Arctic Ice Discussion

[Gray-Wolf]

Thank's Songster, I find it more remarkable that folk do not find it remarkable!

[Geordiesnow]

I recall that the dipole pattern persisted for a large part of June 2011, though it largely disappeared during July and August (when, as you say, pressure was high across the Arctic in general).

It doesn't bode well for the ice when we get a near-record year despite unexceptional conditions re. synoptics for ice retention.

One thing I've learnt from this thread is that high pressure in general in the summer season encourages high melt rates so surely if you have a large high over the Arctic which generate clear/sunny skies, it will cause melting from the top and with the ice being only seasonal ice across large parts of the Arctic, what chance has it got to survive?

I also noticed very warm upper air temperatures was also involved so temperatures would be quite high and in any open areas, the SST's will warm and cause further melting.

Am I really surprised where we are? Not really because it would appear to me the Arctic summer was an above average one with cooler cloudier weather being at a premium. Also the winter of 2010/2011 was a mild one across the Arctic and how can I forget the set up that bought widespread positive upper air temps in the middle of January! So it would appear the ice was in quite a vulnable shape to start off with. 2010 however is more concerning because that was a cooler cloudier summer and we had so much thin ice around the poles despite it being quite cold around there most of the summer, although some may argue these low pressure systems caused hot upper air temps to enter the basin, I seem to recall at one point in July of uppers of 20C briefly entering the Arctic!

I think most accept that it will be when rather than if the ice totally dissapears completely at one stage during the summer season but one thing is perhaps is not clear is that is it GW causing this or is it just weather patterns?

[Optimus Prime]

I believe the point is that a 20 degree C anomaly in the Arctic/Antarctic should be equally unthinkable, equally noteworthy and equally concerning - the only reason it isn't is because nobody much lives there.

The icy environment controls the weather more so than land. If you take away the ice which normally sits there than huge positive anomalys are highly likely. Take away land you you'd get a negative anomaly.

The arctic is far more susceptible to positive anomalies than anywhere else. Especially in recent years (and the 1930s) due to the huge reduction in ice.

of course on land, you'd get larger positive anomalys in winter.

[paul tall]

I believe the point is that a 20 degree C anomaly in the Arctic/Antarctic should be equally unthinkable, equally noteworthy and equally concerning - the only reason it isn't is because nobody much lives there.

Not really, because things aren't equal.

If you are in say Arctic Canada away from the moderating influences of the gulf stream, and your average temperature is -30, it's not really impossible to have some weather 20c warmer than that average, if you end up under a warm airmass.

In December here, the weather is already heavily warmed to an average of say 7 degrees. Clearly under minimal solar heating at that time of year it is just impossible for us to suffer a +20c anomaly, because it is just impossible to register 27c at this latitude in December.

The trouble is that Grey Wolf tried to compare something that has happened, can happen, and may or may not be highly unusual/noteworthy with another scenario that simply is not possible.

Edited September 5, 2011 by paul tall

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm sorry Paul t. , you don't seem to have grasped my drift? It was merely to point out that had those , very real, anoms appeared over highly populated areas in the developed world for 9 years then I'm sure we'd all be a lot more focused on this 'change' (in climate).

[ghrud]

It's been reported on the Real Science WEB site that the Arctic ice has started to re-freeze suggesting this one of the shortest melts recorded this year. Anyone like to comment on this?

[cooling climate]

You asked me to imagine a 20c positive anomaly over my area in December. And you asked me to imagine what people would say.

I can't imagine a 20c positive anomaly over my area in December because it is completely impossible. People would say nothing about it, because it is impossible and couldn't happen for them to comment on.

You have veered into the realm of hypothetical nonsense by posting the "imagine if your area was 20+ in December and what would people say?"

Hypothetical nonsense is right. I must admit to being amused at how the tone of this

thread has turned into alarmism rubbish. Summer Arctic sea ice area and extent is

going through a low phase at the moment but when you put it into context with what

was happening in the Arctic in the 1920's when experts were saying that the Arctic

is to warm to sustain life for seals and fish and the pictures and reports from the

Arctic during the 30's,40's,and 50's (which have been posted and talked about on

the Arctic thread eons ago yet convienently forgotton about by the alarmists) there

is nothing really that exceptional going on.

