Arctic Ice Discussion - 2010 Freeze Up

[noggin]

We have also been having exceptionally cold Winters in Northern Europe and Asia over the past couple of years. To my admittedly simple eyes, it just seems as if the cold which is "contained" by the jet stream has been "shifted" by the changing course of that circulation. As I said some days ago....the cold is now "here" instead of "there".

Makes sense to me, even if it doesn't to anyone else!

Wolfie......may I ask a question of you? Do you monitor conditions in areas of the Earth other than the Arctic and Antarctic?

[knocker]

We have also been having exceptionally cold Winters in Northern Europe and Asia over the past couple of years. To my admittedly simple eyes, it just seems as if the cold which is "contained" by the jet stream has been "shifted" by the changing course of that circulation. As I said some days ago....the cold is now "here" instead of "there".

Makes sense to me, even if it doesn't to anyone else!

Wolfie......may I ask a question of you? Do you monitor conditions in areas of the Earth other than the Arctic and Antarctic?

I posted this in another thread recently and I can't actually remember whether it's been posted here before. I have a feeling it has so probably another senior moment.

A link between reduced Barents-Kara sea ice and cold winter extremes over northern continents.

The recent overall Northern Hemisphere warming was accompanied by several severe northern continental winters, as for example, extremely cold winter 2005–2006 in Europe and northern Asia. Here we show that anomalous decrease of wintertime sea ice concentration in the Barents-Kara (B-K) seas could bring about extreme cold events like winter 2005–2006. Our simulations with the ECHAM5 general circulation model demonstrate that lower-troposphere heating over the B-K seas in the Eastern Arctic caused by the sea ice reduction may result in strong anticyclonic anomaly over the Polar Ocean and anomalous easterly advection over northern continents. This causes a continental-scale winter cooling reaching −1.5°C, with more than 3 times increased probability of cold winter extremes over large areas including Europe. Our results imply that several recent severe winters do not conflict the global warming picture but rather supplement it, being in qualitative agreement with the simulated large-scale atmospheric circulation realignment. Furthermore, our results suggest that high-latitude atmospheric circulation response to the B-K sea ice decrease is highly nonlinear and characterized by transition from anomalous cyclonic circulation to anticyclonic one and then back again to cyclonic type of circulation as the B-K sea ice concentration gradually reduces from 100% to ice free conditions. We present a conceptual model that may explain the nonlinear local atmospheric response in the B-K seas region by counter play between convection over the surface heat source and baroclinic effect due to modified temperature gradients in the vicinity of the heating area.

Adapted story:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101117114028.htm

[Gray-Wolf]

Wolfie......may I ask a question of you? Do you monitor conditions in areas of the Earth other than the Arctic and Antarctic?

Hi Nogg's! All the best for the Season to you!:smiliz19:

I do 'global' but tend to focus on the poles? We are told to expect the most 'extreme' climate shifts there and so , to me ,I'd expect them to be more noticeable there and easier to spot and assign to our climate forcing.

From what I've seen over the past 15yrs I have no doubt that this 'climate shift' is not the gentle oscillations we expect from the climate that gave rise to 'civilisation' but a 'trend' in one direction alone. The losses of Arctic Ice shelfs (since 1900) and the loss of permafrost/permafrost lakes (and the uncovering of stuff buried for many thousands of years) needs explaining (I believe) as it is obviously outside previous climate 'oscillations' (otherwise we'd not be finding the organic stuff as it would have rotted in 'similar' warm phases).

EDIT: where is that red line headed??? I've worried ,on here, in the past that another 06' start point to the melt season would be very dangerous (if you look at total area melted out over the past 3 years and do the math with that low start point). Not only would we have our 'normal' range for melt but the 'extra' dark water/surfaces would tend to amplify things even more. Seasonal pack in 2011???

Edited December 22, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[The PIT]

I dunno PIT. Erratic would suggest plenty of ups and down to me, but so far this winter, we've either been lowest on record or 2 or 3 places away from lowest on record. As it stands now, we're lowest on record by about 400,000km2. We've had cold Winters in the British Isles before with warm air being pumped into the Arctic, but it didn't react like this?

Going by these

the Arctic air temperatures aren't any warmer than last year, yet we're half a million km2 behind

problem is I don't think we actually really started looking at ice extent until 1979. So we really don't have records. Would be nice to have a complete starting from the same time that CET was recorded. If I'm wrong about 79 I'm happily corrected.

GW the line is going back up and there's nothing to say it won't keep going up until April for example.

