Arctic Ice Discussion - 2010 Freeze Up

[stewfox]

Unfortunately, current tipping point or no, if the globe warms by 3C or more there's a good chance that it will trigger substantial melting of the Greenland ice sheet in view of the likely amplified warming at high latitudes, and most seem agreed that this puts us at high risk of triggering an irreversible melt of the ice.

It was interesting how 'tipping points' are described for physics, sociology and climatology.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Tipping_point

With climatology 'tipping points' I can see could be 'debated' until the Earth was covered in ice or was a baked desert.

http://en.wikipedia....nt_(climatology)

If you cross an 'Event horizon' you might not know it but there is no way back.

Not as straight froward I fear for climate study.

Some people argued pre 2008 we had passed a 'tipping point' for uk winters

Too early for the Artic me thinks but if in the 20yrs we get to close to a ice free summer artic maybe we already have but don't know it.

Obviously you can argue we might hit an ice age the sun might go dark so I don't think it will ever be black or white but does thats stop the term being used, interesting.

Edited October 23, 2010 by stewfox

[Gray-Wolf]

But therein lies the problem- the slight increase in both extent and volume between 2007 and 2008 suggests that it hasn't yet reached the "irreversible" stage, though it has certainly taken steps in that direction.

Apart from those two years being 'average summers' across the Arctic (and not an 07' 'perfect storm') there is the issue of Prof Barbers observed 'collapse and spread' phenomena. I have to ask myself 'how much of that 'extent' was merely the rubble of collapse and spread?'

If it accounted for the amount above 07's min then how can we see this as a 'recovery'?

Now that we know that we are at the end of this period of 'collapse and spread' (no old perennial left) then we enter a period where it is easier to understand (and not misconstrue) the evidence before us.

Again we had a couple of months of summer perfect for ice retention yet we find ourselves 3rd lowest in the series? When we look at the 'high' start point we had in April we can see that we melted out an awful lot of ice over another 'average' summer.

If we start next melt season from a lower point then will it mean challenging 07's low even without a 'perfect storm ' aiding and abetting?

Edited October 23, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Thundery wintry showers]

Again we had a couple of months of summer perfect for ice retention yet we find ourselves 3rd lowest in the series? When we look at the 'high' start point we had in April we can see that we melted out an awful lot of ice over another 'average' summer.

A biased recollection- yes, conditions were favourable for ice retention during July and August, but didn't we have distinctly 2007-esque conditions for long periods during May and June, with high pressure sat over the pole, wind directions encouraging outflow of old ice and record melt rates as a result?

I don't disagree that ice retention at present appears to require a more favourable set of atmospheric "circumstances" than was the case a decade ago, with "average" meaning a small melt, "above average" meaning a large melt and "below average" only resulting in a very small recovery. The question is whether this is part of a runaway feedback loop or something less absolute.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi TWS!

I personally see it as a 'settling down ' period where we re-adjust to the new conditions that the loss of the perennial brought to the Arctic.

08' and 09' were still plagued with the final collapse of the last of the big perennial floes (as witnessed in Sept 09' by prof Barber) so the Aug/Sept 'extent figures' of those years were augmented by the creation of the 'rotten ice' we heard so much about. With the loss of that 'lobe' of perennial that moved out into the Beaufort sea in May we are left with a thin ribbon of perennial on the Northern Shore of Greenland (currently moving towards Fram) and no more.

The 2010 melt season may be the first year we see how the basin acts without perennial ice (and the 'extent' figures reflect this) so we may have a summer min between 3 and 4 million from now on if we have 'average summers'. Come a 'prefect storm' summer and you can carry May/June 2010 through into July/Aug/Sept. How will this pan out? I fear it will leave us with less than the million sq km needed to be a 'seasonal ice pack' (like Antarctica?)

The problem is not one of summer melt alone but winter thickness gains and continued ice transport out of the basin over the winter months;

http://www.woksat.info/etcsj21/sj21-1221-g-grn-n.html

http://www.woksat.info/etcsj22/sj22-1211-h-grn-n.html

http://www.woksat.info/etcsj23/sj23-1200-g-grn-n.html

as the past 3 days influx into Nares shows us.

Hopefully we will have Cryosat2's data soon so we can look at where we have thickness growth over the winter months, and how this alters as the ice drifts over differing parts of the basin or how encountering heavy snowfall impacts the pack.

[Thundery wintry showers]

The 2010 melt season may be the first year we see how the basin acts without perennial ice (and the 'extent' figures reflect this) so we may have a summer min between 3 and 4 million from now on if we have 'average summers'. Come a 'prefect storm' summer and you can carry May/June 2010 through into July/Aug/Sept. How will this pan out? I fear it will leave us with less than the million sq km needed to be a 'seasonal ice pack' (like Antarctica?)

