Arctic Ice Discussion - 2010 Freeze Up

[Gray-Wolf]

So how many years does this cover? and what is it about the source that makes it "another place" rather than telling us? Haven't been naughty and looking at WUWT have you?

Sorry NNW! Hadn't finished with the post so the info you ask for is now included (plus source)

EDIT: You can see that there is a 'divide' now appearing with the 'new low levels' settling out into a separate grouping. Will this group keep close and form it's own 'band' as the years progress? I think so and it will help show that there is 'no way back' for the ice cover. All it can do is vary within this new banding.

The next 'step change' (to seasonal) will introduce another 'band' to the graph (IMHO).

Edited October 20, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

Sorry NNW! Hadn't finished with the post so the info you ask for is now included (plus source)

EDIT: You can see that there is a 'divide' now appearing with the 'new low levels' settling out into a separate grouping. Will this group keep close and form it's own 'band' as the years progress? I think so and it will help show that there is 'no way back' for the ice cover. All it can do is vary within this new banding.

The next 'step change' (to seasonal) will introduce another 'band' to the graph (IMHO).

It's a shame we couldn't se them coloured by decade, or 5 year groups, that would give a better overall view of how low things have changed

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

Sorry NNW! Hadn't finished with the post so the info you ask for is now included (plus source)

EDIT: You can see that there is a 'divide' now appearing with the 'new low levels' settling out into a separate grouping. Will this group keep close and form it's own 'band' as the years progress? I think so and it will help show that there is 'no way back' for the ice cover. All it can do is vary within this new banding.

The next 'step change' (to seasonal) will introduce another 'band' to the graph (IMHO).

Not sure if I fully agree with you there. I would think you need to see about 30% of the dataset banding lower before you can call a step change.

[BornFromTheVoid]

IJIS has updated to give us our first >100,000km2 since last Friday at almost 112,000km2. The majority of the gain appears to be along the Russian coast, around the East Siberain Sea and Kara sea. This area will most likely be completely frozen over by the end of the week IMO.

We can also see the moving through Fram and is now almost down to the south east Greenland coast.

[stewfox]

Sorry NNW! Hadn't finished with the post so the info you ask for is now included (plus source)

EDIT: You can see that there is a 'divide' now appearing with the 'new low levels' settling out into a separate grouping. Will this group keep close and form it's own 'band' as the years progress? I think so and it will help show that there is 'no way back' for the ice cover. All it can do is vary within this new banding.

The next 'step change' (to seasonal) will introduce another 'band' to the graph (IMHO).

No one is suggesting the Artic pack is where it was or even close to the position of the 1980s.

The IJIS banding in November as you suggest and highlighted appears to be a new banding level. That’s not new to anyone.

It would be worrying to see a fresh downward banding but there is no evidence of that

You most excellent links then seem to become emotive e.g. ‘There is no way back’.

Slow recovery is one way back maybe a few years where we seem some lines at the top end of the new bandings (including summer). Then a line at the bottom end of the old bandings.

111k gain so far today

My guess to reach 8m last month for was 23^rd October, is looking a tad optimistic

I still think it’s possible by the 25^th

When do volume figures get released to the Blebs ? I hear year end ?

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi stew! we can only have a 'way back' if the oceanic conditions have remained 'unaltered' in the interim and my little knowledge of oceanic systems tells me that thing's do not 'stand still' but change to the new conditions.

If that 'change' destroys the thing that allowed ice to 'be' (in the thickness and quality we used to have) then how do we 'go back to where we where'? Surely we need for the 'right conditions' to re-assert themselves before we can get the 'old Arctic' to recover?

It would be sad if all some folk relied upon to gauge the 'Health of the Arctic' was the thin layer of ice over winter now wouldn't it?

[MR EXTREMES]

Hi stew! we can only have a 'way back' if the oceanic conditions have remained 'unaltered' in the interim and my little knowledge of oceanic systems tells me that thing's do not 'stand still' but change to the new conditions.

If that 'change' destroys the thing that allowed ice to 'be' (in the thickness and quality we used to have) then how do we 'go back to where we where'? Surely we need for the 'right conditions' to re-assert themselves before we can get the 'old Arctic' to recover?

