Arctic Ice Discussion

[noiv]

quest4peace,

you're right many factors determine the final extent end of September. Some are known others not. A future stable low or high is capable to drastically change ice distribution. Also the extent's 15% threshold is tricky and we have no clue how things look when bottom melting starts removing first year basin ice. Look here how offshore 20°C wind melts the ice: http://www.arctic.io...st-Siberian-Sea, Similar happens in the Beaufort. Have an eye an the forecast maps, or here, to find out what will happen the next days. The next weeks are not on my radar and the overall trend is quite clear in the extent graphs you've posted.

[quest4peace]

quest4peace,

you're right many factors determine the final extent end of September. Some are known others not. A future stable low or high is capable to drastically change ice distribution. Also the extent's 15% threshold is tricky and we have no clue how things look when bottom melting starts removing first year basin ice. Look here how offshore 20°C wind melts the ice: http://www.arctic.io...st-Siberian-Sea, Similar happens in the Beaufort. Have an eye an the forecast maps, or here, to find out what will happen the next days. The next weeks are not on my radar and the overall trend is quite clear in the extent graphs you've posted.

Hi Thanks for your reply. I've bookmarked those links and will watch with great interest There is going to be a lot of questions in this post which i would love you regulars to answer We can only be absolutely sure of what the sattelites have shown us over the last 30 years.I wonder how the year to year ice would of looked if we could of had the technology 100 years ago There is obviously something very wrong up there at the moment i mean look at the sea surface temps on the edge of the basin obviously caused by the anomalous temps :blink: And i'm not ignorant to the fact that we have lost so much of the really old ice The higher than norm sea temps is quite clearly the melting factor?

Sea surface temps in the Arctic

http://ocean.dmi.dk/...te/index.uk.php

Can it not just be, that for whatever reason the ARCTIC is having a freak period?, is it due to the solar minimum disrupting the flow of air across the globe?.I admit i haven't the knowledge :blush: why these winds are getting into the edges of the basin,admittedly at the cost of the ice?. And that maybe it's happened before? and does every now and again? 2003's high of 39c? in kent? was a prime example of what wind direction can do in our own neck of the woods isn't it And the thing is, just because we had reached those temps that summer didn't mean that it was going to become the norm here. Also because we had a run of stupidly mild winters i remember some "experts" and people saying on here saying cold winters were history Just like 2008 and 2009 was was supposed to be even lower ice extent wise in the arctic?. And we were incapable of really cold winters now, and that they would be rare Lol!. And then the past few winters have totally gone against that, and got gradually colder despite these claims. i mean last winter was the coldest on record in dec and january .I wish i knew what the answer was,but i think just like our ancestors thought they had certain areas of science figured totally out, and we have disproved a lot of what was set in stone back then, we might be proven the same.

Edited July 21, 2011 by quest4peace

[Gray-Wolf]

Pink is as high as the scale goes and I'd imagine that the coastal areas are even warmer than that? The Siberian coast is a shallow shelf sea with permafrost beneath it. That permafrost is melting. as it does it is starting to release methane in increasing quantities (even over winter where it accumulated below the ice and escape through leads (even over winter).

As we know methane is far more powerful as a GHG than CO2. Pump enough of it into the atmosphere and we have a serious problem (even more serious than our emissions!).

This year the ice pulled off away from the Siberian coast earlier than ever before so the warming started earlier. This years NH Methane plots should be interesting.

[quest4peace]

Pink is as high as the scale goes and I'd imagine that the coastal areas are even warmer than that? The Siberian coast is a shallow shelf sea with permafrost beneath it. That permafrost is melting. as it does it is starting to release methane in increasing quantities (even over winter where it accumulated below the ice and escape through leads (even over winter).

As we know methane is far more powerful as a GHG than CO2. Pump enough of it into the atmosphere and we have a serious problem (even more serious than our emissions!).

This year the ice pulled off away from the Siberian coast earlier than ever before so the warming started earlier. This years NH Methane plots should be interesting.

