Polar Ice Extent

[Gray-Wolf]

Fact 1: PIPS2 is not data, it is a model.

Fact 2: A more up-to-date model (PIOMAS) indicates rapid thinning.

Fact 3: The only actual data available for the Arctic as a whole is from Icesat, which showed thinning that was even more rapid than the PIOMAS model.

Thanks songster, I hadn't the heart to go over it again. It would just be another 'catastrophist post' from me wouldn't it?

The fact that the destruction of the Arctic ice (as used to be) is a real catastrophe seems to mean little to some of our more 'hopeful' posters.

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

IJIS daily data has been adjusted upward once more so that todays gain is now over 100,000km2. That's only the third time since 03 that we've gained over 100,000km2 in a single day in September. Could be on for one of the biggest extent growths for the 2nd half of September in the last decade.

If it does give us one of our biggest extent rises, this September will be remembered for both a big melt early on as well as the refreeze later. The ice two weeks ago looked decidedly weak and we had big melt rates, now it looks in much better health, with big gains counteracting those losses

Edited September 26, 2010 by NorthNorfolkWeather

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/26/global-warming-ancient-artefacts

More 'ice patch Archeology' from the northern hemisphere and ,funnily enough, some of the finds buried by ice are from before the Viking civilisation......strange they didn't thaw out during Erik the Reds 'warm Greenland' times?

[The PIT]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/26/global-warming-ancient-artefacts

More 'ice patch Archeology' from the northern hemisphere and ,funnily enough, some of the finds buried by ice are from before the Viking civilisation......strange they didn't thaw out during Erik the Reds 'warm Greenland' times?

Funny article full of doom and gloom. Are you saying the MWP didn't take place?? Also remember Glaciers push things from the point of source.

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/26/global-warming-ancient-artefacts

More 'ice patch Archeology' from the northern hemisphere and ,funnily enough, some of the finds buried by ice are from before the Viking civilisation......strange they didn't thaw out during Erik the Reds 'warm Greenland' times?

So?? The Article was about Norway. If Greenland was warmer than today, they must have had a predominance of Southerly based winds, which means that some places would have a predominantly Northerly (and hence a cooler climate) perhaps the other side of the Atlantic. now where would that be? Let me think -- -- -- Ahh, Norway is a good start

[Gray-Wolf]

Funny article full of doom and gloom. Are you saying the MWP didn't take place?? Also remember Glaciers push things from the point of source.

I think it shows how many 'regional' events take place?

Look at the waters at a glacier snout and you'll see what having a couple of km of ice on top of you will do if you're rock. We're supposed to believe wood ,leather and flax can get dragged along the floor of a glacier and remain intact (only to rot away in days if 'exposed' to the air)???

Edited September 26, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[osmposm]

GW among others on this thread will cherry pick data to support their own views its as simply as that.

If you took your own advice and read the thread more carefully you would see this is blatantly obvious.

All GW does is repeat the same old rhetoric over and over again....

Had you read my post carefully you would see that I did gently imply that G-W may indeed suffer, like all of us, from 'confirmation bias'. That is what leads, almost inevitably, to cherry-picking - a fault (as you rightly point out) that is shared by many posters of many persuasions. I have been reading this forum carefully for many years, thank you, and have almost certainly read more of G-W's posts than you have. I used to post a bit myself, too, but ceased to do so when personal attacks became too common.

All I was attempting to do was defend him from the suggestion that he was either ignorant of ice thickness data, or a liar. He is neither. For all his rhetoric and, yes, bias, a quick check of his many posts would reveal a remarkably high proportion of specific data drawn attention to, often with supporting links (cherry-picked or not). You and CJWRC may disagree with his interpretation of the data he finds, but there seems no doubt whatever that (1) he looks strenuously for it on an almost continuous basis, and (2) he strongly and honestly believes in the conclusions he draws from it.

Edited September 27, 2010 by osmposm

[Gray-Wolf]

That's an incredibly nice post Os! I hope I can continue to live up to it!!!

I do have my beliefs and they are based on the info I have come across in my rummages. I do not seek to corrupt folk with my view and I do try and keep it 'on track'.

What is happening in the Arctic is 'alarming' but does my reporting of it make me 'Alarmist'?

[stewfox]

I wonder if the last 1,000,000 melt out we have seen in the last few years isn’t a full melt ie not open water. Perhaps 10% sea ice (not then of course recorded by IJIS)

It re freezes rapidly even 2007 by mid Oct was back with the pack That’s nearly a 2,000,000 catch up with 2003

The comparison is with this decade of course.

