Arctic Ice Discussion - 2010 Freeze Up

[Gray-Wolf]

It's odd how most everyone (apart from 'snow freaks') can see what a drop in temp could bring us yet so few can see the same of a plus two temp change?

Insofar as trapped air in sea ice snow....hmmm, basin full of ice/snow less than 5 years....do we need the proxy?

As for trapped air in 'Ice sheets'? well , where do we begin (soon if it's the ice sheet on Devonshire island!!!, or Baffin island [if we still have ice caps there? last ref mid 80's?])

We all know that what happens on a regional level needn't occur on a global scale (look at last winters 'snow fest' midst the hottest period we have recorded globally?) so we must be careful not to project local to global without good precedent.

[jethro]

It's odd how most everyone (apart from 'snow freaks') can see what a drop in temp could bring us yet so few can see the same of a plus two temp change?

Insofar as trapped air in sea ice snow....hmmm, basin full of ice/snow less than 5 years....do we need the proxy?

As for trapped air in 'Ice sheets'? well , where do we begin (soon if it's the ice sheet on Devonshire island!!!, or Baffin island [if we still have ice caps there? last ref mid 80's?])

We all know that what happens on a regional level needn't occur on a global scale (look at last winters 'snow fest' midst the hottest period we have recorded globally?) so we must be careful not to project local to global without good precedent.

Or indeed past and current to future.

[knocker]

We all know that what happens on a regional level needn't occur on a global scale (look at last winters 'snow fest' midst the hottest period we have recorded globally?) so we must be careful not to project local to global without good precedent.

How can one have a pecedent as this is the first time that carbon sequested millions of years ago has been re-introduced and influenced natural cycles?

[Scottish-Irish Skier]

How can one have a pecedent as this is the first time that carbon sequested millions of years ago has been re-introduced and influenced natural cycles?

This has actually happened throughout geological time. There are many natural processes which add and remove CO2 from the atmosphere (e.g. CO2 sequestered as carbonates in rocks is subducted and then pumped out again thorugh stratovolcanoes as just one example). CO2 levels are actually extremely low today in comparison with the geological past - we are in a glacial period (ice at the poles is very unusual for the Earth). This is only the first time biological organisms have been adding to the pot and 'thought' about it.

Just grabbed the attached quickly, but this is a fair rep of the general pattern. We are chilly right now.

Cheers,

SS

[weather eater]

This is only the first time biological organisms have been adding to the pot and 'thought' about it.

Cheers,

SS

And may have to deal with it.

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

And may have to deal with it.

But this is not the first time biological organisms HAVE dealt with it. The only reason why we are shouting, screaming and whinging about it is because of the possible financial cost to our so called civilisation.

Just the fact you were able to respond means that you have a direct line of life from the earliest organisms.

[knocker]

This is only the first time biological organisms have been adding to the pot and 'thought' about it.

Cheers,

SS

That is actually what I meant. by re-introduced. Badly worded I suppose. I believe I did mention the carbon cycle and carbonate system in an earlier post.

Edited November 1, 2010 by weather ship

[weather eater]

But this is not the first time biological organisms HAVE dealt with it. The only reason why we are shouting, screaming and whinging about it is because of the possible financial cost to our so called civilisation.

Just the fact you were able to respond means that you have a direct line of life from the earliest organisms.

It's not the financial cost that worry’s me, its the human cost and the cost to the biological organisms as you describe them, that we share the planet with. Without a doubt we and most other species will deal with it, but that does not mean we should not seek to avoid it, if possible. We as human beings are unique in the long history of the planet, in that we are in a position to play god, and in that role humanity has a poor track record. Far too often the idea that its all happened before, so therefore it doesn’t matter is paraded about on these pages, I mean why bother to find cures for diseases or stop wars, after all its all happened before and we are still here.

[BornFromTheVoid]

But this is not the first time biological organisms HAVE dealt with it. The only reason why we are shouting, screaming and whinging about it is because of the possible financial cost to our so called civilisation.

Just the fact you were able to respond means that you have a direct line of life from the earliest organisms.

Actually, during the formation of the early atmosphere cyanobacteria built up in such numbers and released so much oxygen (increasing the atmospheric percentage from almost 0% to 10%) that they almost wiped themselves and most other anaerobic organisms off the face of the Earth.

