Polar Ice Extent

[cooling climate]

Total Novice to all this :unsure: but is there any significance to the fact the positive anomaly in the antarctic is the the same figure difference more or less as the arctic negative ice level? (Compared to the norm) If that makes sense

Cryosphere today.

Northern Hemisphere 1.4 million below 1979-2008

http://arctic.atmos....cent.arctic.png

Southern Hemisphere 1.3 million above

http://arctic.atmos....t.antarctic.png

Don't be taken in by what GW has to say on this subject, IE the polar ice cap is going to melt and we are all going to fry.

Since the big summer melt of 2007 due to wind and weather patterns in the Arctic (and not global warming) Arctic ice has been recovering in thickness and area (extent).

This year because of wind and weather patterns in the Arctic (-AO anticyclonic winds compressing the ice together) and not global warming, the ice area at present is running below normal but with a +AO (cyclonic) that has become established in the Arctic this is causing a) cooler temperatures in the Arctic and the ice to expand outwards slowing down the rate of below average ice area.Where we will end up at the end of play (summer melt season which is roughly some time in september) no one knows but I have plumbed for a continued recovery in ice area that we have been seeing in the Arctic since 2007 with a final figure for this year to up on 2009 with roughly 5.5 million km2.

Edited July 13, 2010 by cooling climate

[Gray-Wolf]

Don't be taken in by what GW has to say on this subject, IE the polar ice cap is going to melt and we are all going to fry.

Since the big summer melt of 2007 due to wind and weather patterns in the Arctic (and not global warming) Arctic ice has been recovering in thickness and area (extent).

This year because of wind and weather patterns in the Arctic (-AO anticyclonic winds compressing the ice together) and not global warming, the ice area at present is running below normal but with a +AO (cyclonic) that has become established in the Arctic this is causing a) cooler temperatures in the Arctic and the ice to expand outwards slowing down the rate of below average ice area.Where we will end up at the end of play (summer melt season which is roughly some time in september) no one knows but I have plumbed for a continued recovery in ice area that we have been seeing in the Arctic since 2007 with a final figure for this year to up on 2009 with roughly 5.5 million km2.

Would you like to show us on the 'ice thickness charts (compiled for use with the U.S. navy;

http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/index.html

or show us on the MODIS images;

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Where this is occuring please?

Polar summer ice will melt out (to the seasonal sub 1 million level) within most of our lifetimes and pretty soon if we have things wrong about the impacts of weather over imported warm Pacific waters.

BTW, how's the 'compression' doing in the NW Passage today.:unsure:

[quest4peace]

Hi Gray Wolf, and Cooling Climate you and others on here have kept me coming back to this forum every day just lurked for a while Lol!,i have a few thoughts which i'm not claiming to know for definite :o) thank you for both your replies you and others have given me a great education on this area :unsure: I am in the camp of slow recovery for the arctic(even though the ijis charts have been rather alarming this year), i am prepared to be fully wrong as i have just gone by what i have seen I do apreciate things like multi year ice and single year ice and i've heard the terms "rotten ice" are all factors that need to taken into consideration and the fact open water stops heat from reflecting back and instead holds onto the warmth, causing the air and atmosphere to be warmer From a totally novice view, i have been watching cryosphere today over the past few years,the Ijis site and looking at webcams in svalbard, barrow, and the wales webcam in alska, which i have been fascinated by It has just struck me whether coincidence or not that the Arctic has lost as much ice as Antarctica has gained, it just intrigues me, and can't helping thinking it is linked maybe. I have noticed from watching the BSH .DE sea surface temperature graphs that the seas around us seem to be on an overall cooling trend as well each year, and knowing that our sea temperatures affect our weather and temps to a certain degree. I always refer to the fact that in Christopher columbus day, every body on the planet was absolutely sure it was flat and that was the absolute science of that day which was irefutable(sp?) to them as well, i am a firm believer in the fact we don't know absolutely everything and that things that were thought of as ridicoulous at one time can be proven to be true. There are so many things we can't explain about the universe that i think science can't always give a definite answer :o) Hope i haven't rambled on and i'm sure i have missed things but i love this site very educational

[Thundery wintry showers]

It's good that Antarctica is gaining ice- it may help reduce the extent of sea level rises if we see more water being displaced onto the land-based ice, though expansion of ice into the ocean won't help that.