Edited December 22, 2010 by The PIT

[Michael Hauber]

the Arctic air temperatures aren't any warmer than last year, yet we're half a million km2 behind

Yes but this year the warmest temperatures are over the Hudson and Baffin Bay areas where ice should be rapidly forming at this time of year. In 2009 a lot of the warmth was over the high Arctic where much more warmth would be required to melt any ice at all, and over the Arctic/North Atlantic border area. In this area the temperature gradient between the cold Arctic and the relatively warm waters of the Arctic end of the gulf stream is quite steep, and a lot of warming or cooling is required to move the ice edge very far.

Similar amount of warmth this year as last, just ideally located to produce low ice extent.

[BornFromTheVoid]

problem is I don't think we actually really started looking at ice extent until 1979. So we really don't have records. Would be nice to have a complete starting from the same time that CET was recorded. If I'm wrong about 79 I'm happily corrected.

True, but there are many that question the validity of many of the older CET recordings. I guess it kinda comes done to how long enough a record we need and how big does an anomaly have to be before we consider it unusual? Taking this a step further, would an ice-free Arctic summer not really matter because the record pre 79 data aren't that acurate?

Yes but this year the warmest temperatures are over the Hudson and Baffin Bay areas where ice should be rapidly forming at this time of year. In 2009 a lot of the warmth was over the high Arctic where much more warmth would be required to melt any ice at all, and over the Arctic/North Atlantic border area. In this area the temperature gradient between the cold Arctic and the relatively warm waters of the Arctic end of the gulf stream is quite steep, and a lot of warming or cooling is required to move the ice edge very far.

Similar amount of warmth this year as last, just ideally located to produce low ice extent.

Yep, that's true, and I'd expect us to be back close to last years figure once Hudson finally manages to freeze over. I just think that even if this is synoptically driven, it's still quite remarkable. (Then we have the question of what's driving the synoptics? Solar minimum, -ve PDO, ice cover change?)

Saying that, Barents has been much colder than last year but the anomaly there is struggling to reach average, with little difference to last years extent/area.

[stewfox]

EDIT: where is that red line headed??? I've worried ,on here, in the past that another 06' start point to the melt season would be very dangerous (if you look at total area melted out over the past 3 years and do the math with that low start point). Not only would we have our 'normal' range for melt but the 'extra' dark water/surfaces would tend to amplify things even more. Seasonal pack in 2011???

UP ITS GOING UP

Unless we have a step change, we cant read too much into 2/3 days of mild weather in the Artic

True, but there are many that question the validity of many of the older CET recordings. I guess it kinda comes done to how long enough a record we need and how big does an anomaly have to be before we consider it unusual? Taking this a step further, would an ice-free Arctic summer not really matter because the record pre 79 data aren't that acurate?

No sign at all of a artic ice free summer in the next 50yrs beyond that its FI

[BornFromTheVoid]

No sign at all of a artic ice free summer in the next 50yrs beyond that its FI

It was just a hypothetical question. As for no sign, that's not the way the trend it going!

[Gray-Wolf]

I'd composed a very long post detailing how we end up with and ice free Arctic (very soon) but the machine eat it and I went to bed. Suffice to sat I re-posted the 2 maps from the 30's/40';

and reminded folk of the 'observed 50% reduction in ice thickness since subs data came along in the late 50's.

I noted the extreme losses ,via Fram, in the 74' melt season and the papers around it.

I moved on to the break and fragment of the ' Paleocrystic ice' and it 's new found ability (in it's reduced form) to exit Fram year round since 02' . I noted the year round exit from Nares since 07' (again driven by thin fragment ice where once was office block sized chunks.

Anyhow , it's all lost and my Flu leaves me without energy/inclination to go over it all again.

Suffice to say the Arctic is not the Arctic of the 40's. It's white but the similarities end there.

With the loss of so much older ice, this Oct ,Nov.Dec, via Fram ( as the old 'north pole cam buoy track highlights esp. over the 80n area) we can expect a more 'ice free' 80N during the coming summer. This may mean us falling below 3 million if the start position is more like 06' than 2010.

I've often mooted as to where the min ice figures would have been had we not had such a high start point this past 3 years? Maybe we'll find out this melt season (minus the area melted from the 06' 'max and see where you are, remember the more dark water/surfaces the more melt occurs so you could probably add to that by 0.5 million or so!)