Hi Gray wolf I always find your posts interesting as i do others B) i haven't got the knowledge to disregard anything of what is said on here, but i have this nagging feeling that there is more than meets the eye here While the threat of the methane and such is a real risk, is this all happening because of us alone?.Or is it in a natural phase in which we are unlucky/lucky enough to be caught in?:blink: I mean the earth, from what i do know, has been through cycles of ice and no ice at each pole. Was there not methane release at these other times in the distant past as well?.

Edited July 21, 2011 by quest4peace

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Gray wolf I always find your posts interesting as i do others B) i haven't got the knowledge to disregard anything of what is said on here, but i have this nagging feeling that there is more than meets the eye here While the threat of the methane and such is a real risk, is this all happening because of us alone?.Or is it in a natural phase in which we are unlucky/lucky enough to be caught in?:blink: I mean the earth, from what i do know, has been through cycles of ice and no ice at each pole. Was there not methane release at these other times in the distant past as well?.

Hi Q4P!

Yup! the earth has had lots of variance in it's long existence and the U.K. has visited both hemispheres as well!!! I don't think any of that is in question?

What has the science worried is the speed of the changes we are seeing happen (esp. across the Pole) and the fact that we do not find ourselves in a position for such rapid 'natural warming' to be occuring with the global population as large as it is.

At the end of an ice age the carbon cycle 'boots up' again and some of this is with the frozen vegetation, buried by ice sheets, thawing and rotting to release it's carbon.

We (the many who accept the science) are constantly told of the times when the Poles were far warmer than today by folk who would like to believe all of the warming is 'natural' and 'cyclical'. Sadly this means that we have a lot of Carbon frozen in the permafrost across the tundra regions. If the planet warms to the point that sea ice becomes seasonal then we will see swathes of this permafrost melt out and add this 'locked away ' carbon into the carbon cycle. We risk adding much more carbon than our pollution has added to the atmosphere and some of this in the form of 'methane (a super GHG). We stand at nearly 400ppm of CO2 now. We risk raising this to nearly twice as much just by melting out 1/2 the permafrosts of the north (and no SO2 to mask the warming effects).

If we have broken the Arctic (or at least been the straw that broke that particular Camels back) then we can expect the permafrost to speed up it's melting and for CO2 to take a rapid upward lurch. We can bin the IPCC predictions for the worst case scenario along with our efforts to control CO2 outputs!

Apart from that it is a very interesting thing to be around to witness and so we should count ourselves very fortunate to be here and now?

[Iceberg]

1998 was a perfect storm to give us record high temps (said some), until 2010 came along without the perfection, 2007 was a perfect storm to give us the record low arctic ice, until 2011 came along without the perfection......

[Gray-Wolf]

1998 was a perfect storm to give us record high temps (said some), until 2010 came along without the perfection, 2007 was a perfect storm to give us the record low arctic ice, until 2011 came along without the perfection......

Hi Ice!

and I've been saying as much for a while! Only the 'high start points' pulled 08' and 09' as far above 07' (and the collapse and spread of the MYI at seasons end , 2010 was a 'true reflection' of where we are at this point. 2011 will again challenge the 07' perfect storm year with another 'mixed melt season'.

Folk have been calling 'recovery' when in fact it was just 'more of the same'. They did it with temps and they do it with ice extent. they will be in for a shock any time soon.

Did you have any thoughts on where the extent may end up at seasons ICE?

[noiv]

quest4peace,

really big questions! It would be great to answer them in a post and that's it. But you are right, knowledge is never written in stone. Tomorrow someone might find out the atmosphere collects dark matter and CO2 will no longer behave as greenhouse gas in 5 years. Very stupid example, don't cite that. So what the hell is the value of science?

On the other hand the computer you use to write posts here is freaking complex and I assume like me you have no idea why quantum mechanics allows the way they work. The point is you trust because you neither have the capacity nor the time to prove by yourself. Would you believe someone telling you science is wrong and tomorrow all computer will break?

Yesterday Achim Steiner, UNEP, urged the council to move on and consider climate change as a security threat (there is a video at un.org, have a look). His points are backed as he put it by "our best knowledge". There is a rumor some countries want "green-helmets closing coal-mines", a sign of lively talks behind closed doors. You may say science is not enough to make decisions of such importance, my answer would be: it is all we have.

