Arctic Ice Discussion

[Thundery wintry showers]

The "Cryosphere Today" plots reflect what I was concerned about last year- we got away with a relatively high ice extent but there was a large area of fragmented ice, particularly on the Siberian flank and towards north Canada, which probably wouldn't have survived another few weeks' worth of high temperatures. The current fragmented areas of ice are the same as last year, so unless we get favourable synoptics over the next few weeks we could well see large drops as the fragmented ice melts away.

[BornFromTheVoid]

According to Cryosphere today, it looks as though we're now even with 2010 after dropping about 95,000km2 just yesterday. That means we're only around 50,000km2 off 2008 and about 100,000km2 off 2007.

On the animation http://arctic.atmos....ic.color.0.html you can clearly see the large amounts lost over the last 3 days near the Pacific side.

With regards extent, just a small drop on the IJIS figures today of about 37,000km2 though large drops in extent really could occur at any time as the concentration dips below 15%, as clearly a lot has gone below 30% already.

[Gray-Wolf]

We also seem to have 'compaction/flush out' synoptics for the next while?

When we look back over the season we will see that we have had little 'flush out' of ice (remember Nares was shut for the longest of whiles) so all of the losses have been through melt alone. Polarstern has recently taken ice ddepths at the pole and so if we believe Cryosat2's 3-4m over winter then that is an awful amount of 'melt'? ....methinks we are still calibrating our best shot at seeing ice thickness?

As for the Pacific/Siberian 'Slush Puppy' ice? either way compaction or melt out will take it's toll over the next few weeks. With the SST anom's so high in that area we may even see a very late end to the season? The only 850 plots that look good for freeze are sat above the ice now being pushed towards Fram so little chance of 're-freeze' in that lot?

[Alan Robinson]

I think we need to be very careful about what we read in the news, but in fairness to those concerned about the environment, I'd say their fears are well founded.

Here for instance, BBC is discussing Suez-max gas carriers passing north about Russia bound for Thailand.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14670433

Here, on the other hand, is a report from a joint Canadian, Danish and US scientific voyage.

http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/paa_mission_i_arktis

Keld Quistgaard reports that the Canadian vessel m/s St Johns is not ice strengthened, and had to turn back, unable to withstand the conditions encountered. I have mentioned before that only suitably designed and maintained vessels should attempt such passages, and I am incredulous that the Canadian authorities - so expert as they are on ice - should send a non ice-classed vessel into those waters.

I read regularly on this thread that the Artic ice is disappearing, but as Quistgaard says, the waters round Greenland are never completely ice-free. There are everything from bergs through bergy bits to growlers at any time in most places.

Those of you who are concerned about the Arctic environment might serve your cause better by campaigning for close regulation of shipping in those waters. If you don't, greedy ship owners will sway the various maritime authorities to permit inadequately designed ships entering icy waters, which will certainly result in groundings and sinkings with serious pollution to follow.

[Gray-Wolf]

I think that the NW Passage and N.Passage are not that troubled (these days) by the kind of glacier/ice shelf remnants you refer to Alan? Sure, Baffin may suffer from the likes of the Peterman calving (last year) but the N/NW passages are now only frozen from late Autumn until late Aug so the ice forming is F.Y. ice and not an issue to normal hulls?

Even with the NW Passage shipping multiyear ice from the north of the Archipelago most all of it stays to the north of the deep channel as it exits into Baffin.

Anyhow ,Arctic ice. Looks like we break through the 5 million again today (extent on JAXA) and we still have a 3/4 week melt period yet to go. As those who watch melt/refreeze seasons will know we are now at the point of max ice thinning so much of the edges of the pack can literally disappear overnight (as we saw on the Bremen site last week/early this week) and ,unlike 07', we have no thick spine of ice that is guaranteed to last the season. If we look at the JAXA plots

http://www.ijis.iarc...aice_extent.htm

we see how 07' slows down over the coming weeks as the 'easily melted ' ice peters out and we get into the Paleocrystic ice. This year is the first that has no Paleocrystic ice. As a punt I'd say the pacific side will continue to lose ice (along with the Siberian side) for the next 3 weeks at least and we have some very low concentrations there (fast approaching the 15% JAXA extent threshold) so passing 07' is not out of the question.