A few weeks ago I was getting carried away with the melt rates and thought they maybe an extended melt season. Clearly not the case.

Any stats on what is pure open water and what is 5/10% ice ?

[ghrud]

CJWRC, you may or may not agree with G-W, you may or may not believe that he can be unconsciously selective (good old confirmation bias) in what he presents us with in his many, many (nearly 8,000 more than you) posts over the years. (How many have you actually read since you joined us in July?)

But what I would suggest is that you would be unwise, unfair, and frankly insulting to believe that he has not looked at, in detail, a great deal more data on every possible aspect of ice coverage and thickness in the last few years than most people on here will do in their lifetimes - certainly me, and very possibly you too.

So, please avoid the cheap (and inaccurate) shots. G-W may be many things you do not like, but ignorant - or, your only alternative, a liar - ain't two of them.

I wouldn't call GW ignorant or a liar either... just very blinkered some times. Also, posting more than 8000 times doesn't make you an expert, it just means you like to talk a lot. I do sometimes find something interesting to read in his posts though.

Just to give some balance here is a quote from thedailygreen.com from back in March this year.

Something Odd for the Arctic:

"Normal" Sea Ice Extent as Winter Ends

As the winter freeze ends, there's more ice in the Arctic than at any time in recent years. Is this another PR problem for global warming activists?

Read more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/arctic-sea-ice-0330#ixzz10iJpTrtT

Lets see what happens this winter...

[Climate Man]

I wouldn't call GW ignorant or a liar either... just very blinkered some times. Also, posting more than 8000 times doesn't make you an expert, it just means you like to talk a lot. I do sometimes find something interesting to read in his posts though.

Just to give some balance here is a quote from thedailygreen.com from back in March this year.

Lets see what happens this winter...

Re-freeze this year looks to be earlier and more rapid than at any time in the last decade. May be that there is more open water in cold latitudes to freeze or more fresh water content from melting. BUT I will be very interested to monitor progress as I suspect we are in for a bumper year.

[Gray-Wolf]

As the energy from the sun fades we have to look to the 'other' energy sources across the basin. Once upon a time we'd quickly be left with just warm air masses entering the basin but ,over the past 8 years, this has changed.

We now have large swathes of the Basin with 'warmed water' that needs to shed heat before it can freeze. We need to look at the yemps from 80N to see this happen

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

I will be using the above to see if this occurs as it has the past few years (check the archive and see for yourself, remember there will be 'variations' across each year but I think you'll agree the past few years shows a marked anom starting in Sept?)

I believe that this will be an interesting winter and I feel we (UK) have another nasty one in store. I'm keen to see how 3 poor winters here impact, or is driven ,by the polar climate.

[stewfox]

We now have large swathes of the Basin with 'warmed water' that needs to shed heat before it can freeze. We need to look at the yemps from 80N to see this happen

Surely this is the point.

If we have these warmed waters I wouldn’t expect year on year such a rapid re-freeze.

Surely with ‘warm waters’ we would get a slow re-freeze ?

We don’t see that in 2007 or 2008 and not 2010 (so far).

When we see a large dip in summer we see its takes but a small amount of time to correct that as we go into the winter season.

This suggests any late melt was marginal and we probably had 10% ice coverage rather then all this ‘warm’ open water ??

[Devonian]

Funny article full of doom and gloom. Are you saying the MWP didn't take place?? Also remember Glaciers push things from the point of source.

I can't see anything that is'doom and gloom' - unless reporting such things is doom and gloom? Which part of the report did you regard as 'doom and gloom'? Should we not be allowed to know ice is melting and revealing ancient artifacts? Aren't you attacking the messenger? Indeed, isn't this actually the kind of report sceptic zero in on since it reveal a time not to distant past when the ice now melting wasn't there (so it was warmer than now)?

More generally, several recent posts have metioned a rapid re freeze going on. I've looked at the various graphs and I can't see anything exceptional about the trend. The Arctic looks to me to be re freezing at about the same rate as 2007, 2002 and 2005. I can't see what the fuss is about?

Edited September 27, 2010 by Devonian

[Thundery wintry showers]

The only evidence available suggest it is getting thicker. There is NO evidence to suggest is getting thinner. But the only evidence shows a substantial increase in ice thickness. Post facts that will counter my claims.

It depends on what we're talking about- the ice is getting thicker right now (as it always does, because it's well into autumn) but the long-term trend in ice extent when comparing "like with like" (e.g. comparing 25th August 2010 with 25th August 1979-2009), particularly the late summer/early autumn minimum, is clearly downward.

