Polar Ice Extent

[Gray-Wolf]

This one might be of some use to you http://www.esrl.noaa...composites/day/

Another 50,000km2 increase... for now. That's 6 days with gains >50k, could we equal 2004 which got 8? The IJIS concentration images shows good growth all across the Bering side edge of the ice and into the Canadian Archipelago.

I had a peep at modis to see where Bering/Beaufort were up to and all I can see is;

http://rapidfire.sci...0221000.1km.jpg

I also did the same for the C.A. and from the concave fracture marks (like in the Lincoln sea feeding Nares?) it seems those 'new channels (well the two we can see) are acting in the same way?

http://www.woksat.in...28-d-grn-n.html

We will get better images from Wokingham and so we'll be able to monitor how long it is before C.A. freezes and stops this transport out of the basin and into NW Passage.

EDIT: to soon in the day to comment on the Arctic Amplification now showing above 80N?

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

Edited September 28, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[oldsnowywizard]

This is a nice link that shows the ice growth in the last few days.

Use the speed control on the upper right hand side to slow the loop down.

http://arctic.atmos....ic.color.4.html

thats a nice little tool.. shows that there is more growth then perhaps spreading out.. apologies Nadam for getting your prior post a little wrong!

GW those images are not great I can hardly tell them difference between where clouds stop and ice begins and if there is any ice underneath the cloud.. I can see all the stress cracks in the ice thats visible..

quite a nice comeback on the ice extent side and conditions continue to look favourable for ice growth... i would imagine the speed of growth will slow a little as warmer waters are met..

[Cymro]

Another thing people oftern forget is Ice Breakers. They were nto used in the arctic in the past and are used now to open trading roots so the influence of man breaking up the ice is definetly detrimental to the decreasing of ice on the whole.

[songster]

Another thing people oftern forget is Ice Breakers. They were nto used in the arctic in the past and are used now to open trading roots so the influence of man breaking up the ice is definetly detrimental to the decreasing of ice on the whole.

How true! And for some reason, when talking about loss of Alpine glaciers, people never discuss all the selfish holidaymakers on ski trips, carrying the ice away flake by flake on their boots.

[Guest mycroft]

I think we could also say that , in a 'greenhouse world' air temps are warmer and so can hold more moisture leading to less clouds leading to more absorbtion of sunlight into the ocean warming it more? Come night fall the same air mass holds less moisture as it cools and forms low level stratoform clouds which then can trap the heat in??

my understanding of that process,is that only the top few mm of ocean is warmed?

[MR EXTREMES]

Another thing people oftern forget is Ice Breakers. They were nto used in the arctic in the past and are used now to open trading roots so the influence of man breaking up the ice is definetly detrimental to the decreasing of ice on the whole.

i think this is a very valid point myself.

so once again my friend a valid post gets a reply of a sarcastic nature.

i think ice displacement due to wind/currents and shipping plays a very big part.

Edited September 28, 2010 by badboy657

[WindWatcher]

i think this is a very valid point myself.

so once again my friend a valid post gets a reply of a sarcastic nature.

i think ice displacement due to wind/currents and shipping plays a very big part.

At least it was just sarcastic, I got insulting replies when I posted about it.

Apparently it is all about scale, and icebreakers are so insignificant to the scale that they are irrelevant. So using the same logic, all data that was gathered whilst aboard an icebreaker, is equally insignificant to the scale and irrelevant, good bye Dr Barbers rotten Ice.

[BornFromTheVoid]

IJIS site has updated again, increasing the ice gains to almost 100,000km2. On the IJIS record we haven't had 2 days with gains of over 100,000km2 in September before, but we seem very close to doing just that this September.

We've also gained 419,843km2 since the 15th, the most any year on the IJIS site has gained between 15th-30th is 527,968km2 in 2004, which we stand a very good chance of beating now. Definitely looks to be a month of 2 extreme halfs!