Would anyone have thought , back in 07' ('cept me that is) that an average polar year would cause the same massive losses as a perfect storm year with it's high solar and massive ship out of ice (up to 40% of the losses went out of Fram/Nares?).

I've not got the figures (yet) but I bet losses by transport out of the basin (Fram and a very late opening Nares) are amongst the lowest recorded.

If this proves true then all the ice melted 'in-situ' showing just how thin the pack was this season (Cryosat2! get your act together!!!) and that sub 2m ice does indeed melt out over a normal summer even in the high latitudes.

It also points to 'more of the same' in the years to come.

The other issue is the amount of time the Pacific side of the basin has been ice free this year? If our own Barents/Kara regions have given us the pattern shift in early winter that brings us our displaced Arctic Air and snow-fest then what will this huge area (when you compare it to Kara/Barents) drive in the atmosphere this coming winter? Will it plump up a H.P. Across 3/4 of the Basin leaving no room for the deep cold to form (a +20c anom over 3/4 of the Arctic Basin???)

If we get no cold pool forming over large areas of the basin, come Autumn/early winter this year, will the ice there end up even thinner come spring due to a very late start to it's freeze cycle??? will it melt out even faster in 2012' due to it's thin nature???

You can see where I'm going with this can't you? A positive feedback in action. I'm sure weather (short term climate) plays it's role but I'm becoming ever more convinced that we also get to a point in ice thickness/water temps/loss of Halocline where weather merely 'augments' the melt season and does not play the larger role it once did (or we'd have been hearing a lot of folk crying "Recovery,recovery" this summer as the weather did it's best to protect the ice pack for those protracted periods?). I know a lot of folk will demand a longer run of data before they are willing to commit to any fundamental changes haven occurred in the Arctic but ,by then, we will be seasonal in our Northern ice pack

Of course next summer may prove to be a perfect storm and then all bets are off as we'll be sat here (late Aug) with no ice to watch melt out!!!

P.S. Anyone else feel that the poor chappie that did the polar bear drowning studies would be better served checking out the body count across Beaufort now this last L.P. ripped through there than sitting on enforced leave? ......he could even bring out some useful data for the oil comps and their rigs/floating exploration platforms.....LOL

Edited August 26, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[Alan Robinson]

I think that the NW Passage and N.Passage are not that troubled (these days) by the kind of glacier/ice shelf remnants you refer to Alan? Sure, Baffin may suffer from the likes of the Peterman calving (last year) but the N/NW passages are now only frozen from late Autumn until late Aug so the ice forming is F.Y. ice and not an issue to normal hulls?

Ah! You read like spokesman for Maersk.

Getting to or from the NW passage involves passing Greenland, where, as Quistgaard rightly put, it is never truly ice-free.

Apart from that, the navigable stretches will not be open for more than a few months. I can just see it, Suez-max tankers making just one more voyage before the passage closes again. Mariners will be pressurised into taking risks, and sooner or later there will be problems.

This is one issue I am certain of, and to repeat myself, I think it would become those interested in protecting the Arctic to campaign strongly against standard shipping navigating in those areas.

[Gray-Wolf]

Have to agree with you about trying to protect the area but I fear the damage has already been done by the slow loss of the ice volume that kept things 'stable' there.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Cryosphere today has updated and the area stands at 2,988,000km2. That means we have passed 2010 and 2008 and are about even with, maybe a tiny bit above, 2007... all this with 5 days to go until September.

[Alan Robinson]

Have to agree with you about trying to protect the area but I fear the damage has already been done by the slow loss of the ice volume that kept things 'stable' there.

I do not wish to seem hurtful GW, but I find your hand-wringing over this topic an empty gesture. The damage has hardly started. Can you imagine the effect of a Suez-max tanker spilling, say, 100,000 tonnes of oil into the sea? That is no less than 100 million litres. There is no help to be had in those regions, and furthermore, the charts must be rather sketchy because nobody has yet been able to survey the region because of ice.

