Arctic Ice Discussion

[Snow Leopard]

Would say it depends on the time range you take into account. Looking at the last 900 years, it is hard to see an upward trend.

Oh dear. OK, please tell me what is the source or reference for that graph and has it been peer reviewed and validated.

I think the thing that bothers me most is the word "reconstructed" in that graph. This means "man-made" or "engineered", not measured. And if we are talking about quantifiable data sets it makes them by definition invalid.

[Alan Robinson]

I've certainly seen such temp differences over 600m (from the sea ice to the prom) in Travi munde (near Hamburg) so i wonder if one area is coastal with drift ice and one more inland?

Now you mention it, I cannot name a single civilian settlement in Greenland that is not on the coast. The link explained that in Nuuk it was overcast while in Sisimiut it was fine. This is what caused the temperature diffence, and the extremely low humidity was because the wind came off the inland ice.

Have you given thought to my sea smoke query GW?

[noiv]

Oh dear. OK, please tell me what is the source or reference for that graph and has it been peer reviewed and validated.

I think the thing that bothers me most is the word "reconstructed" in that graph. This means "man-made" or "engineered", not measured. And if we are talking about quantifiable data sets it makes them by definition invalid.

I wonder, whether the line "Statiscically that to me looks like an outlier and, if anything, the movement trend is upwards." has been reviewed with same rigorous discipline you usually expect. The graph above can be most probably excluded from the list of "quantifiable data sets" , even Google does not really know what that means. If you do not accept proxy data from sediments, focus the right-hand red line, assuming your screen is not up-side-down trend movement is steep down.

[cooling climate]

I am sorry, I normally keep quiet on these forums as there are waaaay too many posts that are based on personal opinions rather than hard data. But how on this good earth can you say that '07 was a step change? Statiscically that to me looks like an outlier and, if anything, the movement trend is upwards.

What you say is correct. A post I made a couple of days back said virtually the same

thing, the Arctic ice discussion thread is and always has been made up of 90% plus

speculation but to the less knowledgable it is put across as if it were fact or at least

going to be.

At the start of the Arctic spring people offer up their wags ( wild ar-e guesses) as to

what will be the final ice extent minimum. From then on in the speculation grows

and grows with some posters offering up every scenario possible for record summer

melt where as others including myself normally sit back and wait and see.

Every year since 2007 the likes of G.W. and co. have regurgitated the same mantra

over and over which is nothing more than speculation but without it there would be

no thread I suppose. As for my guess of 5.8 million that probably has as much

chance as the the Arctic being ice free within the next 50 years.

I think the final figure will stay above 5 million though. We shall see.

[noiv]

What you say is correct. A post I made a couple of days back said virtually the same

thing, the Arctic ice discussion thread is and always has been made up of 90% plus

speculation but to the less knowledgable it is put across as if it were fact or at least

going to be.

At the start of the Arctic spring people offer up their wags ( wild ar-e guesses) as to

what will be the final ice extent minimum. From then on in the speculation grows

and grows with some posters offering up every scenario possible for record summer

melt where as others including myself normally sit back and wait and see.

Every year since 2007 the likes of G.W. and co. have regurgitated the same mantra

over and over which is nothing more than speculation but without it there would be

no thread I suppose. As for my guess of 5.8 million that probably has as much

chance as the the Arctic being ice free within the next 50 years.

I think the final figure will stay above 5 million though. We shall see.

At least your estimates have a downward trend

[Alan Robinson]

What you say is correct. A post I made a couple of days back said virtually the same

thing, the Arctic ice discussion thread is and always has been made up of 90% plus

speculation but to the less knowledgable it is put across as if it were fact or at least

going to be.

At the start of the Arctic spring people offer up their wags ( wild ar-e guesses) as to

what will be the final ice extent minimum. From then on in the speculation grows

and grows with some posters offering up every scenario possible for record summer

melt where as others including myself normally sit back and wait and see.