I had a peep at modis to see where Bering/Beaufort were up to and all I can see is;

http://rapidfire.sci...0221000.1km.jpg

I also did the same for the C.A. and from the concave fracture marks (like in the Lincoln sea feeding Nares?) it seems those 'new channels (well the two we can see) are acting in the same way?

http://www.woksat.in...28-d-grn-n.html

We will get better images from Wokingham and so we'll be able to monitor how long it is before C.A. freezes and stops this transport out of the basin and into NW Passage.

EDIT: to soon in the day to comment on the Arctic Amplification now showing above 80N?

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

GW, the growth I saw around the Bering side was on the IJIS concentration image. The modis images from within the CA should the water beginning to freeze in between the individual ice chunks, so I'd be surprised to see the ice continue to flow through there for more than another week.

As for the AA, I would have though 80N would be the least likely place to the temperature increase to appear seen as it mostly held onto its ice this summer?

i think this is a very valid point myself.

so once again my friend a valid post gets a reply of a sarcastic nature.

i think ice displacement due to wind/currents and shipping plays a very big part.

The ice breakers thing was kinda mentioned a few weeks ago, around 30 pages back, they don't play a significant role at all as far as I could tell.

[stewfox]

IJIS site has updated again, increasing the ice gains to almost 100,000km2. On the IJIS record we haven't had 2 days with gains of over 100,000km2 in September before, but we seem very close to doing just that this September.

We've also gained 419,843km2 since the 15th, the most any year on the IJIS site has gained between 15th-30th is 527,968km2 in 2004, which we stand a very good chance of beating now. Definitely looks to be a month of 2 extreme halfs!

The ice breakers thing was kinda mentioned a few weeks ago, around 30 pages back, they don't play a significant role at all as far as I could tell.

Considering both 2004 and 2010 continued to melt out after the 15^th the figures remain even more impressive.

People need to bear in mind shipping has changed in the last few hundred years.

There is a big difference between setting off pre Iron Clad vessels cira 1870s with the equipment, navigation they had back then cf the ships of today.

We shouldn’t read too much into ,it took 2yrs to get from A to B in the North West Passage.

I am not suggesting the North West passage was as ‘open’ back then as it is now but we are not comparing like for like in terms of the ‘ability’ of those using such routes.

The fact we can reach the north pole by ship now doesn’t mean its open water it just an ice breaker

[Gray-Wolf]

good bye Dr Barbers rotten Ice.

Indeed, all melted , all gone.

As I noted before all the ice in the Beaufort Sea melted out by late Aug so doing 13knots through there this Sept would be no issue.........

As I also noted back then this was (as Prof B. pointed out) one of the strongholds for the 'old Perennial' in the Arctic.

Edited September 28, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[weather eater]

Oh I know the models are the best we have but the models have gaping holes in them due to lack of known data, as such the results shouldn't be taken too literally. All too often the model results are seen as providing a view into the future and yes they do, but not as clearly as some would have us believe. What they provide is a canvas from a paint by numbers kit, theoretically you should be able to produce a work of art but it won't be a Constable or Turner, never will be and shouldn't be viewed as such.

Taking the known emission figures and properties of CO2, extrapolating that information into a chaotic system and accepting accuracy from those results may be the best we currently have without the benefit of a spare Earth but that doesn't actually quantify a great deal. That's not negative, it's merely accepting the inherent flaws in our current understanding. Do we have any idea what's going on? Yes, we have some idea. Do we have every answer? No, we do not.

It's not wrong to seek more information and answers, IMO it's hugely positive, not negative.

There is much in what you say Jethro, the problem is of course that far to many sceptics seem to interpret, "do we have every answer? No we do not". As obviously things are not as bad as they are made out to be. Now while that could be the case, it could also be the case that yes it is as bad, or actually its even worse, all are equally valid.