If you think that the disappearance of ice is the greatest disaster that could befall the Arctic, I respectfully suggest you think again.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm having a 'poor' day Alan so please forgive me if I'm not 'getting there' with my concerns? From the last 'snippet' of info I read if any kind of 'spillage' occurred(tanker or platform) then any cleanup operation would only be able to operate 1 day in 5 (under current Arctic weather).

Sadly the largest 'spills' I envisage, over the coming decades, are the slow (but ever increasing?) release of methane from the trapped reserves in the permafrost (both on shore around the Arctic circle and under the shallow shelf sea off Siberia) and the impacts of this 'spill' will mangle the planet far faster than any Suez sized tanker 'oopsie'.

I'm often portrayed as a 'doomsayer' on my posts on the changes we see (and I try to predict) across the Arctic Basin so my being 'slow' ( in your post's opinion) in the potential damages we can/are/will cause there is like a breath of fresh air to me! (honest!).....I do hope that those who pigeon hole me as a 'doomsayer' do not now turn on you with similar 'labels'

As for 'shipping' it also seems the military are now turning their attentions to this region so we may also see the 'dirtiest' of craft ploughing through those waters soon enough?

[Alan Robinson]

I'm having a 'poor' day Alan so please forgive me if I'm not 'getting there' with my concerns?

Sadly the largest 'spills' I envisage, over the coming decades, are the slow (but ever increasing?) release of methane from the trapped reserves in the permafrost (both on shore around the Arctic circle and under the shallow shelf sea off Siberia) and the impacts of this 'spill' will mangle the planet far faster than any Suez sized tanker 'oopsie'.

I'm often portrayed as a 'doomsayer' on my posts on the changes we see (and I try to predict) across the Arctic Basin so my being 'slow' ( in your post's opinion) in the potential damages we can/are/will cause there is like a breath of fresh air to me! (honest!).....I do hope that those who pigeon hole me as a 'doomsayer' do not now turn on you with similar 'labels'

As for 'shipping' it also seems the military are now turning their attentions to this region so we may also see the 'dirtiest' of craft ploughing through those waters soon enough?

Sorry you are having a bad day. I'd like to offer you a bottle of my pale ale, but that is impractical. I am also sorry this thread goes on and on about how much ice there is, while the practical consequences seem to me completely ignored.

Accidental spills at sea are infrequent, and are invariably connected with collision, grounding, or negligence, such as in the case of the MSC Napoli in the English Channel a few years back. I can explain why MSC Napoli was negligence if anyone would like to know. However, you will find in due course that to save money, tankers pump waste (slops) into the sea if they think they can get away with it, because otherwise they have to use expensive reception facilities in port. See MARPOL regulations.

I would very much welcome anyone questioning my comments about shipping. Apart from a few years in the British Army, shipbuilding and shipping have been my whole career, part of which was running my own engineering consultancy company. Now I have retired, I ought to relax a bit, but funnily enough, what business, management and shipping is concerned, I am fit for fight.

Now, back to the Canadian government sending an unsuitably designed ship into Greenland waters, and it having to turn back.........

Edited August 26, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[scotty_boy_winter]

The destruction of planet earths thermostat, ain't no stopping the snowballing warming I'd say within 10 years

Why? What do you intend to plan for?

[Gray-Wolf]

The destruction of planet earths thermostat, ain't no stopping the snowballing warming I'd say within 10 years

That would be my main concern too Sbw! I'd posted before of the temp difference I'd experienced between slabs of sea ice and the prom behind but folk don't appear to want to mull that over? Once we loose the 'cooling' effect of the ice (and it's absorption of energy whilst melting?) all we got is warming being reflected back into an atmosphere ever more capable of holding onto a greater portion of that heat?

Another winter of 'exceptions' (high and low temps) might have a few more folk wondering about whether it's 'weather' or the impacts of those whopping temp anoms over the seas that should be frozen.....then again there seem to be enough folk who want us to focus on just one event then we can only see it as weather....I'd rather pull back and take in the wider picture of planetary droughts,heatwave,floods,freezes etc. as we seem to have so many of these nowadays? The Brazilian rainforest's "1 in a hundred year" drought was followed by another just 5 years later in the exact same area (I'll still get some statistical nut on my back but surely when there are so many examples of extremes you need to have a wonder?)

