Arctic Ice Discussion - 2010 Freeze Up

[Weather-history]

More +ve monthly anomalies for Spitsbergen that I have found from the 1920s and 1930s. No mean temps given and quite a few of the monthly reports just said Spitsbergen was above normal. So a warming period in that area during the 1920s and 1930s.

Jan 1928: +10F

Mar 1928: +6F

Dec 1928: +4F

Feb 1929: +20F

Mar 1929: +16F

Feb 1930: +15F

Mar 1930: +8.9F

Nov 1930: +12F

Jan 1931: +9F

Feb 1931: +23F

Apr 1931: +16F

Dec 1931: +11F

Mar 1932: +12F

Dec 1932: +12F

Jan 1933: +23.7F

Mar 1934: +23.9F

Deb 1934: 16.6F

Feb 1935: +18F

Jan 1937: +13F

Mar 1937: +10F

Apr 1937: +11F

Feb 1938: +10F

Mar 1938: +8F

Apr 1938: +5F

May 1938: +3F

From 1933

[Weather-history]

From 1928

[BornFromTheVoid]

Thanks for posting that Mr_Data, will try give it a proper read later on as I'm a bit short on time at the moment.

IJIS growth figure this morning, just over 30,000km2, which puts us about 80k below 2009 and only ~250k above 2007...

[Yorkshiresnows]

Afternoon folks,

Check this out:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=22250

Busted forecast or what !!!

Too much doommongering on here ...... as per usual.

Nice post from Joe B:

"Could it simply be that the warm PDO and of the last 30 years, amo the past 15 years has forced warming of the land masses of the northern hemisphere which in turn melted part of the ice cap, something that would reverse if you simply give the cyclical nature of the PDO and AMO to run its course. And if it is tougher to move the temperature of water, than air, then can we say that in terms of the overall energy budget of the earth, the increase in southern hemisphere sea ice, which roughly approximates the decrease in northern hemispheric ice, has to be a hint as to the correct answer, that there has been really no change, just a response cyclical in nature, which if you simply give it 20 or 30 years, will give us a concrete answer one way or another. Is common sense that big a threat that people refuse to acknowledge the dire forecasts of only 10 years ago, by a major player in this debate, so that other ideas simply appealing for the chance to prove their point, are dismissed, while no one in the mainstream questions the fact that you cant freely ship through the arctic in the summer, no matter how much we want to quibble about where the ice stands now? IS that the longest run on question in the history of any blog? ( ha ha, we need some levity given the dire forecasts that have out)

Sorry, but I had to post that. Its amazing that such things never are picked up in the mainstream

I challenge the journalists that are fair minded to look into this forecast at this link and do what they are supposed to do.. get to the bottom of the story. Is there free shipping through the arctic already, and if so, has Santa Clause been able to make use of it ( again..ho ho ho)"

(The link to this is here: http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/laminate floori-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather)

Y.S

[Devonian]

Afternoon folks,

Check this out:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=22250

Busted forecast or what !!!

YS, have you read it? "But in 10 years' time, if melting patterns change as predicted, the North-West Passage could be open to ordinary shipping for a month each summer." is bang on what has been happening!

Too much doommongering on here ...... as per usual.

Nice post from Joe B:

"Could it simply be that the warm PDO and of the last 30 years, amo the past 15 years has forced warming of the land masses of the northern hemisphere which in turn melted part of the ice cap, something that would reverse if you simply give the cyclical nature of the PDO and AMO to run its course. And if it is tougher to move the temperature of water, than air, then can we say that in terms of the overall energy budget of the earth, the increase in southern hemisphere sea ice, which roughly approximates the decrease in northern hemispheric ice, has to be a hint as to the correct answer, that there has been really no change, just a response cyclical in nature, which if you simply give it 20 or 30 years, will give us a concrete answer one way or another. Is common sense that big a threat that people refuse to acknowledge the dire forecasts of only 10 years ago, by a major player in this debate, so that other ideas simply appealing for the chance to prove their point, are dismissed, while no one in the mainstream questions the fact that you cant freely ship through the arctic in the summer, no matter how much we want to quibble about where the ice stands now? IS that the longest run on question in the history of any blog? ( ha ha, we need some levity given the dire forecasts that have out)

Sorry, but I had to post that. Its amazing that such things never are picked up in the mainstream

I challenge the journalists that are fair minded to look into this forecast at this link and do what they are supposed to do.. get to the bottom of the story. Is there free shipping through the arctic already, and if so, has Santa Clause been able to make use of it ( again..ho ho ho)"

(The link to this is here: http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/laminate floori-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather)

Y.S

Again, the NW passage has been open for a month or two several times in recent years.