Edited December 23, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Village]

Apart from one man's unproven theory about CO2 leading global temperatures; Does anyone know of any reason why anyone should even consider linking our ever changing weather to Mankind rather than the huge ever changing natural forcings?

I have studied our weather and climate here in the UK for almost four decades. I personally can not find any reason to suspect that our climate and weather is any different than it has ever demonstrated to be over the past 100 years. In terms of extreme weather or in terms of long term averages.

Further, the reduced levels of Arctic Sea ice have been noted a number of times in the past. During these other periods we were without satelite data. Therefore ancient records and references from mariners can only be determined as unconfirmed. This therefore does NOT mean that the reduced levels of sea ice are unprecedented today. It is much more likely that its the first time that we have had the tools with which to study the phenomena on such a huge scale in it's entirety.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Further, the reduced levels of Arctic Sea ice have been noted a number of times in the past. During these other periods we were without satelite data. Therefore ancient records and references from mariners can only be determined as unconfirmed. This therefore does NOT mean that the reduced levels of sea ice are unprecedented today. It is much more likely that its the first time that we have had the tools with which to study the phenomena on such a huge scale in it's entirety.

So essentially we should deal with the info and records that we have that we can say are definitely true. And they all point to a trend of accelerating decline in Arctic ice extent.

[Village]

Well I guess that is what is happening because thats all we know, just a few short decades of satelite data.

But I question that this extremely limited period of data is enough to demonstrate that this level of Arctic Sea ice is unprecedented.

Further, we just dont know enough to make future predictions that the Arctic Sea ice will continue to reduce based on one tiny snippet of data and time. One only needs to look at our own country to be warey of making such claims when one notes that the last decade has been cooler than the last decade of the 1900's when all the predictions from so called 'experts' without exception were for a warmer future here in the UK, now we can see that the opposite has been true.

Edited December 23, 2010 by Village

[Gray-Wolf]

Why do we feel that the likes of Prof Barber and Mark Serezze are not positioned to know about future sea ice levels on what the know about past sea ice levels? Do you live in a world where only 'looking' at sea ice 'extent' as one big picture is enough or do all those ships log's marking sea ice extent (be the fishing vessels working the ice edge or warships or cargo ships), esp. since 1912'2 'mis-hap', show us useful data? Do the multiple .multiyear transits of subs mean nothing (unless you are the one who needs to 'press the button' and so need to know he can surface at a moments notice) or the overflight of commercial aircraft/air force/science aircraft means nothing?

Without wishing to cause um bridge could it be you need to have a little study of 'ice' and it's properties to better understand how we can 'know' past extent/thickness data over the centuries I have found plenty of papers covering just this area?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Well I guess that is what is happening because thats all we know, just a few short decades of satelite data.

But I question that this extremely limited period of data is enough to demonstrate that this level of Arctic Sea ice is unprecedented.

Further, we just dont know enough to make future predictions that the Arctic Sea ice will continue to reduce based on one tiny snippet of data and time. One only needs to look at our own country to be warey of making such claims when one notes that the last decade has been cooler than the last decade of the 1900's when all the predictions from so called 'experts' without exception were for a warmer future here in the UK, now we can see that the opposite has been true.

But if we're going to discount any infro pre 1979, then we need to discount all presumptions and just base our prediction on the info we have.

Saying what "might" have happened in the past to show how modern occurrences are not unprecedented is kinda unacceptable if we're discounting any info from then.

Has the UK been colder in the last decade than the decade before? Not that a small area like that counts anyway, but the CET certainly hasn't been colder.

Hard to believe I'm something of a global warming skeptic eh!?

[Village]

I still feel that the process of documenting individual observations in quite different circumstances, locations and times early on in data sets and the fact that we now rely more on satelite data, therefore the method of colating data has changed, one should be warey. The same is true with weather data which in recent years has completely changed to be almost totally automated.

But more than this is that I feel that the story of ice is seriously longer term than simply decades. This process of ice reduction may well occur over and over again. We do know that there have been other periods of reduced ice, however the detail just isnt there to compare. Lets not forget that one hundred years ago most of the extreme warmest winter temperature records were set here in the UK. Most of these have never been surpassed and it was also about one hundred years ago that the Northwest Passage was navigated and has been closed due to too much ice ever since.

But if one listens too much to the global warming story one would be forgiven for believing that it is warmer now and getting warmer all the time.

[barrel1234]

GW, I know that I keep banging on about this but why can't you give us some kind of prediction with figures and timescale so then at least we can see if you might be in the right ball park or not.