I noticed the rapid melting of the ice pack in the "Asian sector" this summer, with a strong implication that a "perfect storm" summer in 2011 would present a serious risk of the whole lot being blasted away- I don't think it would quite leave us with less than 1 million sq km, as we'd still have the stronger ice towards Greenland, but a minimum near 2 million would be feasible, representing a massive enough drop from 2007.

It seems we're perhaps moving into greater agreement on the "crux" of the matter. The real question is, will the move towards a reliance on "young" ice, as opposed to ice that has lasted many thousands of years, result in a runaway feedback or just a readjustment to a new equilibrium level? (I think it's fair to say that for the ice to return back close to the 1979-2000 average we'd need a drop in global temperature).

In the end, I don't think we disagree on the likely outcome, because although I don't feel we've passed a tipping point I think if we get a rise in global temperatures to anything like the extent projected by the IPCC, that alone, plus the inevitable amplification effect at high latitudes, will be enough to (eventually) melt most of the ice anyway, with the sea ice going relatively quickly and Greenland taking a lot longer.

[ZONE 51]

How does this freshwater going into the ocean affect the oceans?

are they rising?

[jethro]

Ice levels in the news again:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101021/ap_on_sc/us_sci_arctic_warming

In response....

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Winter2010playthattuneonemoretime.pdf

[4wd]

• Winter snow accumulation on land in the Arctic was the lowest since records began in 1966.

Isn't someone here always saying increased snowfall is pressing ice into the water?

[Gray-Wolf]

Isn't someone here always saying increased snowfall is pressing ice into the water?

"winter snow accumulation on land in the Arctic was the lowest since records began in 1966"

EDIT: Sunday musing so I'll share.....

Catlin basecamp and a weather outpost 100km to it's east had rain on the pack this spring.

How much rain is now impacting the pack and going un-noticed? The folk at the base camp understood just what a heavy shower could do to the ice they were camped upon, I wonder if the Siberian side of the Basin is also seeing rain showers increasing in spring/summer (rapidly melting the ice) as opposed to snow/Graupel?

EDIT;EDIT;

http://arctic.atmos.....region.11.html

looks like the ice I highlighted heading coastwards has now secumbed to the warmer waters there. In fact there appears to be a general fall away for the averages across all the sea ice areas?

EDIT;EDIT;EDIT;

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/DriftTrackMap.html

looks like the 'north pole web cam' will have done the 'pole to fram' journey in less than 8 months?

Edited October 24, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Thundery wintry showers]

Ice levels in the news again:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101021/ap_on_sc/us_sci_arctic_warming

In response....

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Winter2010playthattuneonemoretime.pdf

I don't find the response particularly convincing- it just goes on about how "climate has always changed in the past, and always will", it says very little about what's happening right now. The planet should be able to cope with being in a warmer state, but can we?

[Gray-Wolf]

Glad you said that TWS.......I'd have been shot LOL

I just hope that the NOAA's "Report Card" carries enough weight to let the wider public become more aware of the state of affairs there. Sadly I've not come across any of our national papers carrying the story?

There was a number of them that ran with the 'cold winter coming' story in Sept/Early Oct yet none have touched the paper that carries the mechanism for why we can look forward to a future peppered with Arctic Outbreaks and the chaos they bring with then?

They are keen to run with predictions from folk who use 'novel methods' to forecast but not the Scientific evidence for why we might expect 'more of the same' as the Arctic Amplification becomes more firmly established?

Funny eh?

[January Snowstorm]

GW, do you think that a warmer Artic could lead to colder spells like last Winter for us?

[Scottish-Irish Skier]

How does this freshwater going into the ocean affect the oceans?

are they rising?

Not from the melting of sea ice - you could lose the whole lot and sea level would not change measureably. Floating ice is less dense than water and just displaces the same amount of seawater that it holds. Thus when it melts, sea levels are unchanged.

Melting of land ice such as glaciers/sheets will of course raise sea level, but not consistently as the oceans are not 'flat' (their surface is not the same distance from centre/average surface of the Earth), they are full of hills and valleys.

Think that is what you were asking?

[Gray-Wolf]

[quote name='January Snowstorm'

GW, do you think that a warmer Arctic could lead to colder spells like last Winter for us? quote]

=================================================================================

I think that we can that we can expect more cold plunges but wouldn't expect the the kind of Atlantic blocking we had last winter to become a norm?

Maybe we are set for a pretty blocked start to winter though ?

If we listen to netweathertv 's forecast we'd expect a pretty blocked winter this year to?

Blocked with Arctic outbreaks ........G-W's winter forecast!

EDIT: As for Sea Levels, we wouldn't want too many 'Peterman Calvings/Ward Hunt collapses' or further increases of our measure of mass loss from Greenland/Antarctica!

