Arctic Ice Discussion

[noiv]

> how much effect the ice breakers are having on single year ice?

Yeah, that point comes up quite often. 2 possible replies: We are talking about 5-10 millions of square kilometers ice and perhaps ten icebreakers having let me guess 30m width. Can flies shatter mountains? Sea ice is already fractured by nature, it is constantly drifting, breaking, opening cracks, leads and polynyas, etc.. The latter is also the reason why so many submarines surfaced and got pictured at North Pole, it is not that difficult to find a hole there in summer. Have a look at concentration maps, 80% of sea ice means 20% room for icebreakers and submarines.

Why you are interested in sea ice?

[jethro]

> 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.

I'm not mixing up anything, I was making a direct reference to the article published today in the Daily Mail - the mix up is theirs, not mine and that was the precise point I was making. Their attention grabbing headline declares "climate change" but the scientist involved states it is weather which has caused the rapid melt this year. GW agreed with their headline, whilst missing the weather detail; if anyone is confusing climate with weather it is Greywolf, not I.

I think every member here has an equal right to intercept any thread, as and when they like, this is an open forum. The Arctic discussion, like all the other threads is open for debate, it isn't an exclusive club for those who want to agree with one anther that the ice is melting, it's all our fault and we're doomed. Had I been talking about Cricket or Football, I'd be in agreement with you but as it was an article about Arctic ice loss, it's inclusion was completely relevant and on topic.

I agree everyone is able to reject moral drivel, my objection to the inclusion of moralistic preaching like the link you posted earlier is that climate change is a science, not a religion. Objecting to the drive of some to win this debate by either publishing or agreeing with such nonsense is not patronising, it is emphasising that this is a science debate, science is based in facts and figures, not airy, fairy feelings. What is patronising, is thinking and assuming that intelligent people can be swayed away from facts, persuaded with emotive guilt to accept the science as it currently stands, complete with the omissions in our understanding.

I ask science based questions from a scientific perspective, if there are no answers for my questions, that's fine. What happens time and again is that if there are no answers or people are unsure of the answer, they try to gloss over the issue with emotive rubbish or use the cover all, get out clause of we're warming and most scientists agree so you must be wrong. All the while completely missing the point that the questions I ask are exactly the same questions that the pro AGW scientists are also asking and wondering about.

I've been on this board for quite a few years now, despite conversing with some of the same people for all that time I still fail to communicate a question without it being interpreted as wholesale denial. I wouldn't consider myself a stupid person, I'm really quite well educated, having trained and worked in publishing for many years I'd like to consider myself fairly literate so I'm completely at a loss as to why this should be. Can any of you who automatically interpret my questions as denial of the AGW theory please explain to me where I'm going wrong. Am I going wrong or is it that you take any question as being an attack, whether or not it's justified?

[Gray-Wolf]

"Why you are interested in sea ice?"

I think that this is a question that we all might like to consider.

I think I am drawn to it by it's possible impacts on us and it's accessibility for us tied to our computer chairs?

I believe that it truly is 'The Canary in the mine' as far as the climate change we see is concerned.

I'm in no way saying that we do not see natures 'ups and downs' in our recent climate history but I also see that 'drives' that mans usage of the planet have brought about.

Funnily enough I feel it will be 'Mother Nature' ,and her carbon inputs, that will bring about the worse of the climate 'changes' we are yet to face (because of the course we seem set upon..in my way of witnessing/reasoning?) as the permafrost out-gasses both Methane and CO2 over the years to come.

I have no faith in 'humanity' taking any realistic steps toward solving either our climatic impacts,poverty or hunger any time soon, Hey! , it's only one mans standpoint?

Where does that leave my son and daughter?

Well that's up to us?

[noiv]

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

Jethro, please, there is no interpretation needed to understand this proposal, there is obviously no reference in the whole paragraph. Get your language straight and precise, stop weaseling. And I suppose my "religious link" refers to Grumbine, right? ROFL. Please name the scientists you would accept without comment having linked here. Make a white list of what you allow to discuss. And stop reading here or get your moral button under control. You hardly achieve writing a few lines without contradicting yourself. Mostly it is you bringing up that moral issue, what exactly is your problem, why do you feel guilty?

[noiv]

"Why you are interested in sea ice?"

I think that this is a question that we all might like to consider.

I think I am drawn to it by it's possible impacts on us and it's accessibility for us tied to our computer chairs?

I believe that it truly is 'The Canary in the mine' as far as the climate change we see is concerned.