So while in most scenarios life will go on, it doesn't mean a single organism cannot drastically change and damage the living portion of the entire planet. Not saying we're going cause any changes quite like that, but it can happen and I believe if we can prevent doing long term damage to the planet then that's what we should do. We should be striving towards more of a state of equilibrium with our environment, not domination.

Anywho, an initial gain of 102,000km2 today so we could be on for our biggest gain of the season. Yesterday came in at a very respectable 110,000km2. Looks like the Beaufort sea could be frozen over within the next week, with the Chukchi sea following suit, if the high SSTAs can be overcome at least. We still have to keep these high gains as 07 is just over 30,000km2 behind!

[Yorkshiresnows]

<br />And they then overlook any research or papers that are not on their message, I call that pot kettle black.<br /><br /><br />Actually it was a number of factors that put paid to the Viking settlements on Greenland, the winters getting colder was only part of the story. And history does not record what the final nail in the coffin was.<br /><br /><a href='http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://www.archaeolo...ures/greenland/</a><br />

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

I've posted on the topic of the Greenland settlements (Vikings)here previously.

Yes, there were a number of factors that put paid to the Viking settlements (Greenland and Iceland). But, the increasingly cold and bitter winters was the key factor. There is a book entitled the Little Ice Age by Brian Fagan that goes into historicaly recorded details.

There is also this as a brief summary:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dy-JhG3PMyMJ:www.iupui.edu/~geni/documents/Vikings_in_Greenland-An_Overview.doc+The+end+of+the+viking+settlements+in+greenland&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Y.S

[Methuselah]

Still looks to me that its more likely that temp dirves C02 rather than it being the oher way around, also from that graph I think we are better off now rather than being a degree or two or more colder!

Or, that neither CO₂ nor temperature is entirely responsible for changes in t'other?

[BornFromTheVoid]

IJIS has updated and has given us what I think is the largest daily gain of the year so far at 165,938km2. Despite that, we're still 2nd lowest on record though and even 1 low growth day will have us bottom.

The positive thing is that it looks like we should continue to see some very strong growth over the next 2 or 3 days at least (>100k/day). The very cold uppers (<-20C) are positioned perfectly for strong sea ice growth, which we should see across the Beaufort, Chukchi, Kara and perhaps the Barents sea over the next few days.

In about about 2 days we get our first proper cold spell over Hudson bay which should help lower the SSTs there before we get a more prolonged cold spell in about 6 days. Going by this (and including the very high SSTAs there atm) I'd expect to see the first of the Hudson ice to start showing up in around 8-10 days time if the forecast holds true at least...

[weather eater]

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

I've posted on the topic of the Greenland settlements (Vikings)here previously.

Yes, there were a number of factors that put paid to the Viking settlements (Greenland and Iceland). But, the increasingly cold and bitter winters was the key factor. There is a book entitled the Little Ice Age by Brian Fagan that goes into historicaly recorded details.

There is also this as a brief summary:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dy-JhG3PMyMJ:www.iupui.edu/~geni/documents/Vikings_in_Greenland-An_Overview.doc+The+end+of+the+viking+settlements+in+greenland&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Y.S

I've read it YS, as well as his book the Long Hot Summer, both are very good books, however when you delve that far back into history it becomes hard to find conclusive evidence, this is especially true of the Vikings in Greenland, consequently any historian or archaeologist has to resort to a fair amount of theorising to reach conclusions. I read a lot of history, its been a passion of mine since I was a boy, fact is you can read two books about the same subject matter by different authors, and come up with two different interpretations. While there are a fair amount of documents recording weather events from the period that we are talking about, they are all rather subjective. Phrases like, the coldest winter in living memory do not really tell you much, for a whole host of reasons. Also just because two events coincide does not necessarily mean they are linked. I have also read a fair number of books about the history of climate change and pinning exactly the point at which the MWP finished and the little ice age began is another exercise in pin the tail on the donkey, A rough estimate seems to be the end of the MWP about 1315 the start of the little ice age proper about 200 years later, Brian Fagan of course see 1315 as the point at which climate changed towards cooler conditions. Another thing to note about the MWP was the fact that it was not a period of continuous warmth, it had colder interludes, given the precarious position of the Vikings in Greenland it is surprising that one of those colder periods did drive them off earlier, one can only surmise that the move towards colder conditions after 1315 was not the only factor in their demise.