I think some folk don't think this will be an issue but they don't factor in the 'floating off' of ice shelfs/glacier tounges (and the unleashing of the ice sheets behind to rapid mass loss) that a rapid couple of cm's rise would trigger.

Seeing as we know these things happen real fast we need to figure why/how this occurs (as we move towards the point that will trigger such events) so we can be ready to take action if we see such rapid degradation in the Greenland/ Antarctic coasts?.

Edited October 24, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Scottish-Irish Skier]

I wonder how this might fit in with arctic ice fluctuations:

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/the-moon-is-linked-to-long-term-atlantic-changes/

Only just came across it and not saying I'm supporting it, but interesting all the same.

Without doubt the moon has the ability to shift the oceans around in a serious manner - causes sea level rise an fall on the scale of metres per day....

Can't be ignored in that sense..?

[Skyhi]

Just found this snippet reported in the New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/10/22/22climatewire-the-arctic-shifts-to-a-new-climate-pattern-i-86771.html,.

[Skiwi]

Ice levels in the news again:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101021/ap_on_sc/us_sci_arctic_warming

In response....

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Winter2010playthattuneonemoretime.pdf

The response article borders on laughable. The graphs published of global temps in 1917, 1936 and 1938 comnpared to 2010 only goes to show how warm the world is today. Similar synoptics yet look at the temperature difference. Looking at his graphs only reinforces the poor state of the arctic today.

On a brighter note, conditions for ice growth are looking much more favourable over the next week especailly on the asian side of the arctic which shold stop us from falling below 2009's levels. However, growth on the North American side of the arctic looks to be very slow with well above average temps continuing for the forseeable future.

Edited October 25, 2010 by Skiwi

[Gray-Wolf]

The response article borders on laughable. The graphs published of global temps in 1917, 1936 and 1938 comnpared to 2010 only goes to show how warm the world is today. Similar synoptics yet look at the temperature difference. Looking at his graphs only reinforces the poor state of the arctic today.

On a brighter note, conditions for ice growth are looking much more favourable over the next week especailly on the asian side of the arctic which shold stop us from falling below 2009's levels. However, growth on the North American side of the arctic looks to be very slow with well above average temps continuing for the forseeable future.

Evening Skiwi!

I did wonder (and mention my wondering) about the second article, I can only think that J' skimmed instead of reading it?

I'm not convinced that we'll see a resumption in the 100k+ ice gain days any time soon, we have to deal with the ocean and not just the air temps (forecast). I'm not sure if GFS factors in the A.A. signal when it runs it's forecasts?

Todays figure (prior to adjustment) isn't looking good again

( http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm )

but I'm sure we have to wait for the adjustment as 'losses' are not that common at the end of Oct?

[Skiwi]

Evening Skiwi!

I did wonder (and mention my wondering) about the second article, I can only think that J' skimmed instead of reading it?

I'm not convinced that we'll see a resumption in the 100k+ ice gain days any time soon, we have to deal with the ocean and not just the air temps (forecast). I'm not sure if GFS factors in the A.A. signal when it runs it's forecasts?

Todays figure (prior to adjustment) isn't looking good again

( http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm )

but I'm sure we have to wait for the adjustment as 'losses' are not that common at the end of Oct?

Hi GW, good morning!

Yes i certainly wasn't having a go at Jethro. Just stunned a meterologist would argue against large problems in the arctic by posting those graphs!!!!

I agree the sea surface temps are not good. The 850 temps have been poor across the majority of the arctic for an extended period now with well above average surface temps aswell. I'm just hoping the cooler air temps will help lead to some larger gains in the next week keeping us above 09. La Nina certianly doesn't seem to be helping with a fast refreeze this autumn

[jethro]

Morning peeps, GW, you're right, I didn't read, in fact to say I skimmed would be generous. I find the daily dissection of ice growth or lack of, a bit dull at times - not saying it's not important, it just doesn't particularly engage me. I posted those two links to spark a bit of alternative discussion without taking the thread off topic.

Here's another for you, again my reading of it has been limited to the title.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ARCTIC.pdf

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi GW, good morning!

Yes i certainly wasn't having a go at Jethro. Just stunned a meteorologist would argue against large problems in the arctic by posting those graphs!!!!

I agree the sea surface temps are not good. The 850 temps have been poor across the majority of the arctic for an extended period now with well above average surface temps as well. I'm just hoping the cooler air temps will help lead to some larger gains in the next week keeping us above 09. La Nina certainly doesn't seem to be helping with a fast refreeze this autumn

No , I'm not poking J' just surprised at how weak the 'balance' paper was?

I think we need to look at cold building over land and then spilling over the ocean to freeze it? With a lot of cold H.P.'s building in all the right places I can see another chilly northern winter and this should push ice figures up (frozen Baltic/Great lakes etc.). If we are shedding the summers heat into the atmosphere across the arctic we may even see things running backward with warm air (relatively) from the poles replacing cold terrestrial temps?