I'm in no way saying that we do not see natures 'ups and downs' in our recent climate history but I also see that 'drives' that mans usage of the planet have brought about.

Funnily enough I feel it will be 'Mother Nature' ,and her carbon inputs, that will bring about the worse of the climate 'changes' we are yet to face (because of the course we seem set upon..in my way of witnessing/reasoning?) as the permafrost out-gasses both Methane and CO2 over the years to come.

I have no faith in 'humanity' taking any realistic steps toward solving either our climatic impacts,poverty or hunger any time soon, Hey! , it's only one mans standpoint?

Where does that leave my son and daughter?

Well that's up to us?

Great, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'd like like to add in the Arctic climate change gets real very soon. And the deniers are becoming really nervous already. They are literally on thin ice and see their claims melting. [press this button, J] I'm a bit less pessimistic, because I see a chance with CC solved some other sacrificed principles are given up.

[Alan Robinson]

.... science is based in facts and figures, not airy, fairy feelings.

I agree with most of what you put Jethro, but I suspect some people take your powerful eloquence to be bigoted, and moreover, you occasionally leave small chinks in your armour, as in this case. As I am sure you will agree, the first step in the scientific method - broadly speaking - is being curious. This does not require formal education or qualifications, or even relevant knowledge for that sake. Even Einstein had to start somewhere. Science is not some sort of exclusive club for Mensa members with a Masters degree. The prerequisite for science is a questioning mind, and I know in my own case that my conscious curiosity is aroused by something sub-conscious. This kind of arousal is for me usually instantaneous, and I certainly do not spend much time dwelling on my feelings. On the other hand, I cannot deny that I get feelings, that they are elementary, and furthermore, experience has taught me that many of my feelings hit bull's eye. I doubt my curiosity could be aroused by me excluding part of my modest thought processes, mistrusting them as something weak or beyond my control.

I'd say that most vigorous internet forum exchanges are fired by feeling, and this specific topic is a fine example of just that. Maybe we need to open a new thread based on Alexander Pope's Epistle II "Know then thyself, presume not God to scan, the proper study for mankind, is man" . I'd say that what we read on this forum is expressed by our characters, while the tiny voice we have inside our heads - the one that gets shouted down by the outside world, and yet never goes away and can make us feel proud or guilty - that still voice is our personality speaking to us.

People's feelings regarding Arctic ice are only too plain. There are many hypotheses about it, and I'd say that genuine scientists will simply avoid debates while getting on with research to test their ideas. The rest of us can of course entertain ourselves with debate while we await the outcome, which is I suppose the whole point of this forum.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[jethro]

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

Jethro, please, there is no interpretation needed to understand this proposal, there is obviously no reference in the whole paragraph. Get your language straight and precise, stop weaseling. And I suppose my "religious link" refers to Grumbine, right? ROFL. Please name the scientists you would accept without comment having linked here. Make a white list of what you allow to discuss. And stop reading here or get your moral button under control. You hardly achieve writing a few lines without contradicting yourself. Mostly it is you bringing up that moral issue, what exactly is your problem, why do you feel guilty?

I think you need to re-read my post, you clearly are not understanding anything I'm saying. I'm hoping this is purely an accident on your part, if it's intentional and merely a desire to provoke then it will fail - this area has a long history of rude, provocative posters out to troll and wind people up, it doesn't work.

[jethro]

I agree with most of what you put Jethro, but I suspect some people take your powerful eloquence to be bigoted, and moreover, you occasionally leave small chinks in your armour, as in this case. As I am sure you will agree, the first step in the scientific method - broadly speaking - is being curious. This does not require formal education or qualifications, or even relevant knowledge for that sake. Even Einstein had to start somewhere. Science is not some sort of exclusive club for Mensa members with a Masters degree. The prerequisite for science is a questioning mind, and I know in my own case that my conscious curiosity is aroused by something sub-conscious. This kind of arousal is for me usually instantaneous, and I certainly do not spend much time dwelling on my feelings. On the other hand, I cannot deny that I get feelings, that they are elementary, and furthermore, experience has taught me that many of my feelings hit bull's eye. I doubt my curiosity could be aroused by me excluding part of my modest thought processes, mistrusting them as something weak or beyond my control.

I'd say that most vigorous internet forum exchanges are fired by feeling, and this specific topic is a fine example of just that. Maybe we need to open a new thread based on Alexander Pope's Epistle II "Know then thyself, presume not God to scan, the proper study for mankind, is man" . I'd say that what we read on this forum is expressed by our characters, while the tiny voice we have inside our heads - the one that gets shouted down by the outside world, and yet never goes away and can make us feel proud or guilty - that still voice is our personality speaking to us.