Every year since 2007 the likes of G.W. and co. have regurgitated the same mantra

over and over which is nothing more than speculation but without it there would be

no thread I suppose. As for my guess of 5.8 million that probably has as much

chance as the the Arctic being ice free within the next 50 years.

I think the final figure will stay above 5 million though. We shall see.

Though I don't fully approve of your way of expressing yourself, I agree largely with what you put. have you considered though that this is a forum where people are supposed to put their genuine views up for discussion?

The reason I bring this up is that to obtain research funding, scientists usually must put forward their intentions beforehand so that the people controlling the cash can evaluate the proposition. My son actually spends much time guiding potential researchers at the University of Copenhagen through their expansive applications for funding, which have to be offered in English. It seems that the publication of papers in internationally recognized scientific journals is an important goal, because the more papers published, the greater the funding an institution receives in this country. Consequently, research methodology is somewhat restrained and conformant with certain prevailing views in the wider scientific community.

If we agree to define religion as a belief system about our existence to which persons can become affiliated, then there is little room for religion in scientific research methodology, at least where the natural sciences are concerned. For this reason, potential researchers will clearly avoid giving the impression they let religion interfere with their investigations. Nonetheless, researchers do not embark upon their projects by calling a meeting at some congress centre and asking for ideas. Researchers get their ideas from within, though they obviously are generated using information received from without.

I gather that many researchers, while avoiding a religious reputation, are happy to thought spiritual, in the sense that they can have a feeling of awe when they see a beautiful sunset, or perhaps listen to Massenet's "meditation". These people recognize that we are all human, and part of being human - I'd say a large part - concerns having feelings about the world around us.

The scientific method must not become distorted by subjective views, but on the other hand, people that persistently ignore that quiet voice inside their head risk before long finding themselves on a psychologist's couch. This is something of a tightrope to walk, and it occurred to me that seeing how so many forum users remain anonymous, hiding behind all manner of strange names, that perhaps they are just venting thoughts that are tabu elsewhere.

Of course views about the condition of Arctic ice are to a large extent subjective. The disciplined scientist who inists on being a scientist would probably not state his or her feelings on an internet forum. Enjoy the music....

Edited July 30, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[Gray-Wolf]

Thank you for both the thoughts and music A.R.!

Yes , this is a 'Forum' and this thread 'Arctic Ice Discussion' (for those who thought it was the "Truth ,whole truth and nothing but the truth' thread.

I am also concerned with folk who choose to dismiss proxy data as meaningless? next it will be all but that held in a mans memory that is admissible???

As for my posting since 07', has it been wide of the mark? Even before we learnt of Prof Barbers mission into the South Beaufort I was proposing exactly the mechanism he found as a 'must occur' phenomena (after 07'). No trumpet blowing just a reminder that we can all view the data and assess the situation ,even from the comfort of our comp. chairs, with some modicum of accuracy?

At seasons end last year I noted the channels, swept clear of fast/shore ice, of the Canadian Archipelago and suggested that this could become problematic were they to now act as another 'Exit' from the basin. I've seen the same mooted across the blogsphere and suggest that ,by seasons end, even the major researchers will be flagging this area as important.

The loss of the Halocline has not yet been brought forward as a major reason for poor ice development but, with the Catlin missions and ongoing research I do not think it will be long before we again see the 'data' behind my musings?

Anyhow , more musings. 07' has a 'slowdown' over the next week so we may well find this year overtaking it again even with low losses? When we look at the SST anoms across the basin we can see why we still get major melt this time of year even if 2m temps fall?

[power77]

Well, they say that that the arctic sea ice cover is at its lowest on record in 2011. But what will this may mean? Is more open arctic water over the summer will in turn absorb more of the suns UV ray and warm the arctic sea water. This will mean higher water vapor over the arctic, leading to more snow cover in the autumn and winter. The open arctic sea will warm the air, this will work against the development of the polar vortex in winter and rise the atmospheric pressure over arctic. Next winter we may well see a more extreme of the -AO/-NAO. The polar vortex is the engine that drives the +AO/+NAO and the jet-stream. It needs extreme cold acrtic to develop.