It would be sad if all some folk relied upon to gauge the 'Health of the Arctic' was the thin layer of ice over winter now wouldn't it?

there is 1st year and 2nd year ice building!

like has been said over and over it takes time for recovery to take place and i expect we are nowhere near peak of cooling yet.

as things have only changes recently and the solar forcing have a lagtime thats without the predictions of cycle25 which could add even more of a cooling effect.

[stewfox]

It would be sad if all some folk relied upon to gauge the 'Health of the Arctic' was the thin layer of ice over winter now wouldn't it?

Give me ice volumes for the last 30 years and next 30 years and we can look at the health ? Are you suggesting the most of the artic is going to be covered in 5mm of ice ?

Surely you would expect downward Step changes even in winter ‘IF’ we get more open water and summers largely free of artic ice (ie well under 1million kms)

[barrel1234]

GW,. after 2007 there is obviously ice that is a couple of years old now in areas that were completely ice free, I really don't see how you can be so negative. There is no question that 2007 looked a very testing time regarding ice in the arctic but at the end of the day you are not going to get new 5 year old ice back in under 5 years! I know there is ice migratory factors at play too but you get my general point of this post.

Edited October 20, 2010 by barrel1234

[Gray-Wolf]

Though not as dramatic as the summer losses we losing ice over winter too! I think we need to look through the data sets to find both are and volume losses over the winter season.

If we are to move towards a yearly open water then we will need to wait for the oceans to fully warm up, I believe last time this happened it was slow enough for tropical plants and croc's to have migrated that far north?

We may see areas inside the basin continue to shed winter ice (check out Barents where the NAD feeds into the basin?)

b.b., I take it you are one of these people who think it is all about the ice and nothing to do with the changes happening above and below the ice? As is becoming abundantly clear, over the past 10yrs, something is stopping the ice thickening to the levels it used to and this means 2nd/3rd/4th and 5th year ice is not greatly dissimilar to F.Y. ice ( pegged at 3m+) so why hold it up as 'something special' when it's just more of the same?.

The only exceptions are the areas of 'over-ridden ice (see N. Greenland presently).

NSIDC tell us there is very little ice older than 5 years in the basin (even less since the 'Fram Express' left the station recently?) so all we now have is this thickness limited stuff.

The Arctic has changed and you appear to have missed it doing so?

We Use Wishful Thinking... or W.U.W.T. (again)?

Edited October 20, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

Though not as dramatic as the summer losses we losing ice over winter too! I think we need to look through the data sets to find both are and volume losses over the winter season.

If we are to move towards a yearly open water then we will need to wait for the oceans to fully warm up, I believe last time this happened it was slow enough for tropical plants and croc's to have migrated that far north?

We may see areas inside the basin continue to shed winter ice (check out Barents where the NAD feeds into the basin?)

b.b., I take it you are one of these people who think it is all about the ice and nothing to do with the changes happening above and below the ice? As is becoming abundantly clear, over the past 10yrs, something is stopping the ice thickening to the levels it used to and this means 2nd/3rd/4th and 5th year ice is not greatly dissimilar to F.Y. ice ( pegged at 3m+) so why hold it up as 'something special' when it's just more of the same?.

The only exceptions are the areas of 'over-ridden ice (see N. Greenland presently).

NSIDC tell us there is very little ice older than 5 years in the basin (even less since the 'Fram Express' left the station recently?) so all we now have is this thickness limited stuff.

The Arctic has changed and you appear to have missed it doing so?

We Use Wishful Thinking... or W.U.W.T. (again)?

Sorry GW, I agree with Stewfox that you are very good at pressing the "emotive statement" button. Yes Crocs in the Arctic have happened in a different geological age. Put a crocodile ther now and see how long before it dies of cold.

WUWT displays most of the Ice reporting agencies, so whether the site is an anti AGW or not, it's a useful resource. You don't have to read the articles if you don't want to, but SOME, note not all by any means, may have truth within them. I read both sides and try to take a balanced view from what I believe the science says.

At this point in time, I don't believe we are anywhere near a "Tipping Point", or a "Death Spiral". there is SOME evidence that the halocline has been disturbed and that is affecting the thickness of ice, but let's get the evidence in before shouting from the rooftops. Next year, I expect you to concentrate on Volume, rather than extent or area, even though the dataset in use will be of a very short period. It will almost certainly not stop you from being green and recycling your "Death Spiral" comments

Edited October 20, 2010 by NorthNorfolkWeather

[BornFromTheVoid]

Growth of just 75,000km2 yesterday means we're moving even more towards the little sub grouping of 09 and 07.