Looks like cold pooling will stay bottled up near the pole for a while which should limit melt, but there will be some hot airmasses around the periphery of norhern Eurasia which will tend to melt any remaining ice there- the melt there has been unusually rapid this season.

[Gray-Wolf]

Most folk ,since Ptolemy and before, knew the earth to be round......urban myth that folk thought it 'flat'

If you'd said 'the centre of the universe' it'd better illustrate your point maybe?

TWS, most all (if not all?) of the studies looking at ice mass in Antarctica show a mass loss in Antarctica and ,should you include the grounded shelfs that have been lost (11?) then you can see some of that loss in a very visual way! Check out the pine Island area and the thinning/ice loss there!

The first images from Cryosat2 showed a section of Ross with another huge fault line running through the whole shelf , I'm wondering if this is 'my crack' which runs from Roosevelt Island (east Ross) to beyond the middle of the shelf (Ross is about the size of France) and alludes to imminent calving there? (Bob Grumbine assured me they have now deployed seismometers along it when I last spoke with him 3 winters back)

Lose this mammoth section of shelf and you destabilise Ross and allow even more of the warm waters (now eroding the peninsula through to Ross) to 'lift the base' causing further losses. Ross holds back the majority of the EAIS and we don't want to see the same occur there as has happened/is happening to WAIS!!

*(MODS!!! Can we have an Antarctic Thread please?)*

[4wd]

Most folk ,since Ptolemy and before, knew the earth to be round......urban myth that folk thought it 'flat'

If you'd said 'the centre of the universe' it'd better illustrate your point maybe?

TWS, most all (if not all?) of the studies looking at ice mass in Antarctica show a mass loss in Antarctica and ,should you include the grounded shelfs that have been lost (11?) then you can see some of that loss in a very visual way! Check out the pine Island area and the thinning/ice loss there!

The first images from Cryosat2 showed a section of Ross with another huge fault line running through the whole shelf , I'm wondering if this is 'my crack' which runs from Roosevelt Island (east Ross) to beyond the middle of the shelf (Ross is about the size of France) and alludes to imminent calving there? (Bob Grumbine assured me they have now deployed seismometers along it when I last spoke with him 3 winters back)

Lose this mammoth section of shelf and you destabilise Ross and allow even more of the warm waters (now eroding the peninsula through to Ross) to 'lift the base' causing further losses. Ross holds back the majority of the EAIS and we don't want to see the same occur there as has happened/is happening to WAIS!!

*(MODS!!! Can we have an Antarctic Thread please?)*

Is all that supposed to be an explanation of why Antarctic ice is expanding exponentially?

Edited July 13, 2010 by jethro
Remember that code of conduct? Please adhere to it.

[weather eater]

A more rational acceptance of the blindingly obvious would be a more appropriate way to maintain some credibility in the argument.

Which in your opinion is?

[jethro]

Historically Antarctica and the Arctic have had an asynchronous relationship, the more ice there is oop North, the less ice there is down South, Here's a paper which explores the reasons why and discussses the time scales of these changes.

http://www.mcirano.u...iation_2009.pdf

[weather eater]

Historically Antarctica and the Arctic have had an asynchronous relationship, the more ice there is oop North, the less ice there is down South, Here's a paper which explores the reasons why and discussses the time scales of these changes.

http://www.mcirano.u...iation_2009.pdf

Edited July 13, 2010 by weather eater

[Gray-Wolf]

I take it this past relationship was noted prior to any human interference in the planets ecosystem?

If you accept we are making changes to our planet then surely you need to 'filter' those impacts in on top of how things 'used to be' (before mans inputs) on the planet with it's workings?

With the wealth of evidence being gathered /collated about the impacts and formation of the ozone hole in Antarctica surely Antarctica is the worst place to say 'man's not been here' even if you can't see AGW on the planet today?

When we isolate a process that is neither supportive or detrimental to mans current/projected impacts then I can listen. If it ignores man's impacts then how can it be relied upon with that 'input' missing?