Sadly such 'swaps' of air also push the ice about and we are shedding a lot of our 'good ice' through Fram at the moment (with lots more ready to follow suit?)

If all we see are ocean and air circulations conspiring to push the old ice up against Greenland and then have it exported ,via Fram, into the north Atlantic then we are not in a good place. The noughties saw the balance swing in favour of 'young ice' and this process now continues (12 months a year) to the point that any older ice does not last beyond 3 years before finding itself on the 'Fram Express'.

It is a horrible place to be but every time it snows here we are robbing the Arctic of ice (our 'plunges' merely speed up the Fram transport) so our 'Joy' at snow is now tinged with guilt at celebrating the loss of the Arctic

[jethro]

No , I'm not poking J' just surprised at how weak the 'balance' paper was?

LOL. From the little I absorbed during my cursory skim it seemed to be arguing for weather patterns rather than climate - I also remember it was you GW who was arguing for great significance earlier in the year about the Russian heatwave.

You can't have it both ways you know, either weather is weather and unimportant, or weather is symbolic of climate - which one is it?

[Skiwi]

No , I'm not poking J' just surprised at how weak the 'balance' paper was?

I think we need to look at cold building over land and then spilling over the ocean to freeze it? With a lot of cold H.P.'s building in all the right places I can see another chilly northern winter and this should push ice figures up (frozen Baltic/Great lakes etc.). If we are shedding the summers heat into the atmosphere across the arctic we may even see things running backward with warm air (relatively) from the poles replacing cold terrestrial temps?

Sadly such 'swaps' of air also push the ice about and we are shedding a lot of our 'good ice' through Fram at the moment (with lots more ready to follow suit?)

If all we see are ocean and air circulations conspiring to push the old ice up against Greenland and then have it exported ,via Fram, into the north Atlantic then we are not in a good place. The noughties saw the balance swing in favour of 'young ice' and this process now continues (12 months a year) to the point that any older ice does not last beyond 3 years before finding itself on the 'Fram Express'.

It is a horrible place to be but every time it snows here we are robbing the Arctic of ice (our 'plunges' merely speed up the Fram transport) so our 'Joy' at snow is now tinged with guilt at celebrating the loss of the Arctic

Yes, an unfortunate situation indeed. How do you see the strong La Nina playing out? A cold arctic winter with reasonably high max, a late melt and much better min extent next summer as suggested by some? Or a continuation of recent years with warm arctic winters, rapid melts and the lowest ice min's on record?

Edited October 25, 2010 by Skiwi

[Gray-Wolf]

Morning peeps, GW, you're right, I didn't read, in fact to say I skimmed would be generous. I find the daily dissection of ice growth or lack of, a bit dull at times - not saying it's not important, it just doesn't particularly engage me. I posted those two links to spark a bit of alternative discussion without taking the thread off topic.

Here's another for you, again my reading of it has been limited to the title.

http://icecap.us/ima...oads/ARCTIC.pdf

Morning me dear!

I've had a 'skim' of the paper you've posted and I have no problems in agreeing that we chose the worst possible time to add our straw to the camels back!

I don't think any of us (on here) dismiss the 'normal cycles' within the arctic and that they impact ice levels and temps around the region. I think some folk stop there though (as the paper shows?) and yet the 'evidence' shows us that this 'melt/warming' is far more impacting than previous cyclical impacts (esp. when we accept that this is a 'basin wide' warming).

The 'extra mile' has allowed for the total destruction of the old perennial which ,in it's turn, has lead to us falling fowl of the thing that used to help 'build thick ice' by ramming it into itself along the north coast of Greenland/Canadian Archipelago and over riding. Since the loss in thickness we see this process limited and ice fragmenting into pieces so small as to be unable to block the 'exits' from the Arctic even over the winter months.

Now instead of building ice the same currents are constantly exporting the older ,'good ice' which is then replaced with F.Y. ice.

The only way back would be a basin wide cold spell over a similar period of time as it took to lose the ice. I find this scenario highly unlikely both for our 'climate forcing (with GHG's) and the positive feedbacks the ice loss has instigated.

Never say never?

[Thundery wintry showers]

I think Jethro's second link offers rather more substance to its argument. Here's another link on the subject, which seems pretty balanced to me despite coming from Greenpeace:

http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/arctic99/reports/seaice3.html

Overall, I think natural variability probably does account for a large proportion of the recent melt, but with a bit of AGW added on top, and aerosol pollution (affecting the albedo of the ice) is also an anthropogenic factor, albeit one that is in decline. The problem is the risk of AGW increasingly becoming the dominant factor as we head through the 21st century.