You have to answer yourself a very long chain of questions until you feel confident enough to get active because of climate change. Take that time, I promise you, it is an outstanding eye opener. As added value you'll gain insight into entropy some people consider as the only starting point to rethink economy. Start with one molecule of CO2 and find out why it resonates to a certain range of wavelengths and thus transforms electromagnetic energy into mechanical which can no longer exit the planet. Think of a tuning fork.

Somewhere in the middle you'll find yourself saying thanks to all the bacteria made the oxygen you breathe and kick started the development of plants. And at the very end you'll recognize our current climate as the fine tuned result of a process ongoing since billions of years, build to support life and stable like an elephant balancing on a pushpin. You then don't want to ignore the sign saying: "Don't touch!"

[cheeky_monkey]

1998 was a perfect storm to give us record high temps (said some), until 2010 came along without the perfection, 2007 was a perfect storm to give us the record low arctic ice, until 2011 came along without the perfection......

some studies suggest that 1998 was surpassed by 2005 as well as 2010..and one even states that 1998 was only the 6th warmest on record

[BornFromTheVoid]

Joe B forecast a minimum of between 2005 and 2006 for this summer, with a bottom limit of 5.5 million. Wouldn't mind hearing his thoughts on how things are going now!

My link (Don't know why the link ain't working, but a quick search should find the page!)

Edited July 22, 2011 by BornFromTheVoid

[quest4peace]

Hi Q4P!

Yup! the earth has had lots of variance in it's long existence and the U.K. has visited both hemispheres as well!!! I don't think any of that is in question?

What has the science worried is the speed of the changes we are seeing happen (esp. across the Pole) and the fact that we do not find ourselves in a position for such rapid 'natural warming' to be occuring with the global population as large as it is.

At the end of an ice age the carbon cycle 'boots up' again and some of this is with the frozen vegetation, buried by ice sheets, thawing and rotting to release it's carbon.

We (the many who accept the science) are constantly told of the times when the Poles were far warmer than today by folk who would like to believe all of the warming is 'natural' and 'cyclical'. Sadly this means that we have a lot of Carbon frozen in the permafrost across the tundra regions. If the planet warms to the point that sea ice becomes seasonal then we will see swathes of this permafrost melt out and add this 'locked away ' carbon into the carbon cycle. We risk adding much more carbon than our pollution has added to the atmosphere and some of this in the form of 'methane (a super GHG). We stand at nearly 400ppm of CO2 now. We risk raising this to nearly twice as much just by melting out 1/2 the permafrosts of the north (and no SO2 to mask the warming effects).

If we have broken the Arctic (or at least been the straw that broke that particular Camels back) then we can expect the permafrost to speed up it's melting and for CO2 to take a rapid upward lurch. We can bin the IPCC predictions for the worst case scenario along with our efforts to control CO2 outputs!

Apart from that it is a very interesting thing to be around to witness and so we should count ourselves very fortunate to be here and now?

Hi Gray wolf Thanks for kindly replying It can't be denied that all that gas going into the atmosphere is quite worrying :ph34r: What is the actually property of methane? as in relation to warming? Methane is of course flammable (slightly worrying) Lol!. I know from what i've seen on all the programs about the Arctic wildlife on the bbc that you can burn the methane that escapes from the ice by simply lighting a match above it i have a map of the early earth on my wall and it is fascinating to see how the place we live is the way it is

I knotice britain is missed off the picture representing modern earth Lol!

An article from 2010 "New York Times"

Globe-Warming Methane Is Gushing From a Russian Ice Shelf

12digg

Behind the ongoing back-and-forth fights over climate change that usually focus on carbon, there has lingered the threat of the powerful greenhouse gas methane being released into the atmosphere and causing even worse trouble. In August we reported on a study that noted methane bubbling up from the seafloor near islands north of Norway, giving scientists a scare. This week in Science, another team reports seeing the same thing during thousands of observations of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf on Russia’s north coast, which is even more worrisome because it’s a huge methane deposit.

The shelf, which covers about 800,000 square miles, was exposed during the last ice age. When the region was above sea level, tundra vegetation pulled carbon dioxide from the air as plants grew. That organic material, much of which didn’t decompose in the frigid Arctic, accumulated in the soil and is the source of modern methane [Science News]. Now underwater, it’s covered by a layer of permafrost. But that permafrost seems to be becoming unstable, thanks to the fact that the water on top of it is warmer than the air it was exposed to back when it was on dry land.