Some milder air pushing into the Chukchi and Beaufort sea in the next few days, while both milder air and strong winds move up through the Barents and Kara seas at the same time, so not the best conditions for ice growth then.

The nest 2 days or so remain relatively good for growth though, the Arctic could do with making the best of it!

On CT the ice area continues falling away for the N. Hemisphere, and we're now back close to 1.6 million below average. The S. Hemisphere remains slightly above normal at +289,000km2, but this has been moving closer to average the last few days.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Sorry NNW! Hadn't finished with the post so the info you ask for is now included (plus source)

EDIT: You can see that there is a 'divide' now appearing with the 'new low levels' settling out into a separate grouping. Will this group keep close and form it's own 'band' as the years progress? I think so and it will help show that there is 'no way back' for the ice cover. All it can do is vary within this new banding.

The next 'step change' (to seasonal) will introduce another 'band' to the graph (IMHO).

If ice levels "band" at this new low level for the upcoming decade or two, then the implication is that the ice level stays fairly constant over the period, instead of reducing further.

If global temperatures remain fairly constant over the period then this is plausible, but if we see further rises in global temperatures then it's more likely that we will see an erratic downward trend with maybe a few thin clusters on the way down when the trend temporarily stalls.

I still have serious doubts about this "tipping point" business- a lot of recent scientific research suggests that the melting of polar ice probably won't trigger one, but that significant melting of the Greenland ice sheet is far more likely to initiate one. But on the other hand it's highly unlikely that we'll see any significant recovery unless global temperatures start to fall significantly, and there is a risk that if we do see a major amount of global warming over the 21st century (say between 3 and 6C) then we could trigger a tipping point.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi TWS!

The 'banding' was a crude attempt to highlight that the disastrous losses of 07' haven't 'recovered' back up to the main pack since that event. The 3 summers since the event have been more suited to ice retention than ice losses and the 'weather' has given 'average summers'. Even with such positives we see no concerted move back up to the levels that we held in the 80's and 90's.

The reason (so we are told) is the loss of all the old ice from the basin (only 60,000sq km left at the end of summer as opposed to the old level of around 2 million sq km) leaving young, thin, brine filled ice to weather the summer.

If you accept that we now have a much more dynamic ocean in the basin then you too must question the amount of mixing that this new, more mobile, ocean experiences (compared to the sealed, still ocean that existed beneath the permanent ice pack) and just what this means to the halocline layer that the old ice used to sit in. If we are introducing warmer, saltier Atlantic/Pacific waters to the upper horizons then this will impact upon the depth that ice can be submerged to before meeting with a melting environment. The ICESat/GRACE data (02-08) and now the IceBridge mission shows us that 3rd and 4th year ice are only attaining thicknesses marginally greater than F.Y. ice and the only reason for this must be basal melt (or I can think of no other way of achieving the uniformity the data show us?).

If we do have warmer ,saltier waters near the surface then any added precipitation will depress the ice into this melting zone. We do seem to have areas in the basin that are experiencing more precipitation than they used to so the ice there may not be all it is expected to be.

Buoy data suggests that this thinner , more fragmented pack, travels a lot faster than the ice used to with the passage from the Siberian side to Fram now taking 18 months instead of 3 years or more. This brings more ice through the 'high precipitation' zones meaning more of the ice is becoming this 'odd' ice type that moves with swells and does not support weight (even though up to 3m thick!).

The 'tipping point' for Arctic ice will ,I believe be found to be the percentage of Perennial vs young ,vulnerable ice. Once you move past a certain point the dynamics of the Basin will work against any 'recovery' of perennial ice by actively shipping it out of the basin via Fram (as we have seen over the past 10yrs with the Beaufort Gyre plastering ice against Greenland/Canadian Archipelago and the trans Polar Drift floating it to Fram and melt). If we look at the moment new ice is growing but 'old ice' is being lost through Nares and Fram. Any look at the loss of perennial through the noughties (as it accelerated it's losses)

and you'll see just how effective the process is.