The sceptics also argue that without knowing every answer, we could waste billions of pounds (not to mention the social upheaval) trying to sort out a non existent problem, now that’s a fair point. However its an equally valid argument to suggest that we need to act now rather than procrastinating for the next 20 years waiting to get an answer, by which time things could be much worse. Really the only thing we have to go on, is the opinion of Scientists, The bulk of whom, despite opinions to the contrary do understanding both the limitations of the models, and natural cycles yet they still support the AGW hypothesis.

On saying all that, the truth of the matter is that the history of mankind is littered with the consequences of acting too slowly or not decisively enough, and this if AGW theory is correct, will be another one. No matter how many words we waste on these threads or how irate we may get with one another, there is simple not enough will in the world to stop matters. Yes there are lots of politicians, and well meaning others who are making all the (depending on your viewpoint) right noises, putting forward lots of initiatives, but in reality very little will change, and will not do so even if the theory is proved beyond any doubt. If AGW theory is correct then we will have to live with the consequences whether we like it or not, simply because humans are very good at locating the accelerator pedal, but have yet to master the brakes.

Edited September 28, 2010 by weather eater

[jethro]

i think this is a very valid point myself.

so once again my friend a valid post gets a reply of a sarcastic nature.

i think ice displacement due to wind/currents and shipping plays a very big part.

I guess it's another example of how communication without the benefit of person to person contact can be construed in many different ways - I took it as nothing more than a bit of humour. Perhaps if folk weren't so quick to take offence and paused to think about the many ways a flippant comment could be intended, things would run a bit smoother.

Generally speaking, those on the defensive find more things offensive, than those who don't see a personal challenge around every corner.

[jethro]

There is much in what you say Jethro, the problem is of course that far to many sceptics seem to interpret, "do we have every answer? No we do not". As obviously things are not as bad as they are made out to be. Now while that could be the case, it could also be the case that yes it is as bad, or actually its even worse, all are equally valid.

The sceptics also argue that without knowing every answer, we could waste billions of pounds (not to mention the social upheaval) trying to sort out a non existent problem, now that’s a fair point. However its an equally valid argument to suggest that we need to act now rather than procrastinating for the next 20 years waiting to get an answer, by which time things could be much worse. Really the only thing we have to go on, is the opinion of Scientists, The bulk of whom, despite opinions to the contrary do understanding both the limitations of the models, and natural cycles yet they still support the AGW hypothesis.

On saying all that, the truth of the matter is that the history of mankind is littered with the consequences of acting too slowly or not decisively enough, and this if AGW theory is correct, will be another one. No matter how many words we waste on these threads or how irate we may get with one another, there is simple not enough will in the world to stop matters. Yes there are lots of politicians, and well meaning others who are making all the (depending on your viewpoint) right noises, putting forward lots of initiatives, but in reality very little will change, and will not do so even if the theory is proved beyond any doubt. If AGW theory is correct then we will have to live with the consequences whether we like it or not, simply because humans are very good at locating the accelerator pedal, but have yet to master the brakes.

I agree.

Truth is, humanity (or rather governments) will procrastinate for forever and a day if the future involves large sums of money.

Personally, I think adaptation rather than prevention is the wiser route to take. Leaving aside the AGW debate for a moment, all our futures will have to feature sustainable energy because the simple truth is fossil fuels are finite. I'm sure if this was accepted more widely, promoted even, then more people would listen. Promoting Green Energy as vital to save the planet is quite an abstract idea, promoting it as necessary to eke out supplies until alternative technology delivers enough energy for all makes it far more personal than a tiny island, thousands of miles away, may disappear.

Coming back to the AGW debate and more particularly the state of the Arctic, I think there would be much more amiable debate if the uncertainties and the contributions made from natural sources and the model projections were fully recognised. All too often the natural element of changing climates is skipped over, often derided in favour of drumming home the message of AGW. We get the same people saying the same things and the same people sticking their fingers in their ears whilst thinking, yeah, yeah, yeah, not listening - applies equally to both sides.