The study said about 8 million tonnes of methane a year, equivalent to the annual total previously estimated from all of the world’s oceans, were seeping from vast stores long trapped under permafrost [Reuters]. Study leader Natalia Shakhova says methane levels in the Arctic haven’t been this high in 400,000 years. While we’re not about to teeter off a cliff—that 8 million tons is a small portion of the global emissions of 440 million tons—we should be concerned, the scientists say. Methane is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, absorbing at least 25 times more heat, NOAA says.

It is possible that climate change could be contributing to the release, with warmer seas causing more methane to come out, creating a feedback loop. But methane has long been leaking, and there’s no record of the previous levels with which to verify how much methane emissions are increasing, or whether people are playing a part. While Shakhova says the warmer runoff into the Arctic ocean is probably contributing, the team can’t say that for sure.

What they can say for sure is that the methane levels there are extremely high. Most undersea methane oxidizes into CO2 as it enters the atmosphere, but Shakhova says the East Siberian Ice Shelf methane is too close to the surface for that to happen. As a result, she said, atmospheric levels of methane over the Arctic are 1.85 parts per million, almost three times as high as the global average of 0.6 or 0.7 parts per million. Concentrations over the shelf are 2 parts per million or higher [The New York Times].

quest4peace,

really big questions! It would be great to answer them in a post and that's it. But you are right, knowledge is never written in stone. Tomorrow someone might find out the atmosphere collects dark matter and CO2 will no longer behave as greenhouse gas in 5 years. Very stupid example, don't cite that. So what the hell is the value of science?

On the other hand the computer you use to write posts here is freaking complex and I assume like me you have no idea why quantum mechanics allows the way they work. The point is you trust because you neither have the capacity nor the time to prove by yourself. Would you believe someone telling you science is wrong and tomorrow all computer will break?

Yesterday Achim Steiner, UNEP, urged the council to move on and consider climate change as a security threat (there is a video at un.org, have a look). His points are backed as he put it by "our best knowledge". There is a rumor some countries want "green-helmets closing coal-mines", a sign of lively talks behind closed doors. You may say science is not enough to make decisions of such importance, my answer would be: it is all we have.

You have to answer yourself a very long chain of questions until you feel confident enough to get active because of climate change. Take that time, I promise you, it is an outstanding eye opener. As added value you'll gain insight into entropy some people consider as the only starting point to rethink economy. Start with one molecule of CO2 and find out why it resonates to a certain range of wavelengths and thus transforms electromagnetic energy into mechanical which can no longer exit the planet. Think of a tuning fork.

Somewhere in the middle you'll find yourself saying thanks to all the bacteria made the oxygen you breathe and kick started the development of plants. And at the very end you'll recognize our current climate as the fine tuned result of a process ongoing since billions of years, build to support life and stable like an elephant balancing on a pushpin. You then don't want to ignore the sign saying: "Don't touch!"

hI noiv Thanks for your in depth reply I Have always, since a child, looked at life from the outside viewpoint, by this i mean that most people are just born, live their life as dictated to and blindly carry on till death. But i have always been fascinated by absolutely everything around us. Nothing is purely black and white to me There are multiple coloured areas between black and white that people don't comprehend. As i see it there can only be certain amount rules about the world around us that will always be true, but there will always be that that one event that throws everything we know out of the window (well,some of what we know )

Red line is heading swiftly back towards 2007 and the pack i see It's certainly playing some mind games with us Lol!

Edited July 22, 2011 by quest4peace

[noiv]

Found here: http://www.tzeporahb...m/excerpts.html

The past one hundred years have been a frenzy of development and pollution.

We’ve benefited in many ways, but now we’re starting to live the repercussions.

It’s as if we’ve thrown a massive party in our parents’ house and have to clean up

the mess in the living room before Mom and Dad get home - except in this case

it’s our grandchildren’s house that we’ve completely trashed.

@quest4peace: Ready to clean up the mess? Or don't you party? + thx on the methane.

Robert Grumbine: Why decline in sea ice data is not conspiracy.