Warmer arctic/colder mid-Latitude continents.

colder arctic/warmer mid-latitude continents.

http://www.holisticfuture.com/2011/02/0 ... tic-warms/

Edited July 30, 2011 by power77

[Summer Sun]

Yes it's been noticable this summer that there has been an unusuable amount of high pressure over Greenland for long periods giving them warmer than average temperatures, if this continues over the coming years then we'll either continue to see much cooler summers and extreme winters or we'll see warm weather over large areas as the earth continues to warm up and winters will continue to have very cold periods but also some warmer periods.

[scotty_boy_winter]

Lol 90 per cent? Agw is scientifically proven. FACT. What do you not understand about that? The fact the best scientists i'n the world agree with this against yourself who has nowhere near the understanding tells us all we need to know! It's like saying a baker knows more about brain surgery than a brain surgeon. Drop the argument, there isn't one to be had CC!

What you say is correct. A post I made a couple of days back said virtually the same

thing, the Arctic ice discussion thread is and always has been made up of 90% plus

speculation but to the less knowledgable it is put across as if it were fact or at least

going to be.

At the start of the Arctic spring people offer up their wags ( wild ar-e guesses) as to

what will be the final ice extent minimum. From then on in the speculation grows

and grows with some posters offering up every scenario possible for record summer

melt where as others including myself normally sit back and wait and see.

Every year since 2007 the likes of G.W. and co. have regurgitated the same mantra

over and over which is nothing more than speculation but without it there would be

no thread I suppose. As for my guess of 5.8 million that probably has as much

chance as the the Arctic being ice free within the next 50 years.

I think the final figure will stay above 5 million though. We shall see.

[Geordiesnow]

Anyhow , more musings. 07' has a 'slowdown' over the next week so we may well find this year overtaking it again even with low losses? When we look at the SST anoms across the basin we can see why we still get major melt this time of year even if 2m temps fall?

I think some of the members who argue against your claim of declining sea ice will take you more seriously if you don't make silly statements like the bold bit I highlighted. At this moment in time, the only way we will get past the 2007 figure by the 1st August(as thats the last of the "small drops" before countless days of very huge drops) is if we get 3 days in a row of 98,000KM or more so yep, I guess we got a chance of overtaking it with only low drops. However you could very well be right and we get those big drops and fall back below 2007 but looking at the set up for the next few days, I be very surprised if this happens also considering our biggest drop since this more favourable weather pattern has been 73,000KM then I'll be shocked(and rather concerned) if we get 3 days in a row of 98,000km.

The rest of the quote is fine, ice can melt even if the air temperature is below 0C and that is something we have to keep an eye on. We had a very low drop today of 24,000km which again pulled us away from the 2007 figure despite the lower ice drop 2007 faced on this date.

I respect your knowledge GW as you certainly got a heck of alot on this subject but your posts always have that doom and gloom side to it and you occasionally make silly statements like the one above. Theres nothing wrong for thinking we will get below the 2007 line but I think there is part of you wanting this to happen so you can proove you are right and if you say this is not the case, then you have to stop making it sound like it is in your posts.

[stewfox]

Lol 90 per cent? Agw is scientifically proven. FACT. What do you not understand about that? The fact the best scientists i'n the world agree with this against yourself who has nowhere near the understanding tells us all we need to know! It's like saying a baker knows more about brain surgery than a brain surgeon. Drop the argument, there isn't one to be had CC!

We can all go home then

I assume yout trying to be funny ?

Interesting if we see a continued slow down as we now enter the final phase of melt what the final figure will be

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi stew!

That is why this bit of the season is known as 'basal melt' as synoptics , like 07', are able to double melt figures but are uncommon? at this time of year. Clear skies and a wind toward Fram? well that is 'perfect strorm' territory!