Successful communication relies upon engaging other people, that doesn't happen if you don't listen.

[MR EXTREMES]

so if during the melt season ice breakers go into the arctic basin and break up ice,

that then drifts out into warmer waters and disrupts reformation in the refreeze months,

and this has been going on for decades then surely this must contribute a little thats my point futher ice drifts south the warmer the water,

thats without weather patterns adding to disruption.

although things looking better so far judging by the most recent update.

[BornFromTheVoid]

so if during the melt season ice breakers go into the arctic basin and break up ice,

that then drifts out into warmer waters and disrupts reformation in the refreeze months,

and this has been going on for decades then surely this must contribute a little thats my point futher ice drifts south the warmer the water,

thats without weather patterns adding to disruption.

although things looking better so far judging by the most recent update.

This is a post from a while back in reply to the last discussion about Arctic ice breakers. It's all rough guess work but it seems to make some sense anyway, sure see what you think.

Current Arctic ice extent is about 5,300,000km2,

If we even have 50 ice breakers, traveling through the Arctic and breaking up 10km2 of ice each, that's still only 500km2 of ice now fragmented, not gone. As a percentage of the overall ice, it's 0.0094%. At the moment, about half the Arctic ice is below 80% concentration, so it's already fragmented which would reduce the amount they've fragmented even further. Of the ice that has been broken up due to the ice breaker, only a small amount of that will melt and contribute to overall Arctic ice reduction.

The Arctic is loosing around around 11% per decade based on the 79-00 average. The last few years the minimum has been around 1,500,000km2 below average, yet the ice breakers might damage, not melt away, less than 3/400km2 each year, a small fraction of which may melt because of the ice breakers, probably even less in previous years. It really is negligable!

While a few things have changes, such as the below 80% concentration thing, I think it still applies!

[4wd]

Very rapid ice increase underway, who'd have thought it in light of:

these areas are now recieving sun from May onwards. In the past they may have had sporadic openings through Aug/Sept but probably never for the extra 9 weeks they seem to have since 02'. The heat amassed has to be shed before freeze can begin and I've always maintained a minus 20c 2m temp won't impact +4c waters esp. if mixing is occuring from long haul swells across the basin. This late onset in turn impacts final ice thickness leading to ice easy to melt out the season following.

Can this cycle be broken or is it a 'beyond tipping point' event with early opening pack leading to greater melt and heating of the ocean below?

Collapse and spread folk , collapse and spread.

I'd ask again how much 'extent' did the floe that Dr B watched collapse (over a 20min period) make from a floe 17km long and 5km wide when collapsed into 2m thick slabs? And how much extent , over the years, has been mistaken for growth when in fact it was collapsed perennial (and fooling the Sat's into thinking we had more perennial than we had)?

With little or no perennial left how do we feel this will impact the end of melt season?

For me I'd expect to see larger losses continue through Sept (and possibly into Oct?) as the last of the 'last legs ice melts out and any gains are masked by them occurring in areas with over 15% ice cover already.

Let's see how many big loss days Sept can produce before we start talking "Death Spiral" eh?

[pottyprof]

While a few things have changes, such as the below 80% concentration thing, I think it still applies!

A crack in the ice is a crack in the ice... Is there any difference between a natural crack helping to speed melt up and man made crack?

If GW's posts and links from earlier in the year are correct, then surely there shouldn't be a lot of difference regardless of the small area involved?

[WindWatcher]

This is a post from a while back in reply to the last discussion about Arctic ice breakers. It's all rough guess work but it seems to make some sense anyway, sure see what you think.

Current Arctic ice extent is about 5,300,000km2,

If we even have 50 ice breakers, traveling through the Arctic and breaking up 10km2 of ice each, that's still only 500km2 of ice now fragmented, not gone. As a percentage of the overall ice, it's 0.0094%. At the moment, about half the Arctic ice is below 80% concentration, so it's already fragmented which would reduce the amount they've fragmented even further. Of the ice that has been broken up due to the ice breaker, only a small amount of that will melt and contribute to overall Arctic ice reduction.