Curiously Professor Fagan is not a AGW sceptic, proving yet again that it is possible to believe in natural cycles but still recognise that what we have seen is outside that.

I will leave this with a few words from him.

“Eight centuries ago, Earth's climate developed a chill. Its effects "rippled through Europe over five hundred momentous years of history. Those events did more than help shape the modern world. They are the easily ignored, but deeply important, context for the unprecedented global warming today. They offer precedent as we look into the climatic future."

(note his use of the phrase, unprecedented global warming)

So argues University of California archaeology professor Brian Fagan in The Little Ice Age, a persuasive account that ought to alert scientists, historians, and policy makers to take a fresh look at the causes and implications of a global climate that appears to be changing faster than ever before in human history.

Yet current U.S. energy and environmental policies seem to be guided by the kind of optimism that "fades in the face of demographic reality.... It’s implausible to suggest that famines and massive dislocations of poorer populations will be unaccompanied by civil unrest and disobedience...," the professor warns. "The French Revolution or the Irish potato famine pale into insignificance." The most important lessons for the era of Global Warming may be found in the chill of the middle of the last millennium, if only we know how to read them“.

[oldsnowywizard]

as much as i would love to read about Vikings etc i would rather read Arctic ice condition updates and forecasts on this thread.. may i suggest an Arctic History thread as this is clearly of interest to some.. but not all

good news about the big gains.. and perfect placement of cold over the ice right where it is needed.. mean temps according to the COI Danish site are pretty much down near average.. compare that to the last couple of years and there is a nice small improvement here overall..

Alaska NWS says the following..

ICE IS RETURNING TO NORTON SOUND. 1 TO 5 TENTHS NEW ICE LIES ALONG

MUCH OF THE COAST FROM PORT CLARENCE HAZEN BAY.

FORECAST THROUGH SATURDAY...NORTH OF THE BERING STRAIT...NORTHEAST TO

NORTH WINDS WILL CONTINUE OVER THE MARGINAL ICE ZONE. ICE WILL

CONTINUE TO DEVELOP RAPIDLY AND SPREAD ACROSS THE CHUKCHI SEA.

SOUTH OF THE BERING STRAIT...LIGHTER WINDS AND COLD TEMPERATURES WILL

INCREASE ICE ALONG THE ALASKA WEST COAST. ICE WILL DEVELOP ALONG THE

COAST AS FAR SOUTH AS NORTHERN BRISTOL BAY. ICE WILL DEVELOP ALONG

THE NORTH COAST OF SAINT LAWRENCE ISLAND.

all good

[stewfox]

as much as i would love to read about Vikings etc i would rather read Arctic ice condition updates and forecasts on this thread.. may i suggest an Arctic History thread as this is clearly of interest to some.. but not all

Understanding the history of the artic may give us a better understanding of its future.

Of course its fun to post daily updates but I feel they both have a place.

[Yorkshiresnows]

<br />I've read it YS, as well as his book the Long Hot Summer, both are very good books, however when you delve that far back into history it becomes hard to find conclusive evidence, this is especially true of the Vikings in Greenland, consequently any historian or archaeologist has to resort to a fair amount of theorising to reach conclusions. I read a lot of history, its been a passion of mine since I was a boy, fact is you can read two books about the same subject matter by different authors, and come up with two different interpretations. While there are a fair amount of documents recording weather events from the period that we are talking about, they are all rather subjective. Phrases like, the coldest winter in living memory do not really tell you much, for a whole host of reasons. Also just because two events coincide does not necessarily mean they are linked. I have also read a fair number of books about the history of climate change and pinning exactly the point at which the MWP finished and the little ice age began is another exercise in pin the tail on the donkey, A rough estimate seems to be the end of the MWP about 1315 the start of the little ice age proper about 200 years later, Brian Fagan of course see 1315 as the point at which climate changed towards cooler conditions. Another thing to note about the MWP was the fact that it was not a period of continuous warmth, it had colder interludes, given the precarious position of the Vikings in Greenland it is surprising that one of those colder periods did drive them off earlier, one can only surmise that the move towards colder conditions after 1315 was not the only factor in their demise.<br /><br />Curiously Professor Fagan is not a AGW sceptic, proving yet again that it is possible to believe in natural cycles but still recognise that what we have seen is outside that.<br /><br />I will leave this with a few words from him.<br /><br />“Eight centuries ago, Earth's climate developed a chill. Its effects "rippled through Europe over five hundred momentous years of history. Those events did more than help shape the modern world. They are the easily ignored, but deeply important, context for the unprecedented global warming today. They offer precedent as we look into the climatic future." <br /><br />(note his use of the phrase, unprecedented global warming)<br /><br />So argues University of California archaeology professor Brian Fagan in The Little Ice Age, a persuasive account that ought to alert scientists, historians, and policy makers to take a fresh look at the causes and implications of a global climate that appears to be changing faster than ever before in human history.<br /><br /><br />Yet current U.S. energy and environmental policies seem to be guided by the kind of optimism that "fades in the face of demographic reality.... It’s implausible to suggest that famines and massive dislocations of poorer populations will be unaccompanied by civil unrest and disobedience...," the professor warns. "The French Revolution or the Irish potato famine pale into insignificance." The most important lessons for the era of Global Warming may be found in the chill of the middle of the last millennium, if only we know how to read them“.<br />