[BornFromTheVoid]

No real clear pattern as far as I can see. Who's to say we wont have another 30 years or more of +ve PDO ahead of us and this negative bit now is just a blip? Going by the graph above, I wouldn't feel too confident of haveing a -ve PDO for the next 30 years.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/biondi2001/fig3-lg.jpg

[barrel1234]

that graph only goes upto 1990, It would be interesting to see an updated version

[BornFromTheVoid]

that graph only goes upto 1990, It would be interesting to see an updated version

Here's a more recent graph

The point of the original graph was just to show that there is a lot of variability with little in the way of discernible trends. Anyone hoping for the next 30 odd years to be a -ve PDO phase based just of an apparent cycle over the last century may end up disappointed, we simply don't know...

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks to both Mr D. and NDS for there recent posts ,very informative.

You can see from the article Mr D. posted that transit time (for ice) across the basin is something we have good info on via ship passage/buoy passage. The change to the more dynamic 18months 'crossing' that the buoys now have (on that point, have a look to see where the 'pole cam' buoys are now after 6 months of travel!) highlights how things have altered. For me altered beyond a cycle of 'recovery' and settling into it's new 'state'. I also like the word 'Paleocrystic' and will swap out my 'old perennial' for it in future!!!

As for NDS's PDO graphs, I think they show how 98' may well prove to be the 'phase change' for this -vePDO phase. As we all know, we won't call it 'till it's over and we're back into another +ve phase (seems to be the way) which could be in 7 or 8 years or another 20 years.

http://www.woksat.info/etcsj28/indexsj28.html

Nice images of the 'rotation of the Paleocrystic mass' on the long strips of image in the link above. You can see how the ice has peeled off the coast of Ellesmere Island and the shear fractures from the main ice body heading west to Fram.

[Devonian]

The significance is (unsurprisingly) ice volume can go up as well as down.

Not like now.

To quote Dr Walt Meier posting at WUWT (yes WUWT!) "… what we’re seeing is that the MYI [multi-year ice] just is not surviving like it used to. There is now almost no ice older than 4 years old remaining in the Arctic. This is a stark and fundamental change in the character of the Arctic sea ice."..."[tamino asks ]Is this truly something new, or does it happen all the time? Dr. Meier addresses the common (but faulty) claims that things were pretty much the same in the early or mid 20th century, concluding:

However, this doesn’t mean conditions in the past were anything like today. They were not."

The Arctic ice is changing, in a fundamental way. The big experiment with the planet humanity is undertaking is well under way.

[Gray-Wolf]

The Arctic ice is changing, in a fundamental way. The big experiment with the planet humanity is undertaking is well under way.

And ,for me ,beyond any 'reverse' gear.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[The PIT]

Not like now.

To quote Dr Walt Meier posting at WUWT (yes WUWT!) "… what we’re seeing is that the MYI [multi-year ice] just is not surviving like it used to. There is now almost no ice older than 4 years old remaining in the Arctic. This is a stark and fundamental change in the character of the Arctic sea ice."..."[tamino asks ]Is this truly something new, or does it happen all the time? Dr. Meier addresses the common (but faulty) claims that things were pretty much the same in the early or mid 20th century, concluding:

However, this doesn’t mean conditions in the past were anything like today. They were not."

The Arctic ice is changing, in a fundamental way. The big experiment with the planet humanity is undertaking is well under way.

Could you explain what is changing when considering it used to be ice free in the past??? If it was ice free in the past how come it recovered again when we have so called tipping points which suggest these trends cannot be reversed.

[Devonian]

Could you explain what is changing when considering it used to be ice free in the past??? If it was ice free in the past how come it recovered again when we have so called tipping points which suggest these trends cannot be reversed.

Pit, you seem to also accept the ice is on the way out? Progress.

The why? Us. The future? It might recover, sometime on a scale of thousands of years - that is true. But, your stance seems to be rather like saying we can casually trash great art because someone will create more in the future. To me that just seems to lack something.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Devonian

[ghrud]

Not like now.

To quote Dr Walt Meier posting at WUWT (yes WUWT!) "… what we’re seeing is that the MYI [multi-year ice] just is not surviving like it used to. There is now almost no ice older than 4 years old remaining in the Arctic. This is a stark and fundamental change in the character of the Arctic sea ice."..."[tamino asks ]Is this truly something new, or does it happen all the time? Dr. Meier addresses the common (but faulty) claims that things were pretty much the same in the early or mid 20th century, concluding:

However, this doesn’t mean conditions in the past were anything like today. They were not."

The Arctic ice is changing, in a fundamental way. The big experiment with the planet humanity is undertaking is well under way.

Anybody know how you tell how old a piece of ice is? Ice re-freezes from below as well as to the sides, snow accumulates on the surface and due to ocean storms and swell ice slabs ride over each other. Is there a definitive guide to measure ice age other than from its thickness?

[jethro]

Multi year ice has to start somewhere.....are these folk really saying that no ice, at any point in the future will become older than 4 years old?

Are there any records anywhere which could be used to conclusively decide "this doesn’t mean conditions in the past were anything like today. They were not."?

[Devonian]

Anybody know how you tell how old a piece of ice is? Ice re-freezes from below as well as to the sides, snow accumulates on the surface and due to ocean storms and swell ice slabs ride over each other. Is there a definitive guide to measure ice age other than from its thickness?