Without the 'old perennial' (esp it's dimensions) we can no longer block these 'exits' ,even over the winter months, and with the ice so thin and fragmented it's transport is as smooth as sand in an egg timer.

Whether the loss of ice will quickly impact the circulatory systems, of atmosphere and oceans, in the northern hemisphere is something we will find out over the next few years as the Arctic Amplification grows in it's impacts/strength and sets up it's own, novel, impacts across the pole (the loss of the seasonal 'deep cold' H.P. as the ocean replaces it with warmer ,less dense air?) and further afield. Is this a 'tipping point' or have we to wait for something larger to evolve?

[January Snowstorm]

What do you mean by 'tipping point' ?

Are you referring to the jet becoming more displaced as it already appears?

Would this not lead to colder Winters on our own shores

[Gray-Wolf]

I was struggling with 'Tipping point' too?

It is either a 'global tipping point' or a 'tipping point' within a certain system (of which there are many leading up to the 'global tipping point').

We can clearly see that the Arctic is at the wrong end of a series of 'change events'. I cannot see a 'way back' to the arctic I grew up knowing (the pack of the 60's and 70's) because a number of 'tipping points' have been breached and ,like Pandora's box, there ain't no stuffing them back to where they were.

The perennial is dead (long live the 'new' perennial!), it has vanished from the basin awaiting the next ice age to provide the conditions needed for it to re-build in all it's splendour.

This is a 'tipping point'.

A point beyond which there is no chance of return.

There's worse.

Once you breach that point you accelerate the changes because that old 'check' has gone.

We see this in the loss of summer ice and the opening of the basin to 'normal' ocean processes.

Before we lost the perennial we had a 'lid' over swathes of the Basin and this 'lid' protected the halocline below. Without the lid the halocline is eroded by the 'normal oceanic processes we see through all the other oceans in the world (and why not?).

Global temps are no longer in the 'glacial' range and the move to the proper expression of this is the loss of the summer ice and the temp hike (in surrounding areas) that the global temps demand.

Lose the ice and the impacts roll 1,500km inland.

Lose the ice and the permafrost is next in line for 'melt' and it's cargo of methane and CO2 is set loose (as the data shows us).

Lose the ice and Greenland's ice sheet comes under thermal pressures it was spared when the 'old perennial' lived on it's north shore (ever wondered why the past 2 years have seen the Northern end of Greenland see the same level of melt as the more southerly areas of Greenland?)

No , 'Tipping Points' need to be better defined (I believe) if introduced into conversation as they can mean many things to many folk?

.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[pottyprof]

No , 'Tipping Points' need to be better defined (I believe) if introduced into conversation as they can mean many things to many folk?

.

I agree GW. There are so many variables that have their own knock on effect but as to if they are actual tipping points is something to be further understood. Might be something for another thread?

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Tipping Point....a glass with red wine in side reaches an angle of 26.75deg angle....it starts emptying down my neck......

BFTP

Edited October 21, 2010 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[January Snowstorm]

I dunno GW, tbh I find your posts all one way traffic

You remind me of an accountant I know, always looking for the negative side and if there is a positive story you stay silent.

Perhaps everything you say is factual, but then the coldest Winter for 40 years has just passed and how can that happen ?

I understand you cant ignore what's going on up North, but also you could perhaps admit that ths could mean our own Climate getting much colder. If we all see much more snow on an annual basis who cares if the basin (whatever that is) remains ice free.

We might find a load of oil and become millionaires :-)

Edited October 21, 2010 by January Snowstorm

[knocker]

I was struggling with 'Tipping point' too?

No , 'Tipping Points' need to be better defined (I believe) if introduced into conversation as they can mean many things to many folk?

.

Seems a reasonable definition from Clive Hamilton, Requiem for a Species. ISBN 978-1-84971-081-7

Since 2005 a number of scientific papers have described the likelihood of the climate system passing significant 'tipping points' beyond which the warming process is reinforced by positive feedback mechanisms-small peturbations that cause large changes.This new understanding has upset the comforting idea of a 'dose-response' relationship between the amount of greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere and the amount of global warming that follows. That idea has allowed us to believe that, although we may be slow to respond, once we decide to act we will be able to rescue the situation. In truth, it is likely that in the next decade or so, beginning with the melting of the Arctic's summer sea-ice, the Earth's climate will shift onto a new trajectory driven by 'natural processes that will take millenniums to work themselves out.