People's feelings regarding Arctic ice are only too plain. There are many hypotheses about it, and I'd say that genuine scientists will simply avoid debates while getting on with research to test their ideas. The rest of us can of course entertain ourselves with debate while we await the outcome, which is I suppose the whole point of this forum.

I absolutely agree that emotion plays a part in the beginning of investigation, it's my curiosity which like you, makes me want to know how and why. However, when it comes to places like here and discussing the science, it is the facts and figures of peer reviewed papers which remain for us to discuss. We're not privy to the thoughts driving the research, we just have the cold hard facts that come at the end.

Different character traits and personalities do feature here, they're bound to when the small nuances of tone, expression and gesture are all removed and what you're left with is simply the written word - it's all too easy to mis-interpret an intent; what in real life may be a throw away remark accompanied with a smile can become an absolute statement of fact when written down. It's an at times, frustrating, limiting facet of inter-net communication. I'm a born optimistic pragmatist; IMO worry and panic never solves anything, my lack of panic can be interpreted as not giving a damn, by the worriers of this world. That isn't true, I care deeply about the environment, I spend every working moment involved and improving it on a local scale. It's probably a large contributing factor when my response to a worrier is "calm down, stop panicking" - you can either look at an enormous problem in it's entirety, be over-whelmed by the scale and concerned that you cannot change the outcome or you can try to de-construct it into manageable bits and work on it a bit at a time. The ice in the Arctic is melting at an increasing rate, is it likely to melt out and cause methane release? Is it our fault, if so how much have we contributed, how much time do we have before this possibility becomes a reality? What, if anything can we do about it? What would be the consequences? And an endless list of similar questions - all asked in an attempt to get a more meaningful and practically useful picture than the one painted by the "we're doomed" outlook.

[noiv]

Stunning video taken by a buoy webcam located here: http://www.arctic.io...60/Beaufort-Sea. Video starts end of March with daily updates, switches to hourly updates first of July, tilts finally over to sky view and will probably become soon a sea floor fish cam.

via neven's sea ice blog, thanks to Rob Dekker.

[pottyprof]

"And the deniers"

Can we please not go down the line of childish name calling again? We've been there and done that and it does nothing for the debate other than to make the old banning finger twitch.

Please read the code of conduct if you haven't already.

http://forum.netweather.tv/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=rules&f=105

[quest4peace]

> how much effect the ice breakers are having on single year ice? Yeah, that point comes up quite often. 2 possible replies: We are talking about 5-10 millions of square kilometers ice and perhaps ten icebreakers having let me guess 30m width. Can flies shatter mountains? Sea ice is already fractured by nature, it is constantly drifting, breaking, opening cracks, leads and polynyas, etc.. The latter is also the reason why so many submarines surfaced and got pictured at North Pole, it is not that difficult to find a hole there in summer. Have a look at concentration maps, 80% of sea ice means 20% room for icebreakers and submarines. Why you are interested in sea ice?

To be honest the reason i am so interested in the Arctic, is the conservation side to be honest I mean i grew up watching david attenborugh's (sp?) programs on the arctic and the effect that losing the sea ice has on wildlife up there and also the effect it has on our weather. As a kid you are taught that, if you get a wind direction from the the north or northeast here in the uk you have the strong possibility of getting snow because it's more than likely you have an Arctic wind origin and thus may get snow And i wasn't ignorant to the fact that the Arctic had to be cold enough to bring us this weather. Which fascinated me hugely as a kid because of the chance of the white stuff Lol!. About ten years ago when i first had acess to a computer, i decided to look more in depth as to what affects our weather . The internet opened the floodgates to info and images i had never imagined before,and i found the various websites that had all the information i could dream of. So it started from there.

Can we please not go down the line of childish name calling again? We've been there and done that and it does nothing for the debate other than to make the old banning finger twitch. Please read the code of conduct if you haven't already. http://forum.netweat...ion=rules&f=105

Hi pottyprof Well said ,the personal argueing also spoils it for people like me, who while not "professionally" knowledgable on all things Arctic related i and many others i would guess, rely on you guys to teach me through reading everybody's posts and trying to make my own mind up about each side of the arguement and how it all works. B) Edited July 23, 2011 by quest4peace

[noiv]

> Can we please not go down the line of childish name calling again?