Anyhow, the Jaxa looks to have escaped the sub5 million (recovery???) drop, lets see what the revision brings as at present it looks like a 'gain' in extent? More spreading of thin ice? does this mean higher melts later as the spread ice pushes over warmer waters?

[Gray-Wolf]

Back to the restoration of the halocline layer? Anyone any closer to bringing a scenario, with a 'perfect strom' for melt every 10 to 20 years, that brought us such a unique feature and made the Arctic Ocean such a unique place?

From subs data we know that we lost 50% of the volume of the Arctic ice pack over a 60 year period (that's up to 6 'perfect Storm years yet it still melted???) and that the 'spine of the Arctic' finally gave way over the last 15yrs.

How do we imagine an ongoing climate so severe as to allow such a 'recovery' of the Arctic Ocean without the 'cure' being worse for us than the symptoms?

I'm sorry to be stuck where I am but I do honestly feel that each year that passes allows the Arctic ocean to 'normalise' into the type of ocean we see across the rest of the planet and that 'undisturbed ice' will make a similar depth (each winter) to the sea ice of the Southern ocean. I'd go as far as to say that this is what we already see today?

The Southern ocean fringes an Arctic region , the Arctic is surrounded by land with it in the Arctic region so we have differences but ice is ice and certain thicknesses seem to melt out over an average season whether we are in the north or the south polar region (look at how much sea ice is left around Antarctica come summer min!). Every time we see a 'perfect storm then , from now on ,all the ice in the basin is under threat.We no longer have that deep , thick 'spine' of ice that would endure such savage synoptics.

This year saw low outflow of ice (not the 40%+ of a perfect storm year) yet here we are close second to such a year......what more need I say?

Edited August 27, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

Hey Alan!

http://www.barentsobserver.com/index.php?id=4940947&xxforceredir=1&noredir=1

Seems the Ruskies are not content to let AGW take it's toll and will be giving nature a 'helping hand' from here on in?

[Alan Robinson]

Hey Alan!

http://www.barentsob...dir=1&noredir=1

Seems the Ruskies are not content to let AGW take it's toll and will be giving nature a 'helping hand' from here on in?

That says it all. Cargo vessels are not icebreakers, and need icebreaker assistance at the start and finish of the navigation season.

5 million tonnes of cargo eh? That is like 22 Suezmax voyages

I really do hope this benchmark standard will be enforced, even though it is for the Baltic:

http://www.sjofartsverket.se/pages/3265/b100_1.pdf

Summer conditions north of Russia must be similar to the Gulf of Bothnia and Gulf of Finland in spring.

You might also be interested in this;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_class

[BornFromTheVoid]

2 days of gains on CT have us up to 3,122,000km2. That's a fairly strong gain for the time of year, but we'll need more of the same to prevent a new record minima.

With wide areas of -10C uppers looking to develop again and quite favourable wind conditions, if we do manage to get below the 07 level is will be down entirely to the poor state of the ice. Still, there's a little hope if we manage to keep this gains going!

[BornFromTheVoid]

A quick update.

The extent continues its steady drop, averaging just under 40,000km2/day, or a fraction below average. Even so, at this pace we are still catching 2007 (230,000km2 behind now) which actually gained a little extent at the beginning of September, so we will probably continue to close in for another week at least.

Synoptics meanwhile continue to look favourable for ice retention, so it will be interesting to see how the extent responds.

[stewfox]

I am also sorry this thread goes on and on about how much ice there is, while the practical consequences seem to me completely ignored.

More tourism, cheaper to get at the locked up energy resources up there etc

If we assume no change to Greenland ice sheet etc.

[scotty_boy_winter]

Very immature and ignorant comment

More tourism, cheaper to get at the locked up energy resources up there etc

If we assume no change to Greenland ice sheet etc.