Edit: On the other hand Russian underground nuclear testing in the 70's set off a 'wobble' in the earth's axis which has since become more profound as ice melts to the north and accumulates to the south further exaggerating the axial anomaly by changing the Earth's overall 'mass distribution' making the south 'heavier'....... (mid latitude folk note the sun penetrating further north each year 'flooding light ' through windows that never see the sun).

Ozone hole and AGW are a 'time out' for the powers that be to 'go figure' how bad they've 'whacked the planet off kilter and what to do about it..........

The only problem being the south, now always tilted further away, gains ice and the north ,always tilted closer,melts......

EDIT:EDIT: And what if 'polar reversals' were just that? The earth flips and the 'dynamo' stays stable? Rapid freeze (Mammoths with buttercups still in their mouths, instant frozen?) would make sense of the 'climate shifts' we have seen in the past.....first one pole and th...e...e..n, kablamoh! the planet flips and the 'melted pole' starts to rapid freeze and the frozen pole melts.......... and gods own seesaw of flips and flops follows as poles freeze and melt until the oscillation dies down again..... all too fast for oceanic crust to capture in it's 'magnetic banding' (unless the 'flip' stays negative at the end of the 'seesaw'.........until next the time.................

You have been watching the Twilight Zone.........Tune in next week for..........

Edited July 13, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

Have you read that paper?

[Gray-Wolf]

Paper? Nope!!! Just makin' things up as I go along!!!

[Devonian]

Historically Antarctica and the Arctic have had an asynchronous relationship, the more ice there is oop North, the less ice there is down South, Here's a paper which explores the reasons why and discussses the time scales of these changes.

http://www.mcirano.u...iation_2009.pdf

Sea ice, land ice or both? Both? Have land ice amounts changed much recently? No? Does the paper think there is a connection with GHG concentrations? Yes?

Edited July 14, 2010 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

I just think it foolish to draw comparisons between north and south Dev. Land vs Ocean, one further rom the sun on it's 'mid-winter' than the other (and one closer to the sun during it's mid-summer), Weather types are different, Ozone integrity ,different.....I mean the list is endless is it not? the only similarities are purely cosmetic i.e they both have water that ends up frozen in winter.

That said I am very glad that we are not seeing (yet?) the same level of degradation in the south as we see in the north as this would be a very bad thing for us all!

[Devonian]

I just think it foolish to draw comparisons between north and south Dev. Land vs Ocean, one further rom the sun on it's 'mid-winter' than the other (and one closer to the sun during it's mid-summer), Weather types are different, Ozone integrity ,different.....I mean the list is endless is it not? the only similarities are purely cosmetic i.e they both have water that ends up frozen in winter.

Oh, yes, they're very different places. And I do think there is a difference between what went on in the past and what is going on now - of course I do.

That said I am very glad that we are not seeing (yet?) the same level of degradation in the south as we see in the north as this would be a very bad thing for us all!

But, to (oopps) link the north and the south there is - probably - a single reason why both are changing.

[sunny starry skies]

Not really Quest. Though many folk in the 'dinialsphere' like to see it this way both ends of the globe have very different properties. The southern polar region is a mountainous continent and the north is all at sea level.

Also be aware the the 'screen' used to map land and ice is now including all the areas of lost ice shelf, that used to be plotted as land , as ocean so large areas snuggled up against the coast are now part of the 'sea ice' extent. If you think of the size of the glacier snout that was rammed off it's glacier over the southern summer you can see how this works.you get an area the size of Belgium added to the sea ice area plus a berg ,the size of Belgium, now classed as sea ice. When you think of the size of the berg that calved of Ross a few years back (whose remnant piece knocked off the glacier snout!!!) then you can see there is a lot of 'instant ice' in the form of the collapsed shelf and 'instant area' that can then freeze to add to the 'extent' figure.

When I spoke with Bob Grumbine about how this works he assured me that the screen is regularly updated so the 'coast' is nearly always up to date (the glacier loss will have been updated by now etc.) and the extra area then available to freeze helps 'plump up the figures'.