Agreed. It is just that "people having dissenting opinion to settled science" is too long. Please, make a political correct proposal. (no irony here, I'm willing to integrate what ever comes up)

Edited July 23, 2011 by noiv

[BornFromTheVoid]

Looking at the images of the central Arctic on the Modis site, I think the sea ice actually looks quite a bit better than this time last year when there we quite low concentrations right across the pole.

2010

2011

Comparing the conditions with the "perfect storm" of 2007, it seems temperatures are a little warmer across most of the Arctic this year than then.

2007

2011

It also seems as though we've had more northerly winds through the Fram Strait.

2007

2011

Some justification at least for the spell as lowest on record

[pottyprof]

Agreed. It is just that "people having dissenting opinion to settled science" is too long.

If the science was settled then there wouldn't be scientists with opposing views. There would be very little disagreement between governments and many projects would have been acted on before now. A theory cannot be settled until it is proven. Where is this settled science? I've read many theories that take current observations and make them fit around these theories but as yet I have read nothing concrete. Nobody as yet has had a "Eureka" moment and made all these observations fit together. I know that it is probable that AGW is responsible but the issue and the science is far from settled....

As for the Arctic ice, it's looking a bit on the low side. Probably a record low this year. Still another couple of months til we find out.

[noiv]

> As for the Arctic ice, it's looking a bit on the low side.

Correct, Arctic lost 40% in the last decades, if another 1.5 bits get lost, Arctic is ice free. Won't you smell a conspiracy, if 100% of all scientists agree on any subject? I would consider science then as blocked and useless, because it can't move forward. Actually, if there were no doubt, someone had to invent it. To question and challenging makes science robust. But there was a lot of time, still nothing substantial to read and the clock is ticking.

> Nobody as yet has had a "Eureka" moment and made all these observations fit together.

There have been many Eureka! The observation not fitting is ...?

[Alan Robinson]

If the science was settled then there wouldn't be scientists with opposing views. There would be very little disagreement between governments and many projects would have been acted on before now. A theory cannot be settled until it is proven. Where is this settled science? I've read many theories that take current observations and make them fit around these theories but as yet I have read nothing concrete. Nobody as yet has had a "Eureka" moment and made all these observations fit together. I know that it is probable that AGW is responsible but the issue and the science is far from settled....

Well put, and this is exactly why I posted above about hypotheses rising out of people's sensations, intuition, feelings, hunches etc. I just wonder though, which criteria must be fulfilled for science to be called settled? Take for example the inconsistencies between relativity and quantum-whatever-version-they-advocate-right-now-theory. I just wish psychology - as a science - had progressed beyond infancy.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa2.jpg

Oh dear! that's both cams now! The origional 'wobbler' seems to be at even more of an angle??

The 'slowdown in melt seems to have been shortlived? I suspect it had a lot to do with the central pack 'relaxing' out (and so growing?) with only the peripheral ice melt canceling out the spread? Today's IJIS update seem to bring a higher rate of melt back so I'd guess the ice that drifted out into warmer waters (no longer protected by the main body of ice and it's meltwater Halocline) has satrted a rapid melt out?.

I did not expect to be still above 07' in melt rates though?

[cooling climate]

The Arctic has been through periods similar to this many many times before in the pre

satellite era. This been pointed out many many times before but posters looking for

some new natural catastrophe do not want to here thesethings.The Arctic is going through

a prolonged period of its negative oscillation which accounts for higher pressure over the

Arctic which during summer months can lead to more melt than otherwise is normal.

The knock on effect of the negative oscillation though is for many northern hemisphere

countries to see colder and snowier winters again.

The science is still far from settled even NOAA are starting to doubt the satellite temperature

data which is taken from hot zones such as airports and inner city heat islands and in less

than a week or so when NOAA announces record ice melt it looks as the 2011 ice melt will

be slipping inside that of 2007, which in my opinion is quite irrelevant anyway unless of course

you are one of the ones hyping up a global apocalypse or some other unfounded scare

mongering story.

Edited July 24, 2011 by cooling climate

[noiv]

> Take for example the inconsistencies between relativity and quantum-whatever-version-they-advocate-right-now-theory.

Would you mind to elaborate on that point?

Beautiful photo of melting sea ice in Chukchi Sea found here.

[noiv]

The Arctic has been through periods similar to this many many times before in the pre

satellite era. This been pointed out many many times before but posters looking for

some new natural catastrophe do not want to here thesethings.The Arctic is going through

a prolonged period of its negative oscillation which accounts for higher pressure over the

Arctic which during summer months can lead to more melt than otherwise is normal.