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

Hi WE

The point was ..... it got a whole lot colder. I agree with almost all of your post.

Second, you may or may not argue that if the global climate is ever in flux, then the role of natural cycles will be important (I am not a global warming denier by the way, ...just how much is attributable to greenhouse gas emissions rather than other cycles I very much question).

Hence, taking it one step further and if one can entertain that the above has a part to play, then I would argue that what we are seeing in the arctic, may well be in large part due to entirely natural cyclical changes. The past 30 years may or may not be entirely down to AGW or ..... perhaps other events e.g. such as a +PDO (which changed states in 1979 and then again in 2007). But, time will of course tell.

Gray Wolf likes to argue that what we are seeing is unprecedented and often likes to dismiss earlier times where warmer climes occurred e.g. the Greenland and Iceland colnisations by the Vikings, coinciding with the known medieval warm period, going back further to the Roman warm period ..... or even evidence to suggest unusual warm conditions in the arctic during the 1920's and 1930's. Highly likley (but cannot br proven with certainty I agree), that arctic ice would have been in a low ebb over these periods.

That was the point of the original post.

Y.S

[weather eater]

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

Hi WE

The point was ..... it got a whole lot colder. I agree with almost all of your post.

Second, you may or may not argue that if the global climate is ever in flux, then the role of natural cycles will be important (I am not a global warming denier by the way, ...just how much is attributable to greenhouse gas emissions rather than other cycles I very much question).

Hence, taking it one step further and if one can entertain that the above has a part to play, then I would argue that what we are seeing in the arctic, may well be in large part due to entirely natural cyclical changes. The past 30 years may or may not be entirely down to AGW or ..... perhaps other events e.g. such as a +PDO (which changed states in 1979 and then again in 2007). But, time will of course tell.

Gray Wolf likes to argue that what we are seeing is unprecedented and often likes to dismiss earlier times where warmer climes occurred e.g. the Greenland and Iceland colnisations by the Vikings, coinciding with the known medieval warm period, going back further to the Roman warm period ..... or even evidence to suggest unusual warm conditions in the arctic during the 1920's and 1930's. Highly likley (but cannot br proven with certainty I agree), that arctic ice would have been in a low ebb over these periods.

That was the point of the original post.

Y.S

Hi YS, I would say this, I also think both factors are in play, however if past natural cycles are anything to go by, then we are still, and will be for a considerable time yet, in a warming cycle. Looking back these warming and cooling phases they appear to last, 4, 5 hundred years at a time. As Mr Fagan points out these period are not uniform, they contain, colder or warmer interludes. It maybe that all we are about to move into one of those cooler spells within a natural warming cycle. One has to go back to Mr Fagan who quite clearly states that this warming is not the same as previous warm cycles. Where I would disagree with GW is on the subject of tipping points, not because I doubt they exist but because I doubt they are that finely balanced. Even if the warming of the MWP is not the same as we are seeing today, Artic ice must still have been very much reduced and not for the first time, yet did not reach a tipping point. Again looking at the transition period from the MWP to LIA, the former ended 1315 the little ice age proper did not start until the mid 1500s, that rather suggests to me that artic ice recovery may not have been very rapid. It of course also means that if we are indeed about to enter a major cooling period, then we should not be looking for an overnight miracle in ice recovery now, it patently takes time.