[Methuselah]

It depends on what we're talking about- the ice is getting thicker right now (as it always does, because it's well into autumn) but the long-term trend in ice extent when comparing "like with like" (e.g. comparing 25th August 2010 with 25th August 1979-2009), particularly the late summer/early autumn minimum, is clearly downward.

Very well put, Ian. :winky:

Ah, I see the MWP is rearing its ugly head again...It's odd (to me at least) why the very same folks who never question the reality of said 'warm period' (it being only attested to by mostly proxies and anecdotes) are often the very first to jump on any of WUWT's nefarious bandwagons questioning all the direct observations (showing warming) that we have???

That said, on balance, I also accept that the MWP was real. At least for the Northern hemisphere. But what it's supposed to say about our current situation seems to elude me...

[Thundery wintry showers]

That's an interesting point- the MWP is often used to say "well, it was warmer than this in the past", but we already know that it used to be a lot warmer in the past (geological surveys point to the pre-Cenezoic Era being up to 15C warmer)- so what's it really proving?

[stewfox]

More generally, several recent posts have metioned a rapid re freeze going on. I've looked at the various graphs and I can't see anything exceptional about the trend. The Arctic looks to me to be re freezing at about the same rate as 2007, 2002 and 2005. I can't see what the fuss is about?

I dont think there is a 'fuss' its just a rapid re-freeze, well above the long term averages

It depends on what we're talking about- the ice is getting thicker right now (as it always does, because it's well into autumn) but the long-term trend in ice extent when comparing "like with like" (e.g. comparing 25th August 2010 with 25th August 1979-2009), particularly the late summer/early autumn minimum, is clearly downward.

We are 6 days into Autumn

[Yorkshiresnows]

<br />That's an interesting point- the MWP is often used to say "well, it was warmer than this in the past", but we<i> already know </i>that it used to be a lot warmer in the past (geological surveys point to the pre-Cenezoic Era being up to 15C warmer)- so what's it really proving?<br />

<br /><br /><br />

That's a very simple one to answer.

If the earths recent past consisted of cyclical changes from warm to cold and back again, then it remains a strong possibility that at least a large portion of the warming that we have witnessed in the late 20th century ..... could be down to natural cycles and little to do with greenhouse gas emissions.

Cycles such as solar and the PDO then become more relevant factors.

Y.S

[blitzen]

Don't know if any of you have been into laminate floori's blog recently. His recent entries are concerning the Arctic situation. http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/laminate floori-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather

Edited September 27, 2010 by Blitzen

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

Very well put, Ian.

Ah, I see the MWP is rearing its ugly head again...It's odd (to me at least) why the very same folks who never question the reality of said 'warm period' (it being only attested to by mostly proxies and anecdotes) are often the very first to jump on any of WUWT's nefarious bandwagons questioning all the direct observations (showing warming) that we have???

That said, on balance, I also accept that the MWP was real. At least for the Northern hemisphere. But what it's supposed to say about our current situation seems to elude me...

Hi Pete,

I think I agree with you re MWP, unless I've got it wrong we seem to have a higher amplitude wsrm/cold signal alternating approx every 450-500 years, which does mean the last couple of hundred SHOULD have been naturally warmer. The problem as I see it is on both sides, the claims of some AGW supporters of total melt down, compared to those that will not believe any of the warming is man made. Until we can (somehow) separate the natural from the man made issue, this problem will continue.

[Thundery wintry showers]

We are 6 days into Autumn

Irrelevant to the point that I was making- my points concerned meteorology and last time I checked we were 6 days into autumn by the astronomical definition, but a full 26 days into autumn by the meteorological definition.

<br /><br /><br />

That's a very simple one to answer.

If the earths recent past consisted of cyclical changes from warm to cold and back again, then it remains a strong possibility that at least a large portion of the warming that we have witnessed in the late 20th century ..... could be down to natural cycles and little to do with greenhouse gas emissions.

Cycles such as solar and the PDO then become more relevant factors.

Y.S

Trouble is, that can work both ways. I remember Sunny Starry Skies once posted a view that climate is very sensitive (which is implied by large fluctuations between warm and cold) then a small additional anthropogenic addition to the system could risk triggering larger changes. I think those factors, particularly the PDO and also ENSO and the prevailing state of the NAO, did contribute to the warming between the 1970s and 1990s (how much is open to debate) but the fact that they've reverted to near-neutral or negative states in the "noughties" yet we haven't seen a reduction in global temperature (a stagnation at best) is noteworthy.