[pottyprof]

Very immature and ignorant comment

But it isn't though is it? It is exactly what will happen. Man will take advantage of the situation. Plans seem to be in place already if the last few years of under sea flag planting is to be believed.. There isn't a government with enough backbone to make a stand with a "hands off the Arctic" plan.

Do you have a plan SBW?

[BornFromTheVoid]

That's 2 days of anomalously high extent drops in a row, nearly 70,000km2 for the 29th and 100,000km2 for the 30th, which have taken us past 2010's minimum. So we're now down to 4,796,875km2. We now only need to average 60k loss each day and we'll be equal with where 2007 was by Sept 3rd.

Here's how we stand with the remaining yearly minima

2008 = +89,062km2

2007 = +542,344km2

One sign of hope though is that on Cryosphere today, the area has been slowly rising and the animation clearly shows the concentration across the main bulk of the remaining sea ice increasing, albeit the fringes are still losing ice. Hopefully this is a sign of the refreeze beginning early and it can spread out to the areas of very low concentrations soon.

http://arctic.atmos....ic.color.0.html

[Isolated Frost]

At the current level of about 4.8milKM, what is the likely minimum? Thanks

[BornFromTheVoid]

At the current level of about 4.8milKM, what is the likely minimum? Thanks

Hard to say really. The average loss from the 30th August to the minimum since '79 has been 258,859km2 which would leave us a little above 4.5million, or 2nd lowest on record.

The last 10 years has averaged 308,312km2, leaving this year at just below 4.5m

Last 5 years averaged 337,624km2, that would leave us at 4.45m

The largest drop was last year at 534,687km2, which would leave a minimum of 4,262,188km2 or almost equal with 07.

Then there's also the chance that today's figure is the minimum

Overall, I'd say 4.5 million is the best bet at the moment.

[Gray-Wolf]

There isn't a government with enough backbone to make a stand with a "hands off the Arctic" plan.

Do you have a plan SBW?

I'd agree P.P.

Luckily I think that we are now seeing enough 'change' in ice conditions, across the Arctic basin, to allow 'mainstream concern' to come to the fore.

As I've been saying since 07' we are now a 'seasonal pack' in waiting but whilst we've all been watching ice disappear we've taken our eyes of both the 'wildfires' in the Siberian region and the continued melt of the permafrost in the same area (and under the shallow Shelf sea in Siberia). We saw early snow melt in this region this year and this allowed the sea ice to retreat much earlier than we've seen before. Do we think even more 'black ground' (that the fires produce as well as lots of 'soot') will help keep deep permafrost ice frozen or will it's impact on albedo melt even more of the permafrost/dry more of the material for further fires?

I've not looked long and hard at this years melt season.....my mind is a tad unfocused.... but I'm wondering if we had different areas of sea open to warming this year than the past few years? Will we have a different pattern of SST anoms come re-freeze (and the synoptics these drive) or do we look to have the same Barents/Kara driven early winter as the last few?

I know the Siberian sea ice retreat was early so it's been amassing heat that it must now lose so how will the Arctic Amplification manifest this winter?

If we see similar to the last three early winters (and the impacts on the N.Hemisphere's economies) the cost implications will be enough to have govt.s do more than 'consult' bodies about the A.A 's 'supposed impacts' and drive moves to reduce such costs.

Maybe if we 'dusted' the central pack with soot, once we are into melt season, then we can 'promote' a seasonal melt out early enough to 'insulate' the N.Hemisphere from this 'sectional dumping' of 'normal winter temps' onto lower latitudes?

I mean if the whole of the basin is a place of high temp anoms then no cold pooling will be able to occur until the whole basin is cold enough and so no 'arctic escapes' can hit the sensitive econs of the developed world?

I know it sounds counter intuitive but if we accept that where we are with the 'partial Arctic Amplification' and that this will continue to act like the past few years (until the basin hits a 'perfect Storm year' and totally melts out naturally) then we need 'bite the bullet' and hasten this eventuality rather than play this Russian Roulette with economy disruption each early winter as sections of the basin shed this Arctic Air mass rapidly south?

Edited August 31, 2011 by Gray-Wolf