I have an idea that this might be near the mark.

[Skyhi]

Thanks to all for your recent post, I actually find gw's post very informative and pretty well balanced, even to a novice like me!!......but me heads well and truly mashed......information overload I think!!. re 'tipping points', I truly believe we have reached quite a few of these in relation to our climate and I'm not liking what I'm reading. Why must we bleed mother nature dry and strip her bare?......maybe it's her way of telling us that there is a price to pay now that we have/are doing this.......we seem to be seeing signs of this already.

[Skyhi]

have youhttp://www.independe...ce-2390136.html seen this?;

[Gray-Wolf]

Sorry Skyhi, the link isn't working for me?

Better wait for the IJIS update but it looks like being a low one (or even loss?) prior to us running into the 'high loss' Fram days that seem forecast to arrive over the next 4 or 5 days?

I'm sorry folk look at me as "half empty" as I feel I'm pretty "half full" about the way I view things?

I'm not 'projecting' any outlandish scenario just observing the situation on the ground (where we already have data) and applying 'trends' where we see them.

The Arctic Basin has only 4 million sq km area so will be 'maxed out' pretty soon.

How are the other areas doing? Well ,lets see;

Laptev: down 0.3 mill

Bering: normal (no ice)

East Siberian: down 0.2 million

St. Lawrence: normal (no ice)

Chukchi: down 0.1 million

Baffin Bay: marginally down

Beaufort sea (one to watch): marginally down

Greenland sea (one to watch): marginally down

Canadian Archipelago (one to watch): down 0.1 million

Barents Sea (one to watch) : Down nearly 0.1 million

Hudson Bay: normal (no ice)

Kara Sea: Down 0.2 million

Sea of Okhotsk: normal (no ice)

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc...nt365.anom.region.1.html

"Recovery? I see no recovery......."

Edited October 22, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

Sorry Skyhi, the link isn't working for me?

Better wait for the IJIS update but it looks like being a low one (or even loss?) prior to us running into the 'high loss' Fram days that seem forecast to arrive over the next 4 or 5 days?

Laptev: down 0.3 mill

Bering: normal (no ice)

"Recovery? I see no recovery......."

Data shown with no reference points does not help

What does the 0.3 mill down in Laptev actually mean in % terms?

Any area you describe as "Normal", doesn't, to me at least need "(No Ice)" as a comment, adds to the feeling that your agenda outweighs scientific analysis.

I would, for those area's that you describe as normal, perhaps give median dates for complete ice cover and compare as this year develops

Lose the ice and the impacts roll 1,500km inland.

Lose the ice and the permafrost is next in line for 'melt' and it's cargo of methane and CO2 is set loose (as the data shows us).

Lose the ice and Greenland's ice sheet comes under thermal pressures it was spared when the 'old perennial' lived on it's north shore (ever wondered why the past 2 years have seen the Northern end of Greenland see the same level of melt as the more southerly areas of Greenland?)

Got some links for the 1500km inland claim?

And more verifiable the North/South Melting in Greenland over the last two years?

[nick sussex]

I think one of the main problems is increase in heat absorbed by the planet because of the albedo effect. I don't know if this has been covered already in this thread but its a very important component to earths temperatures.

A quick explanation here:

The classic example of albedo effect is the snow-temperature feedback. If a snow-covered area warms and the snow melts, the albedo decreases, more sunlight is absorbed, and the temperature tends to increase.

These figures show the general ability of these factors to reflect back sunlight and therefore lower the temperature.

Sample albedos

Fresh asphalt 0.04[1]

Worn asphalt 0.12[1]

Conifer forest

(Summer) 0.08,[2] 0.09 to 0.15[3]

Deciduous trees 0.15 to 0.18[3]

Bare soil 0.17[4]

Green grass 0.25[4]

Desert sand 0.40[5]

New concrete 0.55[4]

Ocean Ice 0.5–0.7[4]

Fresh snow 0.80–0.90[4]

As we can see snow reflects the most sunlight back and is crucial in terms of temp increases and decreases. As the ice melts the rate of albedo will fall and so adding to the problem.