The knock on effect of the negative oscillation though is for many northern hemisphere

countries to see colder and snowier winters again.

The science is still far from settled even NOAA are starting to doubt the satellite temperature

data which is taken from hot zones such as airports and inner city heat islands and in less

than a week or so when NOAA announces record ice melt it looks as the 2011 ice melt will

be slipping inside that of 2007, which in my opinion is quite irrelevant anyway unless of course

you are one of the ones hyping up a global apocalypse or some other unfounded scare

mongering story.

That all would make perfectly sense, if there were only two facts pointing to humans induce climate change. What is your intention dropping all other? There even was a time without Arctic and Earth, let me know when your space ship is fueled and you are ready to continue your planet looting mission through the galaxy.

[oldsnowywizard]

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa2.jpg

Oh dear! that's both cams now! The origional 'wobbler' seems to be at even more of an angle??

The 'slowdown in melt seems to have been shortlived? I suspect it had a lot to do with the central pack 'relaxing' out (and so growing?) with only the peripheral ice melt canceling out the spread? Today's IJIS update seem to bring a higher rate of melt back so I'd guess the ice that drifted out into warmer waters (no longer protected by the main body of ice and it's meltwater Halocline) has satrted a rapid melt out?.

I did not expect to be still above 07' in melt rates though?

The old spread argument comes back in again... How come it is only now that this has happened and for a few days? I thought there wasnt enough pack ice of thickness left to relax and spread? ;-)

[4wd]

The old spread argument comes back in again... How come it is only now that this has happened and for a few days? I thought there wasnt enough pack ice of thickness left to relax and spread? ;-)

I would think quite a bit of the recent high 'melting' which seems to have been delighting some was actually wind/current compaction.

The graph showing temperatures above 80N shows near average.

Edited July 24, 2011 by 4wd

[BornFromTheVoid]

The Arctic has been through periods similar to this many many times before in the pre

satellite era. This been pointed out many many times before but posters looking for

some new natural catastrophe do not want to here thesethings.The Arctic is going through

a prolonged period of its negative oscillation which accounts for higher pressure over the

Arctic which during summer months can lead to more melt than otherwise is normal.

The knock on effect of the negative oscillation though is for many northern hemisphere

countries to see colder and snowier winters again.

The science is still far from settled even NOAA are starting to doubt the satellite temperature

data which is taken from hot zones such as airports and inner city heat islands and in less

than a week or so when NOAA announces record ice melt it looks as the 2011 ice melt will

be slipping inside that of 2007, which in my opinion is quite irrelevant anyway unless of course

you are one of the ones hyping up a global apocalypse or some other unfounded scare

mongering story.

The Arctic has been losing ice through the whole of the satellite era, not just in recent years. The Arctic hasn't been in a -ve AO phase all this time and our winters haven't been getting colder all this time, just recently. There's clearly a lot more going on than just the AO.

4wd, the temperatues on that graph are always near average during the summer, for reasons we've gone through a few times on older threads.

Where sea ice remains, in the central Arctic Basin and the straits between the islands in the Canadian Archipelago, the many melt ponds and lack of snow cause about half of the sun's energy to be absorbed (Serreze and Barry, 2005), but this mostly goes toward melting ice since the ice surface cannot warm above freezing

There even was a time without Arctic and Earth, let me know when your space ship is fueled and you are ready to continue your planet looting mission through the galaxy.

IDIOT. Keep on taking the pills.

The name calling and insults are getting a bit ridiculous, this thread gets heated enough without them. Lets try not to get this thread locked!

[jethro]

How about adding some links for peer reviewed papers to support all the rhetoric flying around. We've all got opinions, we've all ideas and thoughts on the subject but with out science to support them, we're all just wildly gesticulating at one another.

When a discussion reaches the stage of merely insulting one another, all it really says to me is that you've run out of facts and wandered off into lala fantasy land. It doesn't really demonstrate to anyone that you know what you're talking about, nor does it tend to invite other people to enter into discussions with you - all in all, it's a pretty silly way to behave if you want to discuss an issue you either are interested, in or concerned about.

[Filski]

Are the delays in updates due to cloud cover or is the multiple 'skijumps' (leveling out for a few days) a correction in data? Seems to me this year is entering new territory and the need for accuracy is paramount, hence data is being delayed so it can be checked.