[jethro]

Found here: http://www.tzeporahb...m/excerpts.html

The past one hundred years have been a frenzy of development and pollution.

We’ve benefited in many ways, but now we’re starting to live the repercussions.

It’s as if we’ve thrown a massive party in our parents’ house and have to clean up

the mess in the living room before Mom and Dad get home - except in this case

it’s our grandchildren’s house that we’ve completely trashed.

@quest4peace: Ready to clean up the mess? Or don't you party? + thx on the methane.

Robert Grumbine: Why decline in sea ice data is not conspiracy.

That's exactly the kind of drivel which gets right up my nose; it belongs in the same waste basket as the scam pictures of Polar Bears floating on minuscule bits of ice and the gibberish in this mornings Daily Mail about the Arctic. Attention grabbing headline of " Global warming on course to melt record amount of Arctic ice in 2011, scientists warn" - apparently we don't get weather anymore, we just get climate change.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2017248/Global-warming-course-melt-record-Arctic-ice-2011-scientists-warn.html#ixzz1SqX9qWxU

[Gray-Wolf]

"gibberish in this mornings Daily Mail about the Arctic"

I'm not seeing anything other than facts in there J'. The loss (up until yesterday) was as reported? The temp anoms are up on various sites? The SST anoms (most importantly?) are likewise freely available?

For a non -perfect storm year to be performing like a 'perfect storm year ' must seek an explaination now surely?

The water temps over the Siberian ice shelp permafrosts must have you twitched J'? Surely if we wish to preserve the deposits below in their frozen state then we would be wishing for a return to an ice bound coastline (as we used to know).

As it is the areas showing these big anoms are really setting the scene for the remainder of the melt season.

This period is known as the 'basal melt' phase as now the warmed oceans are the biggest cause for losses (apart from rapid export should it get windy in the wrong places?) up until Sept.

The L.P. switch over seems to be helping stall the ice losses over the past 2 days and we may soon fall behind the 07' melt rates. With so much ice now stacking up in Greenland sea/N.Fram we may see a resumption of lossses over the short-term and then it will be all eyes on the Central basin to see how much of this will melt out prior to re-freeze.

[jethro]

"gibberish in this mornings Daily Mail about the Arctic"

I'm not seeing anything other than facts in there J'. The loss (up until yesterday) was as reported? The temp anoms are up on various sites? The SST anoms (most importantly?) are likewise freely available?

For a non -perfect storm year to be performing like a 'perfect storm year ' must seek an explaination now surely?

The water temps over the Siberian ice shelp permafrosts must have you twitched J'? Surely if we wish to preserve the deposits below in their frozen state then we would be wishing for a return to an ice bound coastline (as we used to know).

As it is the areas showing these big anoms are really setting the scene for the remainder of the melt season.

This period is known as the 'basal melt' phase as now the warmed oceans are the biggest cause for losses (apart from rapid export should it get windy in the wrong places?) up until Sept.

The L.P. switch over seems to be helping stall the ice losses over the past 2 days and we may soon fall behind the 07' melt rates. With so much ice now stacking up in Greenland sea/N.Fram we may see a resumption of lossses over the short-term and then it will be all eyes on the Central basin to see how much of this will melt out prior to re-freeze.

And you make it sound as though it's all the result of climate change. Like I said, we don't get weather anymore, just climate change.

"It is believed that the melting ice has been caused by warm spells sweeping across the Northern Hemisphere."

"Forecasters have recorded high pressure over the Beaufort Sea, north of Alaska, since June, which has brought warmer temperatures to the entire Arctic."

That sounds like weather to me. Either that or we're now demi gods in control of everything, perhaps it's just in my nature to be more modest than megalomaniac.

[noiv]

Nice, Jethro is back, looks like I found the button .

> apparently we don't get weather anymore, we just get climate change.

Getting cramped on denial outpost? Don't start to excavate ancient weather reports!

[Gray-Wolf]

Not quite following your logic there j'?

We have watched the destruction of the Arctic for over 50yrs and now find ourselves with a pack that reflects those dramatic changes?

An ice pack of the 1970's would have shrugged off similar 'weather' across the basin and we would have finished the year with more ice than we presently have in the basin today.