The latest research, interestingly, suggests that solar activity may have much sharper influences on a local level than previously suggested, and that the recent solar minimum may have contributed to the very cold winter in 2009/10, but the influence on mean global temperature is still thought to be fairly small. E.g. the Maunder Minimum is associated with an estimate of a few tenths of a degree change in global temperature but some areas of the world, including NW Europe, probably cooled by 1 to 2 degC.

[BornFromTheVoid]

I think something that needs to be taken into account with regards this rapid "re-freeze" is that so far it's been mostly wind driven and not so much the forming of new sea ice. For a few weeks we had the ice compressing around the north Greenland coast but in the last 7 days the wind pattern that caused that has reversed and we're seeing that ice spread out again, upping the extent figures. There is of course some new sea ice being formed but the majority of this near record "re-freeze" is just ice spreading out.

Here is the air temperature anomaly from the 20th-24th this month, roughly the time when this growth in extent began, up to the most recent day available

I think we can safely say, it isn't the cold air causing this apparent rapid growth.

[jethro]

Hi Pete,

I think I agree with you re MWP, unless I've got it wrong we seem to have a higher amplitude wsrm/cold signal alternating approx every 450-500 years, which does mean the last couple of hundred SHOULD have been naturally warmer. The problem as I see it is on both sides, the claims of some AGW supporters of total melt down, compared to those that will not believe any of the warming is man made. Until we can (somehow) separate the natural from the man made issue, this problem will continue.

Absolutely.

Trouble is no one seems able to ascertain how much warmer we should now be by compiling the natural cycles, but minus any CO2 contribution. If we don't know that answer, how can we possibly say how much of the current warming is AGW?

I asked (some would say droned on about) how much Arctic ice would/should there be without the influence of AGW, no one seems to be able to answer this. The standard answer is 'we have less now than in the past X amount of years' but that doesn't provide any detail and certainly doesn't answer my question.

I don't doubt we've contributed to the warming in recent decades but I want to know how much?

[Yorkshiresnows]

<br />Irrelevant to the point that I was making- my points concerned meteorology and last time I checked we were 6 days into autumn by the astronomical definition, but a full 26 days into autumn by the meteorological definition.<br /><br /><br />Trouble is, that can work both ways.  I remember Sunny Starry Skies once posted a view that climate is very sensitive (which is implied by large fluctuations between warm and cold) then a small additional anthropogenic addition to the system could risk triggering larger changes.  I think those factors, particularly the PDO and also ENSO and the prevailing state of the NAO, did contribute to the warming between the 1970s and 1990s (how much is open to debate) but the fact that they've reverted to near-neutral or negative states in the "noughties" yet we haven't seen a reduction in global temperature (a stagnation at best) is noteworthy.<br /><br />The latest research, interestingly, suggests that solar activity may have much sharper influences on a local level than previously suggested, and that the recent solar minimum may have contributed to the very cold winter in 2009/10, but the influence on mean global temperature is still thought to be fairly small.  E.g. the Maunder Minimum is associated with an estimate of a few tenths of a degree change in global temperature but some areas of the world, including NW Europe, probably cooled by 1 to 2 degC.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Hi TWS

Yes, but the whole argument centres around whether Co2 is really a serious player (potent greenhouse gas). If it is then all bets are off and any natural cycle is going to be swamped by the greenhouse signal. If it is not (and this is my belief), then consequently the climate system is less sensitive and it is the natural inherent cycles that will ultimately hold sway.

What occurred over the Maunder minimum and how exactly it impacted the globe is very much open to differing views on here. To my mind it was a global event though to what extent the temperature varied from location to location is a tricky one. A paper that I posted earlier on, looked at the Pacific/Indo Ocean warm pool and estimated a 1-2 degree change over this period, implying a global effect of this magnitude, but I would agree that there was likely great variability as a whole.

Also, we have only just changed from High solar activity to low (we are still under low solar activity and will ... if predictions are correct be for some time). The PDO has only recently changed state (2007)and hence I would not have expected a sudden shift in such a small space of time (this is not only my view but that expressed by Joe laminate floori over on Accuweather). It is the change in ocean temperatures, predominance of El Nino /La Nina states and possible implications on global cloudiness that can mechanistically affect climatic change ..... it is simply too early to tell if the recent change in states is to have any impact or not.

That global tempartures have flatlined (arguably) over the past 10 years and do not hold with IPCC predictions is to me very telling. That the latest CPC forecasts suggest a very cool 2011 is also interesting and if hold true would suggest that we are indeed (at the very least) not following the "CO2 holds all sway" pattern.

Of course and as ever, time will tell (this could be a load of old tosh !!).

Y.S