[BornFromTheVoid]

I still feel that the process of documenting individual observations in quite different circumstances, locations and times early on in data sets and the fact that we now rely more on satelite data, therefore the method of colating data has changed, one should be warey. The same is true with weather data which in recent years has completely changed to be almost totally automated.

But more than this is that I feel that the story of ice is seriously longer term than simply decades. This process of ice reduction may well occur over and over again. We do know that there have been other periods of reduced ice, however the detail just isnt there to compare. Lets not forget that one hundred years ago most of the extreme warmest winter temperature records were set here in the UK. Most of these have never been surpassed and it was also about one hundred years ago that the Northwest Passage was navigated and has been closed due to too much ice ever since.

But if one listens too much to the global warming story one would be forgiven for believing that it is warmer now and getting warmer all the time.

You'll need to give me a few links for that second paragraph. The northwest and northern passage were both crossed this year, never done before (that we know of).

Here's a link to the ranked monthly and yearly CET values, I think you'll find a slight bias towards milder years over the last 20 years, especially on the yearly CETs! http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/mly_cet_mean_sort.txt

[Gray-Wolf]

GW, I know that I keep banging on about this but why can't you give us some kind of prediction with figures and timescale so then at least we can see if you might be in the right ball park or not.

Ball park figures?

OK,

'Seasonal pack' will be with us on ,or before, 2016. Earlier than this would largely depend upon very 'favourable' synoptics pushing the early melt process along. later (15' or 16') would be just on the 'normal' melt of the summer season.

We will have both 'passages' clear again this year but the NW Passage will start to ship more and more of the 'basin ice' through the channels linking the Arctic ocean with Viscount Melville sound..... over time this will lead to another 'Nares' with warm Pacific waters keeping ice flow out of the basin all year round. this will limit further and chance of 'pressure ridging/over-riding' of the ice in the areas that used to growth the giant ice of yesteryear leaving only the North of Greenland able to provide this.

For some reason I think we will go sub million next year?. I don't think we will repeat the 'ice factory' this spring so melt will begin on time and a good million below last years total (not hard to do with such a high start point last year!).

If we just take a million off last melts figure you'd be in the same ball park!. The loss of the ice that summered over 80N (this past month through Fram) has left very thin ice across the central belt of the Basin. this will lead to much greater 'dynamism' in the Basin and allow for early break-up and drift out towards Fram. With the central section clear both East Siberian and Beaufort will relax out into the space allowing greater fragmentation of both those areas and in-situ melt through May/June( the more 'fragmented' the more surface area in contact with air and ocean.....think freezer cleaning , you always smash the ice small to speed it's melt don't you?).

If only to shut up the doubters I'd welcome a 'seasonal pack' this coming melt season (seeing as it's coming anyway) but that would require 'perfect storm' conditions (IMHO) from June through August.

Enough to go on?

Edit: The 'lazy' Jet may well have shifted a few degrees east by spring also putting us both on the WAA side of things...rest of winter 'slush and muck' and also a 'hot summer' with West/central Europe copping for the floods and us copping for the sun!!!.......I can hope!:smiliz19:

Edited December 23, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[barrel1234]

Yes, thank you GW,

I completely hold my hands up that I am not experienced enough to predict regional ice expansion/ contraction although I do think that the globe should start cooling very soon and it should have an impact on the minimum in 2011 to be similar or slightly above this years minimum. As for The Maximum in 2011 I really dont know what to expect although my hunch would be a sharp jump at some point soon, so I would be very surprised if we ended up lowest overall.

I realise that I am not the most experienced ice watcher around, so anyone else with more experience than me care to make any predictions?

We don't all have to agree with each other that's what makes other people interesting.

Edited December 23, 2010 by barrel1234

[songster]

I don't know about a fully seasonal pack, but I am quite prepared to see the 2007 record broken substantially either in 2011 or 2012. More generally, I expect Maslowski's forecast of an 80% drop in September ice volume by 2016 +/- 3 years to be accurate. How that volume is distributed, I wouldn't presume to guess in detail - his prediction has a rump of thick ice remaining above Greenland, but I guess it could end up as a wider, thinner, slushier pack spread out over a wider area of the Basin.

The PIOMAS volume model outputs seem to be right on the money for Maslowski's prediction to come true. Broadly speaking it comes down to energy balance. There is sufficient extra energy going into the Arctic to melt X km^3 extra ice each year. Quibbling about the nitty gritty of weather patterns, oceanic currents, cloud cover and whatnot ultimately misses the point. The region's energy budget (along with the whole planet's energy budget) is out of balance and there is extra energy going into the system. The predominant energy sink is melting more ice, therefore more ice will melt.