We seem to be lolking at a storm through beaufort and a boring low at the Fram exit? looks like a mashing over on the Canadian side and a Greenland side squeeze out of Fram over the next 2 weeks/?

As for cloud across the basin?

I'd think that we are in for a mixed bag of 1st week spread and 2nd week losses?( lets not forget that the recent 'slowdown' is also part 'spread' and that that 'spread ice' will melt out over the next few days again upping loss figures to the 80's/90's)

Edited July 30, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

Lol 90 per cent? Agw is scientifically proven. FACT. What do you not understand about that? The fact the best scientists i'n the world agree with this against yourself who has nowhere near the understanding tells us all we need to know! It's like saying a baker knows more about brain surgery than a brain surgeon. Drop the argument, there isn't one to be had CC!

I think you need to spend more time reading the science and less time shouting the odds at other people.

The only proven fact in all of this is that CO2 is a GHG. Everything else is still open to debate, that debate is still being had by all the climate scientists.

[scotty_boy_winter]

No disrespect but My father works for the government looking into alternative ways if producing energy and has worked with some of the best scientists i'n the world, believe me if youve seen some of the findings you would know it's proven. Things are actually a lot worse than the Joe bloggs public know as to not cause panic but it's safe to say within 20 years we will all be feeling the affects. Half of the issue i'n not releasing this information is scientists with limited knowledge on the subject don't allow for really important changes to be implemented due to their ego driven refusal to admit agw is real and has been proven by the best guys i'n the business. Think back to this conversation i'n 20 years and realise the damage all this arguing is causing..

I think you need to spend more time reading the science and less time shouting the odds at other people.

The only proven fact in all of this is that CO2 is a GHG. Everything else is still open to debate, that debate is still being had by all the climate scientists.

[Alan Robinson]

No disrespect but My father works for the government looking into alternative ways if producing energy and has worked with some of the best scientists i'n the world, believe me if youve seen some of the findings you would know it's proven. Things are actually a lot worse than the Joe bloggs public know as to not cause panic but it's safe to say within 20 years we will all be feeling the affects. Half of the issue i'n not releasing this information is scientists with limited knowledge on the subject don't allow for really important changes to be implemented due to their ego driven refusal to admit agw is real and has been proven by the best guys i'n the business. Think back to this conversation i'n 20 years and realise the damage all this arguing is causing..

I'm with jethro on this one, and while certain basics are probably beyond dispute right now, the world climate is a very complex and chaotic affair. A little humility wouldn't go amiss among all the climate soothsayers, because the issue is emotive.

On the question of "the best scientists in the world", I should have thought the whole business so complex that experimental atmospheric studies is one thing, experimental thermodynamics another, and a true expert in one field might probably be a comparitive novice in the other.

Anyway, for what its worth, my suspicion is that politicians and their control of research funding are distorting climate science. Scientists research that which there is funding for, and who - for the most - controls the purse strings may I ask? Our elected representative leaders - though bashful and reticent on the actual situation - know only too well that our current lifestyles cannot be sustained, and are embarrassed that they cannot offer us the appealing materialistic future so many desire. When did we hear politicians speaking openly about peak oil? Why isn't it headlines that in eight years from now, at present production rates, Norway will have emptied its lucrative oil fields? Why haven't we been advised that Saudi Arabia is pumping up masses of saltwater, and in twenty or so years from now will need the lion's share of its dwindling oil reserves for domestic consumption and making fresh water to drink. All we get is a load of tripe about electric cars, wind turbines and tidal barriers. I am pretty sure politicians have encouraged this whole heated climate debate in order to prepare the western world for the gradual changes we are likely to see the coming decades. The message is that climate change makes it necessary for us to burn less fossil fuel. The fact is that if we had it - which we don't anymore - we could continue burning the stuff as we have this last half century and hang the consequences. Good grief, it was known back in the 1960s that the discovery of new oil desposits had peaked and was thereafter diminishing. Why is it that peak oil, over-population, and Mickey Mouse money haven't been linked with the climate debate?