Not a product of weather j , one of long term ,slow change in one direction?

If we are to appear shocked that we are headed for yet another 'imperfect year' heading for the 'perfect storm' level of melt we need to revisit the changes we have measured over the past 60 years and make some sense of where that level of change leaves the Basin today come the summer melt?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Decrease_of_old_Arctic_Sea_ice_1982-2007.gif

As you know too well we have lost all the Paleocrystic ice and now have low percentages of 3rd/4th year ice come ice max when compared to FYI (a complete turn around from what used to be). Any of the agencies looking into the workings of the pole will show you how first year ice is made and how 'deep' it can make over 1 season. The same site will also give you an average 'melt depth' for ice over a typical Arctic summer.

We have also noted that during the basal melt period we can lose up to 1m/month to the warm ocean. My concern now is how much of the ice (not due for export) will melt out in situ before the Sept sea ice min arrives.

I know you profess to have little concern for the changes we see occuring in the Arctic ( in terms of their impacts on humanity) but you must allow those of us who do to hold such concerns in lieu of you easing them?

[jethro]

Nice, Jethro is back, looks like I found the button .

> apparently we don't get weather anymore, we just get climate change.

Getting cramped on denial outpost? Don't start to excavate ancient weather reports!

You're mistaking me for someone who denies AGW even exists. As I've said innumerable times, I absolutely accept the validity of the theory, what I question is the extent of the impact. If you show me how we have created the weather in the Arctic or elsewhere on Earth, I'll happily change my mind, but as far as I can tell, weather happens. The ice may be thinner, more fragile or vulnerable to weather and that may be partly our fault but that still doesn't make the weather pattern our achievement.

I don't have "buttons" on this subject, I'll just counter ridiculous claims when they're made and object to moralistic drivel - moral, judgement and condemnation belong in a world peopled by differing grades of humans, as far as I'm aware, we're all equal in this one. Me being around here is utterly dependent upon finding the time, it's nice to be missed though, I've always assumed folk heave a sigh of relief when I'm not around.

I know you profess to have little concern for the changes we see occuring in the Arctic ( in terms of their impacts on humanity) but you must allow those of us who do to hold such concerns in lieu of you easing them?

You can hold whatever concerns you like GW, but to be absolutely honest, IMO the relentless linkage of every single variance in ice to AGW does your argument more harm than good.

It's accepted that there are some people on the sceptic side of this debate who do more harm than good with their continued refusal to accept peer reviewed science, preferring instead to insist it's all rubbish - they do a lot of harm to the genuine sceptical debate. Those on the other side who do the exact opposite, by attributing every nuance of change to AGW are just as barmy and do just as much harm.

[The PIT]

I'm still wondering how the planet recovered last time from an ice free Arctic. Anyway got to admit the melt is disappointing but talk of the perfect a storm and perfect melt is going a bit far.

[noiv]

I'm still wondering how the planet recovered last time from an ice free Arctic. Anyway got to admit the melt is disappointing but talk of the perfect a storm and perfect melt is going a bit far.

Start here: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Carbon_cycle

[Iceberg]

Hi Ice!

and I've been saying as much for a while! Only the 'high start points' pulled 08' and 09' as far above 07' (and the collapse and spread of the MYI at seasons end , 2010 was a 'true reflection' of where we are at this point. 2011 will again challenge the 07' perfect storm year with another 'mixed melt season'.

Folk have been calling 'recovery' when in fact it was just 'more of the same'. They did it with temps and they do it with ice extent. they will be in for a shock any time soon.

Did you have any thoughts on where the extent may end up at seasons ICE?

Hi GW,

Yep the fractured ice we commented about back in April/May is certainly showing the fragility now.

Re where we end up, I think it totally comes down to the AO tbh, a couple of none prime months in July and August and we might end up with the 2nd lowest amount of ice on record. With an average AO then we might end near 2007, a very negative AO through to mid Sept and 2007 will be broken easily IMO.

Re Weather, the difference it seems to make is whether we end up with record low ice or just very low ice i.e top 5.

Looks like the NE and NW passages will be fully open in the next couple of weeks, with the NE passage easily travelable now and totally ice free(i.e no ice in sight) soon

[noiv]

> If you show me how we have created the weather in the Arctic or elsewhere on Earth...