It's a good question, I might get around to asking NSIDC...

Edit: This from NSIDC: First-year and multiyear ice have different electromagnetic properties that satellite sensors can detect, allowing scientists to distinguish the two. For more information, see Remote Sensing in the Studying section.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Devonian

[barrel1234]

A recovery of the arctic would need time to gather momentum, it would need 5 years for new ice to become 5 year old ice, year on year a slight gain of ice area would eventually see a complete recovery of the arctic. Very possible if we get a -PDO for a long period of time (or what is widely thought of as being an average 30 year cycle) all the research and scare mongering from research over the last 10-20 years has been during a positive PDO. How so many people can draw conclusions tat the arctic is doomed is beyond me.

[Skiwi]

A recovery of the arctic would need time to gather momentum, it would need 5 years for new ice to become 5 year old ice, year on year a slight gain of ice area would eventually see a complete recovery of the arctic. Very possible if we get a -PDO for a long period of time (or what is widely thought of as being an average 30 year cycle) all the research and scare mongering from research over the last 10-20 years has been during a positive PDO. How so many people can draw conclusions tat the arctic is doomed is beyond me.

Because over the past few hundred years (modern history) there have been many cases of strong long lasting postive PDO's but there is no evidence of the arctic being in the state it is now. Therefore, it is clear the problem is deeper than just a long lasting postitve PDO

[Yorkshiresnows]

Here's a more recent graph

The point of the original graph was just to show that there is a lot of variability with little in the way of discernible trends. Anyone hoping for the next 30 odd years to be a -ve PDO phase based just of an apparent cycle over the last century may end up disappointed, we simply don't know...

Well, I guess its all down to your point of view and how you interpret the evidence available.

How about we wait a few years and see what gives ..... ?

With a potent La Nina rapidly following El Nino, the conditions for at least next year look much more favourable for arctic sea ice retention, AND there are a lot of folks who believe that the PDO changed states around 2007.

Too much emotive silliness in regards to tipping points and so forth ....... we are in a clearly better position than 2007 ....... that alone speaks volumes !!

Meanwhile the antactic situation is also clear (to me):

Y.S

[The PIT]

Pit, you seem to also accept the ice is on the way out? Progress.

The why? Us. The future? It might recover, sometime on a scale of thousands of years - that is true. But, your stance seems to be rather like saying we can casually trash great art because someone will create more in the future. To me that just seems to lack something.

Come on answer the question thats all I'm asking.

I'm not saying Ice is on the way out it may or may not be. I just want you too explain why if it all melts that it's gone for good when we've been ice free in the past and yet the ice returned. Just interested.

Edited October 29, 2010 by The PIT

[SteveB]

It just beggers belief what some people say in here.

[Devonian]

Come on answer the question thats all I'm asking.

I did, I said the reason is us.

I'm not saying Ice is on the way out it may or may not be. I just want you too explain why if it all melts that it's gone for good when we've been ice free in the past and yet the ice returned. Just interested.

I answered that as well

To repeat, if the ice goes (permanent ice) and I think it probably will, I think it will be some time before it returns. Why? Because the best evidence is it take a long time for a slug of CO2 to slowly sequestrate so the climate, is going to stay warm for some considerable time.

Edited October 29, 2010 by Devonian

[BornFromTheVoid]

Another small provisional gain today, just under 36,000km2. That leaves us over 200,000km2 behind 2009, over 800,000km2 below 2008 and now just over 120,000km2 above 2007.

Looking at the concentration images it seem's we've actually lost some ice around the Chukchi, East Siberian and Beaufort sea, most likely to do with the large depression hovering over the Bering strait.

[pottyprof]

It might recover, sometime on a scale of thousands of years - that is true.

Thousands of years? From what I've seen and read over the last few years, IF there is a switch to cooling proper, then it only takes about a decade for ice to make a large return on land and on sea. Isn't this one of the arguments to do with the switch to negative PDO etc and us not yet seeing any recovery?

Perhaps I dreamt it?

[Thundery wintry showers]

To repeat, if the ice goes (permanent ice) and I think it probably will, I think it will be some time before it returns. Why? Because the best evidence is it take a long time for a slug of CO2 to slowly sequestrate so the climate, is going to stay warm for some considerable time.

Unfortunately I agree.

To be honest, Gray-Wolf's obsession with saying "the Arctic has passed a tipping points" in subtly different-worded ways on every other post is getting irksome, and even resorting to the "but it's my opinion!" card to render it immune from debate when its absolute truth was put under question through reference to the latest batch of scientific papers. Repeatedly stating a view and backing it up through confirmation bias isn't going to win people over to it.

But tipping points or no, if global temperatures stay high and especially if they continue to get higher (which is overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, with the main area of disagreement being "how much warmer") then it's hard to see any kind of long-term recovery occurring. We'd have to rely upon the Arctic being one of the few regions that cool while other regions warm, but most of the evidence points the other way suggesting that it will be the region that warms the most.