The state of Arctic ice is intriguing enough, but I consider its study is not put into context because the bigger picture is unpleasant for most of us.

Alternative energy sources? Answers on a postcard please to.......

[4wd]

No disrespect but My father works for the government looking into alternative ways if producing energy and has worked with some of the best scientists i'n the world, believe me if youve seen some of the findings you would know it's proven. Things are actually a lot worse than the Joe bloggs public know as to not cause panic but it's safe to say within 20 years we will all be feeling the affects. Half of the issue i'n not releasing this information is scientists with limited knowledge on the subject don't allow for really important changes to be implemented due to their ego driven refusal to admit agw is real and has been proven by the best guys i'n the business. Think back to this conversation i'n 20 years and realise the damage all this arguing is causing..

Blimey, it must be worse than we thought.

I would have thought he might be sworn to kill anyone who accidentally spread this secret information?

[scotty_boy_winter]

Time will tell (:

[quote name=4wd' timestamp='1312099810'

post='2112244]

Blimey, it must be worse than we thought.

I would have thought he might be sworn to kill anyone who accidentally spread this secret information?

[jethro]

No disrespect but My father works for the government looking into alternative ways if producing energy and has worked with some of the best scientists i'n the world, believe me if youve seen some of the findings you would know it's proven. Things are actually a lot worse than the Joe bloggs public know as to not cause panic but it's safe to say within 20 years we will all be feeling the affects. Half of the issue i'n not releasing this information is scientists with limited knowledge on the subject don't allow for really important changes to be implemented due to their ego driven refusal to admit agw is real and has been proven by the best guys i'n the business. Think back to this conversation i'n 20 years and realise the damage all this arguing is causing..

No disrespect but this forum discusses the findings of peer reviewed papers on the entire subject of climate change; not just those with a vested interest in AGW being real and the biggest threat to humankind.

Personally, I'd rather read papers written by people with nothing but professional reputation at stake than those wanting to drive the use because they want to develop alternative energy uses. Anyone sponsored by the big oil companies is criticised, their findings questioned because of the money source, that criticism has to be levelled both ways.

I am however stunned and impressed that you, and only you seemingly has the say so on whether or not this crucial information is released. Staggering really to have such power, given the age we live in with FOI requests, internet and hacking.

Alan - spot on, I agree with every word.

[Nights King]

This thread gets more interesting by the day!

until I found the level headed responses from jeth and alan I thought I was in the conspiracy thread

[pottyprof]

Lol now climate change is a conspiracy? Oh my days, I give up you must be the only people i'n the world that hasn't excepted climate change as proven science

Climate change is a proven science.... The climate is constantly changing and funnily enough, it is the one point that everyone agrees with. It's been observed and recorded and yep, the world has warmed. Where the science isn't proven, is how our knowledge of all the various parts of the bigger picture fit together. We don't fully understand feedback systems or external forces or if we are going through a natural warming cycle or not so we don't know how bad it's going to get or if things will turn around.

If I were you, I'd go and ask Daddykins if you can read something that isn't biased to energy supply and see for yourself how disjointed the AGW theory is. Energy supply is more about peak oil than anything else but governments don't like to talk about that.

Anyway, this is for discussing Arctic Ice and we'd better get back to it.

[BornFromTheVoid]

I think dragging all this political stuff into debates on Arctic ice is rather pointless. Indicating that pro-agw governments decide where the money goes for research and thus inevitably leads to biased papers and research would make sense, if it wasn't blatantly obvious of the power that oil lobbyists have on politics, much like tobacco and pharmaceuticals, and therefore can influence research grants and go through private research. Whatever bias one thinks exists in either side of this research debate is, imho, equally balanced by bias from the other side and the scrutiny the publication undergo through the peer review process.