Hi G-W, I think this is an interesting post! Are you aware of any research into the extent of this effect on Antarctic sea ice extents? Could Bob Grumbine or someone else analyse this year's ice using a coastline from 20 years ago? I guess it's one of those things where we can talk of chunks of ice the size of small uninteresting countries , but have these chunks amassed to make a notable percentage (0.1%, 1%??) of the Antarctic total sea ice?. Nonetheless, as you and others have commented, there are a great number of reasons why Antarctic ice and Arctic ice have been behaving differently - not all are intuitive, including the one you mention. It's the thing that all other things being equal, GHGs should also warm the Antarctic, and we should see acceleration of glaciers (observed), retreats (observed in some places, not others), and ultimately retreat of sea ice. But at present, all other things are not equal, and so the sea ice has mechanisms to help it remain and expand.

In the interests of fairness (lest people think I write one-sided), I should compliment 4wd on their prediction of sea ice from the other day. So far, spot on! Though I think there's unusual weather patterns in play and with the very low overall volume, that may subsequently change. I can only hope the weather patterns help maintain the ice, as we're much better off with it than without! I'm not yet going to revise my prediction - as 2008 showed, late melting of the already thin ice could easily put my prediction (~4.2-4.5m sq km) well within rage. Though I'm concerned with 4wd's 'exponental increase of Antarctic ice'? Any evidence more substantial than a Goddard junk post at WUWT? How long till a snowball earth :lol:?

sss

[CJWRC]

I just think it foolish to draw comparisons between north and south Dev. Land vs Ocean, one further rom the sun on it's 'mid-winter' than the other (and one closer to the sun during it's mid-summer), Weather types are different, Ozone integrity ,different.....I mean the list is endless is it not? the only similarities are purely cosmetic i.e they both have water that ends up frozen in winter.

That said I am very glad that we are not seeing (yet?) the same level of degradation in the south as we see in the north as this would be a very bad thing for us all!

LOL , this is a very confusing post , so are you sayin that AGW only effect oceans now , it doesnt effect land masses?

How can the fact there is mountains there effect why the is alot more ice there than there was in the past? Can you explain this , I'm not comparing north and south , I'm asking why there has been such ice gains , in the last 30 years while northern hemisphere ice has deminished , the most logical awnser seem to be AMO + PDO , as these change ito negative phases we will prob see northern ice come back with a bang , and it will be time for the southern hemisphere ice to slowly diminish.

[Gray-Wolf]

This is why we should have (as we used) an Antarctic thread. We mourn the loss of Arctic ice but we should fear the loss of Antarctic ice as it is mainly land based and will hammer sea levels should it start to slip into the sea.

When I first started posting on here the other guys were keen to remind me we had no worries about EAIS. Today folk are starting to worry about the EAIS. Back in 02' the B.A.S. told us that 'the sleeping giant is awaking' and if we look at how many 'small country sized' chunks of shelf have failed since then you can appreciate their concerns. Take away the grounded shelves and you take away the constraints holding back the mass of ice behind. Temp does not enter into the equation when it is a gravity assisted physical collapse. The immense pressures at the base of the sheet means we have fluid water lubricating the slippage even if it's -40c at the surface. From what I know about this the 'supercooled water' also erodes vast tunnel systems at the base leading to further 'losses'. We know that the lakes below the ice also exert immense pressures on the overlying pack further degrading it's integrity (once at the coast the fissures 're-activate' as we saw on the Cryosat2 image of the Ross ice shelf).

When the warmer (global norm) temps now at higher levels of the atmosphere over Antarctica make it to the ground it will be 'game over' and the rapid sea level changes we have seen over recent geological time will begin again.

[Interitus]

Not really Quest. Though many folk in the 'dinialsphere' like to see it this way both ends of the globe have very different properties. The southern polar region is a mountainous continent and the north is all at sea level.

Also be aware the the 'screen' used to map land and ice is now including all the areas of lost ice shelf, that used to be plotted as land , as ocean so large areas snuggled up against the coast are now part of the 'sea ice' extent. If you think of the size of the glacier snout that was rammed off it's glacier over the southern summer you can see how this works.you get an area the size of Belgium added to the sea ice area plus a berg ,the size of Belgium, now classed as sea ice. When you think of the size of the berg that calved of Ross a few years back (whose remnant piece knocked off the glacier snout!!!) then you can see there is a lot of 'instant ice' in the form of the collapsed shelf and 'instant area' that can then freeze to add to the 'extent' figure.