It seems you constantly mix up climate and weather. Or you don't, but know above is not possible by all logic. There is a clear trend to a warmer climate on Earth, so what is your conjecture? Can you formulate in a way it is open to falsification? And please, don't come up with something already dropped by IPCC or any other peer reviewed paper. Otherwise there is no reason why you intercept the discussion here, remember this is the Internet, everybody here is old enough to reject moral drivel himself, patronizing is gratuitous.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm still wondering how the planet recovered last time from an ice free Arctic. Anyway got to admit the melt is disappointing but talk of the perfect a storm and perfect melt is going a bit far.

Hi Pit!

Seems my concerns/predictions for this years melt are panning out better than the NW Summer forecast?? (LOL)

Any return from an interglacial/return into an ice age takes many thousands of years. It involves both global position and our carbon cycle (it is a lot more complex than that of course but you get the gist?).

Our current interglacial appeared at an end with polar temps slowly falling for the last 1,000yrs until a sudden turn around at the turn of last century. Since then we have lost most of the polar ice cap, with ice thickness halving since the 1950's (see my last post to 'j' ) in just 100yrs! This is unprecedented in the recent geological record if you believe the mud logs from the Arctic Basin.

My take on sciences concerns is that we may push ice to a 'new' settled state with very little ice in the basin come ice min in Sept. The pendulum swings since 07' seem to be showing this with a lower min now looking to establish. Without 'old ice' in the basin ,and with the majority of ice at ice max now first year ice (which puts on about 2m over a freeze season) which is expected to completely melt our over a 'normal season' how are we to ever regrow the older ice?.

I fear that the recent gains in 2nd and 3rd year ice have been wiped out this year and next ice max will show them returning to the old trend of losses?(see ice type flowing out of Fram at the moment and the 'flow' of old ice across the pole toward Fram) with FYI accounting for over 70% of the ice in the basin?

The other issue I have is the destruction of the last vestige of the past ice age which made the Arctic Ocean very special amongst the Earths Oceans, This was the 'Halocline layer' that reached down to depth of over 200m

as the Catlin expedition is currently publishing open 'mixing' is now occuring in the basin with cold melt waters pushing warmer ,saltier waters to the surface. the loss of the Halocline means the end to the Paleocrystic ice that once blocked the Whalers entrance into the basin via Fram (and the Odin ice bridge from Greenland half the way to Svalbard). Such massive ice (the size of office blocks!) had a very deep keel but was protected by the Halocline. This ice now melts out basally (as does much of the ice in the basin!) so Prof Barber was probably the last scientist to witness such when he watched the 1/4 hr collapse of the last massive floe he encountered back in 09' (the 'rotten ice' adventure?)

Before we can grow back the Arctic we need to re-establish this deep layer of cold fresh water. To do this we need a basin once again free from swells to do this we need a complete blankets of ice over 2m thick across the whole basin for a good number of years (how long was the last ice age???)

This is the Arctic that is out there now Pit. No amount of wishful thinking will return it to the way it used to function only a long protracted period of cold summers up there will achieve that.

How many 'cold summers' have we had in the Arctic circle over the past 70yrs?, how many over the past 20yrs?, how many over the past 10yrs?

P.S. TBH your the first person I've heard mention a 'Perfect Melt'? Maybe I'll borrow the phrase for future years?

Edited July 22, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[noiv]

Looks like the NE and NW passages will be fully open in the next couple of weeks, with the NE passage easily travelable now and totally ice free(i.e no ice in sight) soon

Indeed, Russian Icebreaker have holidays now. Anyway was strange job last week, having offshore wind of 20°C, ice floes to break and cubes on deck. Budjem sdorowy!

[quest4peace]

Indeed, Russian Icebreaker have holidays now. Anyway was strange job last week, having offshore wind of 20°C, ice floes to break and cubes on deck. Budjem sdorowy!

Your welcome on the methane article I wonder how much effect the ice breakers are having on single year ice? Even if they only contribute a small percentage of damage, what are the possible repurcussions of breaking the ice up?

Edited July 22, 2011 by quest4peace