illusion here:

http://www.skeptical..._Just_Fine.html

That graph makes me chuckle. It'll be interesting to see a zero ice volume with a 3million sq km ice extent :unsure:

That aside the "analysis"/extrapolation seems both unscientific and statistically inaccurate - especially given the decrease in anomaly of volum in the first half of the year*

*Not stastically significant I'm sure but it does show the premature nature of the graph in the post above.

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png

Premature extrapolation can be an embarrassing thing but most people suffer from it at times I'm sure.

[Gray-Wolf]

Surely Cryosat2's data will become available soon? I'm sure it'll lend more credence to the current volume measures when we do finally get them?