Maybe I've an idealised, naive view of the scientific world, but I'd like to think the majority of obviously biased and inaccurate research is weeded out through the peer review system.

I don't think anyone claims to know completely how the climate system works and how CO₂ affectsit at every level, if they did they would have given up and we've only have skeptical research coming through. We have a wide variety of research of AGW, climate change, natural warming/cooling processes and their effects of Arctic sea ice and various other things. Long may it continue I hope!

As for what's hapenning with Arctic ice, we could end up with almost no ice loss today, does that mean things are looking up and the trend is now much better? Don't really think so. The trend is still undeniably downward and a couple of days of below average melt doesn't take away from the obvious downward extent into September. In a similar vein, the years of slight improvement in ice extent (as apposed to volume) since 2007 doesn't take away from a very obvious downward trend.

[Alan Robinson]

Time will tell (:

Lol now climate change is a conspiracy? Oh my days, I give up you must be the only people i'n the world that hasn't excepted climate change as proven science

I am unsure who your comment is made toward, but just for clarity, I never once mentioned or implied there is a conspiracy or plot. My point is that politicians are by their very nature cunning, and it must be highly embarrassing for them to on the one hand take upon themselves the running of our country on our behalf, yet have little if any practical vision for how our society might be in say, 15, 30, or 50 years from now. You will be very hard pressed to find a mainstream politician tell you that we must make radical changes because our energy supplies are gradually running out, simultaneously with us all living way beyond our means and having to borrow all the time, together with what seem pressing environmental issues, not to mention gross over-population. The Arctic ice business cannot be meaningfully debated in isolation from all these most pressing and interconnected issues.

[Alan Robinson]

I

Maybe I've an idealised, naive view of the scientific world, but I'd like to think the majority of obviously biased and inaccurate research is weeded out through the peer review system.

My information is that, certainly here in Denmark, getting as far as the peer review stage is quite an achievement. The allocation of research funding is an industry in itself, and considerable sums are used to coach potential researchers with the aim of achieving publication in international journals. Publication brings with it public financing without which many large universities cannot continue their various activities. I am told that the research community here is very conservative for this very reason, and much consideration is given to which topics to even propose for research in the first place. Of course there is private funding, and I cannot say what proportion of the total funding it amounts to. Public funding does however appear to be very significant. A certain philosophically minded man I know is of the opinion that this entire culture is in fact counter-productive with respect to the dwindling level of innovation these recent decades. As he puts it, "go-faster stripes on a new mobile phone model is NOT innovation".

Edited July 31, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[Alan Robinson]

Back to Arctic ice it is then.

I gather that if the big melt continues, then before long shipping will increase considerably above the Arctic Circle. I presume this primarily involves the transportation of hydrocarbons in liquid form, which means tankers.

The economics of liquid bulk transport are already well established; the bigger the better for crude oil. I have however a problem with this concerning materials technology. Steel - the only readily available material we have with sufficient tensile strength and stiffness for such large structures - is ductile above 0 degrees C. However, at sub zero temperatures there is quite a sudden transition from ductile to brittle, meaning not only does the material crack without prior plastic deformation, but impacts can cause sudden failure of the material.

Brittleness can be overcome and impact strength improved by heat treating the steel after rolling. However, there are other issues to consider, such as material thickness, and as far as I know, although there are tankers certified for Arctic duty, none of them are anything like ULCC size (the largest crude carriers we see plying the Strait of Hormuz for example), and therefore are not built of such thick plate in the midship region.

The Arctic is a sensitive environment, and I hope that moves are afoot to protect it against the application of unsuitable technology. Reading what I have just put, does anyone recall the cause of the awful pipeline leaks there were a few years back - where was it now - Alaska? Siberia? I don't suppose they made the pipelines of steel that becomes brittle at -10C, and some irritated worker gave the pipe a knock with his hammer while doing maintenance work?