[Village]

You'll need to give me a few links for that second paragraph. The northwest and northern passage were both crossed this year, never done before (that we know of).

Here's a link to the ranked monthly and yearly CET values, I think you'll find a slight bias towards milder years over the last 20 years, especially on the yearly CETs! http://hadobs.metoff...t_mean_sort.txt

I dont buy in to this new age anthropogenic catastrophic story.

Here is the link that you asked for, you will note that it was 100 years ago more or less as I stated when the ice was last at low levels to allow passage of a vessel, so its nothing new. It has been noted before.

http://en.wikipedia..../Roald_Amundsen

"In 1903, Amundsen led the first expedition to successfully traverse Canada's Northwest Passage between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans"

In terms of the CET table, If you pull out the CET's for 1989 thru 1999 and then 2000 thru 2010 and compare you should clearly see how much it has cooled this decade by comparison. Its no longer warming, that stopped many years ago. The predictions of an ever warming UK climate that were promoted widely at the end of the last century have been embarrasingly wrong.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Village

[noggin]

Hi Nogg's! All the best for the Season to you!:smiliz19:

I do 'global' but tend to focus on the poles? We are told to expect the most 'extreme' climate shifts there and so , to me ,I'd expect them to be more noticeable there and easier to spot and assign to our climate forcing.

Hi Wolfie. Thanks for that insight. I just wanted to know where you were comig from, so to speak!

A very Merry Christmas to you and yours as well! :smiliz19:

[noggin]

I posted this in another thread recently and I can't actually remember whether it's been posted here before. I have a feeling it has so probably another senior moment.

A link between reduced Barents-Kara sea ice and cold winter extremes over northern continents.

The recent overall Northern Hemisphere warming was accompanied by several severe northern continental winters, as for example, extremely cold winter 2005–2006 in Europe and northern Asia. Here we show that anomalous decrease of wintertime sea ice concentration in the Barents-Kara (B-K) seas could bring about extreme cold events like winter 2005–2006. Our simulations with the ECHAM5 general circulation model demonstrate that lower-troposphere heating over the B-K seas in the Eastern Arctic caused by the sea ice reduction may result in strong anticyclonic anomaly over the Polar Ocean and anomalous easterly advection over northern continents. This causes a continental-scale winter cooling reaching −1.5°C, with more than 3 times increased probability of cold winter extremes over large areas including Europe. Our results imply that several recent severe winters do not conflict the global warming picture but rather supplement it, being in qualitative agreement with the simulated large-scale atmospheric circulation realignment. Furthermore, our results suggest that high-latitude atmospheric circulation response to the B-K sea ice decrease is highly nonlinear and characterized by transition from anomalous cyclonic circulation to anticyclonic one and then back again to cyclonic type of circulation as the B-K sea ice concentration gradually reduces from 100% to ice free conditions. We present a conceptual model that may explain the nonlinear local atmospheric response in the B-K seas region by counter play between convection over the surface heat source and baroclinic effect due to modified temperature gradients in the vicinity of the heating area.

Adapted story:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101117114028.htm

Thanks for that, weather ship. Reading that summary, it comes across as people trying desperately to be able to link these extremely cold Winters with global warming and, in my eyes, failing miserably! It just reads like nonsense to me!

I don't know why they persist, I really don't. Unless they are trying to justify their jobs. I could go on and on, but I've just got in from work and it's Christmas Eve, so I really can't be bothered!

Merry Christmas to you and yours! :smiliz19:

[Village]

These people are desperate to link every extreme weather event to Anthropogenic Global Warming theory because they need to fill the vacuum where real data and conclusive proof should be.

Every time the data demonstrates that there is a problem with their predictions and theory then they change the theory to fit the data. This completely contravenes normal scientific procedure where the real data should support the theory.

This is why the name "Global Warming" was replaced with "Climate Change". You see, they couldnt even support the theory name with the data, so they changed that too!

[Gray-Wolf]

On the energy budget side of things , where do folk who do not see this 'imbalance' of energy (compared to the 'old Arctic' ) think that extra wallop of energy goes over summer?

We can't have the highest energy input on the planet shifted from one that 'lost' 90% of that energy input to one that holds onto 80% of that energy input and not expect that energy to be impacting the areas around it?

So where does this energy go?