The Arctic is loosing around around 11% per decade based on the 79-00 average. The last few years the minimum has been around 1,500,000km2 below average, yet the ice breakers might damage, not melt away, less than 3/400km2 each year, a small fraction of which may melt because of the ice breakers, probably even less in previous years. It really is negligable!

While a few things have changes, such as the below 80% concentration thing, I think it still applies!

Trying not to flog a dead horse, but I did find the numbers in this article quite surprising and obviously going to increase as it becomes financially viable to explore the region:

Shipping traffic in the far north is not tracked precisely. But experts provided telling snapshots of maritime activity to legislators and other officials from Arctic countries at an international conference last week in Fairbanks, Alaska. For example, Mead Treadwell, who attended the conference and is an Alaskan businessman and the chairman of the research commission, said officials were told that more than 200 cruise ships circled Greenland in 2007, up from 27 in 2004.

Lawson W. Brigham, chairman of the three-year Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment that is scheduled to finish work this year, told the gathering that more than 5,400 vessels of 100 tons or larger operated in Arctic waters in the summer of 2004. During that summer there were 102 trips in the Northwest Passage and five complete transits of that legendary route, he said.

Source: New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/world/europe/17arctic.html

[BornFromTheVoid]

Trying not to flog a dead horse, but I did find the numbers in this article quite surprising and obviously going to increase as it becomes financially viable to explore the region:

Source: New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/world/europe/17arctic.html

Are all those cruise ships also ice breakers or do they just avoid the ice? As I'd mentioned though, it was just some rough calculations. That being said, I thought the most telling part in the article was that the US only has 3 icebreakers and the Russians 14

United States’ two 30-year-old heavy icebreakers, the Polar Sea and Polar Star, and one ice-breaking ship devoted mainly to science, the Healy, are grossly inadequate. Also, the Polar Star is out of service.

In the meantime, a resurgent Russia has been busy expanding its fleet of large oceangoing icebreakers to around 14

[WindWatcher]

Are all those cruise ships also ice breakers or do they just avoid the ice? As I'd mentioned though, it was just some rough calculations. That being said, I thought the most telling part in the article was that the US only has 3 icebreakers and the Russians 14

You can read the final report here: http://www.pame.is/images/stories/PDF_Files/AMSA_2009_Report_2nd_print.pdf BEWARE!!!! It is huge, and far too much to digest at this time of night.

[weather eater]

I agree.

Truth is, humanity (or rather governments) will procrastinate for forever and a day if the future involves large sums of money.

Personally, I think adaptation rather than prevention is the wiser route to take. Leaving aside the AGW debate for a moment, all our futures will have to feature sustainable energy because the simple truth is fossil fuels are finite. I'm sure if this was accepted more widely, promoted even, then more people would listen. Promoting Green Energy as vital to save the planet is quite an abstract idea, promoting it as necessary to eke out supplies until alternative technology delivers enough energy for all makes it far more personal than a tiny island, thousands of miles away, may disappear.

Coming back to the AGW debate and more particularly the state of the Arctic, I think there would be much more amiable debate if the uncertainties and the contributions made from natural sources and the model projections were fully recognised. All too often the natural element of changing climates is skipped over, often derided in favour of drumming home the message of AGW. We get the same people saying the same things and the same people sticking their fingers in their ears whilst thinking, yeah, yeah, yeah, not listening - applies equally to both sides.

Successful communication relies upon engaging other people, that doesn't happen if you don't listen.