[stewfox]

In about about 2 days we get our first proper cold spell over Hudson bay which should help lower the SSTs there before we get a more prolonged cold spell in about 6 days. Going by this (and including the very high SSTAs there atm) I'd expect to see the first of the Hudson ice to start showing up in around 8-10 days time if the forecast holds true at least...

162,656 increase today with the 2^nd fly over could we see our first 200,000 increase in one day ??

With some further large increases to come.

Edited November 3, 2010 by stewfox

[jethro]

I've opened a new thread to discuss past climate history, please can the Viking discussions be carried over to there.

Thanks a lot.

[weather eater]

I've opened a new thread to discuss past climate history, please can the Viking discussions be carried over to there.

Thanks a lot.

Is that really necessary J, we were discussing it in the context of Artic ice, indeed in my last post I made sure I did not mention the Vikings, besides the whole thing has just about run its course. Also how can we discuss the current Artic ice situation if we cannot do so within an historical context.

[jethro]

Is that really necessary J, we were discussing it in the context of Artic ice, indeed in my last post I made sure I did not mention the Vikings, besides the whole thing has just about run its course. Also how can we discuss the current Artic ice situation if we cannot do so within an historical context.

One doesn't preclude the other, of course historical context is important here but there are, and have been people wanting to discuss in greater depth climates from fairly recent history - I placed a post here to bring the other thread to their attention.

The history of changing climate is important in order to discern the deviation from normal we are currently experiencing; the MWP and LIA are relevant to current climate change, isn't it better to have a dedicated space for that to happen rather than it be lost in other threads?

[weather eater]

One doesn't preclude the other, of course historical context is important here but there are, and have been people wanting to discuss in greater depth climates from fairly recent history - I placed a post here to bring the other thread to their attention.

The history of changing climate is important in order to discern the deviation from normal we are currently experiencing; the MWP and LIA are relevant to current climate change, isn't it better to have a dedicated space for that to happen rather than it be lost in other threads?

Well you're in charge J, I Just thought as its not that busy in here then posts are unlikely to get lost. However I guess there is no harm in a separate thread, trouble is of course is that Artic ice loss, Antarctic ice loss, AGW, climate history are all so closely linked that we are going to get cross over’s anyway.

[jethro]

Well you're in charge J, I Just thought as its not that busy in here then posts are unlikely to get lost. However I guess there is no harm in a separate thread, trouble is of course is that Artic ice loss, Antarctic ice loss, AGW, climate history are all so closely linked that we are going to get cross over’s anyway.

LoL. No I'm not. A Mods job is to try and ensure the code of conduct is adhered to; we're just politeness monitors who sometimes find ourselves in the unfortunates position of being a referee.

All of climate is inter-related so there's bound to be some cross-over but it's nice to have the space to discuss a particular aspect at length and the convenience of not having to look through an entire thread to find the posts you're interested in.

[stewfox]

Is that really necessary J, we were discussing it in the context of Artic ice, indeed in my last post I made sure I did not mention the Vikings, besides the whole thing has just about run its course. Also how can we discuss the current Artic ice situation if we cannot do so within an historical context.

Yes the Vikings came up before in relation to Artic ice

Also some research being done on historic 'mud samples' re some of the Northern Channels which might suggest when or if they were open in the last 1000 +yrs

Such research may confirm wether the North West Passage has been closed for last 1,000 yrs+ as some would suggest

[BornFromTheVoid]

An increase of about 96,500km2 today, which looks a little above average. Even with the best period of growth this Autumn, we're still just 22,000km2 from being lowest on record!

Anyway, conditions look relatively good for the next few days and we should have plenty of growth around the Chukchi sea and along the western section of the Russian northern coastline.

Upper air conditions look like the best for ice growth since 2004 with the coldest air bottled up across the Arctic ocean http://www.wetterzentrale.de/topkarten/fsavnnh.html

Temperature north of 80N look like dipping below average for the first time in over 2 months.

All in all conditions remaining very good and I'd expect to see a continuation of the high growth figures over the coming days.