When I spoke with Bob Grumbine about how this works he assured me that the screen is regularly updated so the 'coast' is nearly always up to date (the glacier loss will have been updated by now etc.) and the extra area then available to freeze helps 'plump up the figures'.

This is something I have always tried to point out, increased ice extent can be as much a symptom of warming as of cooling when glacial/icecap calving is involved.

Also, as you say, the nature of the poles is so different that comparison of ice patterns as indicators or otherwise of GW is more or less irrelevant - one is neither agreeing or contradicting the other because they behave very differently.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Inter!

Indeed! But we are also now seeing impacts of a 'warming planet' on the southern continent. The loss of the last peninsula shelf occurred over winter and our friendly helpers (seals in bath caps with thermometers on) showed that the warmer waters are now penetrating the Circumpolar current (and it's deep water over turning) and making it to the more northerly shorelines. Both Pine and ,more recently Ross , have shown that the warmer oceans waters are also penetrating there (adding to my concerns about Ross)

The long term studies of the upper atmosphere show us that it is warming faster than any place on earth (including the polar region which is warming 3 times faster than the 'average') and this shows well with the NASA study of snow melt across the Trans antarctic mountains with melt up to a mile high measured back in 05'. Once this 'warm air' makes it to sea level, and the warmer oceans reach ALL the coastline, what do folk expect to happen then? Ross is as big as France and stands 200ft above the ocean (whilst grounded on the sea floor below) lift the front section (warm water erosion allowing lifting and the type of grounding line retreat we see on WAIS) and it goes as quickly as Larsen.

Of course ice extent will take another leap as the area of France becomes available to sea ice so many who post here will triumph the 'extra seasonal ice' this allows (as well as the extension the bergs that were once the size of France give to the ice when they get frozen into the pack that winter!!!LOL).

EDIT: Bring Back an Antarctic thread!!! Both poles are key to our futures and both areas need our exploration/attention!!! (IMHO)

[jethro]

Sea ice, land ice or both? Both? Have land ice amounts changed much recently? No? Does the paper think there is a connection with GHG concentrations? Yes?

I posted the paper as there had been discussions and questions asked about the disparity in ice levels between North and South. Different factors impact the two continents differently and separately, it is for others to read, research and judge just what those influences and impacts are at the current time. This paper may help in that respect, at the very least, as I said when posting it, it helps explain the historical differences, their timings and impact upon both continents.

[4wd]

The melt pools on the Pole Cam have been mostly frozen for a several days.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa2.jpg

(from http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np.html)

Unfortunately Cam2 (above) isn't recording temperature anymore, and Cam1 has broke on 1st July (but is recording temperatures!)

Currently air temp is close to 2C but presumably ground level is colder than this as can often happen here with clear skies.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Arctic ice melt has slowed, so we now appear to be ahead of 2007:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

According to the website the ice melt is slowing partly due to encountering thicker second and third year ice in the central basin. Another factor will be the change in synoptic patterns. June 2010 had a similar pattern to much of Summer 2007 with a large high sat over areas of the pole and fairly warm airmasses trapped within- this situation has reversed for July 2010 so far with low pressure and cold pooling.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?mosaic=Arctic.2010196.terra.1km

Above is today's 'mosaic' image (so far) and if you look at the central region you'll see that it is well fragmented (rounded off) pack and so ,I believe, more able to melt out as the surface area exposed is far greater than a solid pack( when you 'de-ice' the fridge you break up the ice so it melts faster).

Even if synoptics stay the same for the rest of melt season we will still (I believe) make the lowest 3 ice extents recorded (and lowest 'volume' ever recorded). I do not think the synoptic will remain stable for the next 8 weeks.

[The PIT]

Arctic ice melt has slowed, so we now appear to be ahead of 2007:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

According to the website the ice melt is slowing partly due to encountering thicker second and third year ice in the central basin. Another factor will be the change in synoptic patterns. June 2010 had a similar pattern to much of Summer 2007 with a large high sat over areas of the pole and fairly warm airmasses trapped within- this situation has reversed for July 2010 so far with low pressure and cold pooling.

If the conditions remain the same we may not hit the lows of 2007 and 2008. Long way to go to the levelling of period though. As ever time will tell.