I can agree with a great deal of that, however I do think that the contributions from natural sources and the limitations of model projections are fully recognised, both in the scientific communities and by the main protagonists on these threads. Even as an amateur I can see the models have deficiencies, so I doubt the proponents of AGW theory within the climate scientific community are blind to them either. As for natural sources/cycles, as I have stated before, what we know about them has come to us from scientists in the various fields that have researched them or at least aspects of them. This is a group of people who despite their intimate knowledge of those natural sources/cycles still subscribe to AGW theory. For me that really is the killer argument, how is it possible that the bulk of that group of scientists can support AGW theory and ignore their own specialist knowledge of natural cycles. They patently believe that, yes natural cycles are real and have a massive role to play in the earths climate, but AGW is changing the nature of those cycles, presumably exaggerating upward trending temperatures and flattening out temperature drops. If that is not the case why are paleoclimatologists and related scientists not coming forward on mass and dismissing AGW theory as bunk.

It is perfectly possible that we have been going through a natural warming cycle with an AGW signal at the same time, even if we change to a cooling cycle that AGW signal will not go away, if (and that is the big if) great enough then it could override some of that cooling signal or even alter aspects of those natural cycles, in ways that we may not as yet perceive. That seems to me to be a logical conclusion from the support that the available evidence has as of this time.

There are some excellent points raised by sceptics on these pages, and points that should be raised. However in my eyes some of those points fall flat, because the authors all to often come across as holding the opinion that only they, and a few sceptic scientists whose papers they quote, understand the points raised and that the rest of the climate science community cannot grasp them or are just ignoring them, personally I find that highly unlikely. Often when pressed, the view is expressed that Scientists that support AGW theory only do so, so as their funding isn’t cut. I guess that’s better than suggesting that they are just to stupid to understand the counter theory’s.

[stewfox]

The sceptics also argue that without knowing every answer, we could waste billions of pounds (not to mention the social upheaval) trying to sort out a non existent problem, now that’s a fair point. However its an equally valid argument to suggest that we need to act now rather than procrastinating for the next 20 years waiting to get an answer, by which time things could be much worse. Really the only thing we have to go on, is the opinion of Scientists, The bulk of whom, despite opinions to the contrary do understanding both the limitations of the models, and natural cycles yet they still support the AGW hypothesis.

On saying all that, the truth of the matter is that the history of mankind is littered with the consequences of acting too slowly or not decisively enough, and this if AGW theory is correct, will be another one. No matter how many words we waste on these threads or how irate we may get with one another, there is simple not enough will in the world to stop matters. Yes there are lots of politicians, and well meaning others who are making all the (depending on your viewpoint) right noises, putting forward lots of initiatives, but in reality very little will change, and will not do so even if the theory is proved beyond any doubt. If AGW theory is correct then we will have to live with the consequences whether we like it or not, simply because humans are very good at locating the accelerator pedal, but have yet to master the brakes.

You dont spend billions on a unproven theory. There is no 'valid argument'

You can spend trillions on a proven theory and humans are very good at pressing the accelerator pedal if required.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Very rapid ice increase underway, who'd have thought it in light of:

I did, and the arctic will get a big ice increase this winter compared to recent bad years as the cold ocean phases take hold and a late melt start next year.

BFTP

[Cymro]

I guess it's another example of how communication without the benefit of person to person contact can be construed in many different ways - I took it as nothing more than a bit of humour. Perhaps if folk weren't so quick to take offence and paused to think about the many ways a flippant comment could be intended, things would run a bit smoother.

Generally speaking, those on the defensive find more things offensive, than those who don't see a personal challenge around every corner.

Sorry to be pedantic but I don't see where the sarcy post was directed towards mine :/ I wouldnt have taken offence regardless has it been delete or? What did it say and by whom?

[jethro]

Sorry to be pedantic but I don't see where the sarcy post was directed towards mine :/ I wouldnt have taken offence regardless has it been delete or? What did it say and by whom?

Page 92, post 1529.

I took it as humour, not sarcasm. Always glad to hear someone doesn't easily take offence