A cooling Earth with expanding northern and southern hemisphere ice packs will

be the main topic of discussion over the next thirty years or so.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hypothetical nonsense is right. I must admit to being amused at how the tone of this

thread has turned into alarmism rubbish. Summer Arctic sea ice area and extent is

going through a low phase at the moment but when you put it into context with what

was happening in the Arctic in the 1920's when experts were saying that the Arctic

is to warm to sustain life for seals and fish and the pictures and reports from the

Arctic during the 30's,40's,and 50's (which have been posted and talked about on

the Arctic thread eons ago yet convienently forgotton about by the alarmists) there

is nothing really that exceptional going on.

A cooling Earth with expanding northern and southern hemisphere ice packs will

be the main topic of discussion over the next thirty years or so.

If the 'long cycle' is a perfectly natural and 'normal' cycle within the past 10,000yrs of post glacial climate, then past 60 years of melt during the 'cold phase' of the long cycle (if the 20-30's represent to 'peak' of the last warm phase) needs accounting for ?. Surely the ice should have been 'reforming' during this period (including a big helping hand from the 40 years of 'globally dimmed' climate from the 40's to the 80's)?

The photo's of global glaciers in retreat would also seem to point to a 'trend' of ablation over the past 2 cycles of the 'Arctic long cycle'?

[songster]

It's been reported on the Real Science WEB site that the Arctic ice has started to re-freeze suggesting this one of the shortest melts recorded this year. Anyone like to comment on this?

What's to comment? If you look at any of the main ice tracking sites (IJIS, Uni Bremen, Cryosphere Today, DMI), the assertion is just plain wrong. Extent is still decreasing, more rapidly than most years. There's a grain of truth in that leads and melt ponds at high latitudes in the centre of the ice pack have begun to ice over. This again is completely normal: it's one reason why area loss usually bottoms out before extent loss. However, these were really only phantom losses in the first place, mainly due to the sensors having difficulty distinguishing between open water and a melt pond on top of the ice. This is why extent measurements are generally less noisy and more reliable than area measurements.

[Gray-Wolf]

Sorry songster but they probably mean the melt ponds up beyond 84N? If we look at the 'Healy Cam' (as they are beyond 84N) you can see this taking place

http://mgds.ldeo.columbia.edu/healy/reports/aloftcon/2011/

Most of this ice was never less than 15% coverage so any high lat. 're-freeze' will not appear on the 'extent plots'. Once re-freeze starts taking ice back over the 15% min (for IJIS) then we'll be seeing proper growth. We could also see ice dispersion giving the 'illusion' of growth as ice drifts over a wider area (the opposite is also true with ice losing extent as it get blown apart on wind and wave).

As it is the IJIS 'extent' is still tracking 07' and one of these 'instant' effects of compaction or spread could put is lower than this exceptional year. That said we still have a lot of 'prone ice' too (I call it 'slush puppie ice'). Over the Pacific side of the basin and off the russian coast is still at risk from 'flash melt' as the waters there are still warm and any 'mixing' of this water will melt out sections of this ice.

The other thing to note is that , over the recent past, we have lost as much 'mass' over winter as over the old 'summer melt' due to the new mobility of the ice and the failure of the ice 'backstops' to halt the flow of ice out of the basin.

Even with the melt season over we will continue to shed older ice from Fram (and maybe Nares again this year?) all winter long.

If you check the buoy data for last years 'pole cam2' you can see this in action.

[songster]

Sorry songster but they probably mean the melt ponds up beyond 84N?

You mean the way I said "There's a grain of truth in that leads and melt ponds at high latitudes in the centre of the ice pack have begun to ice over." ?

[Gray-Wolf]

Damn my eyes/brain/etc!!! Soz songster!

http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.awi.de%2Fde%2Faktuelles_und_presse%2Fpressemitteilungen%2Fdetail%2Fitem%2Fsommerliches_meereis_minimum_in_der_arktis_ein_neuer_minusrekord_kuendigt_sich_an%2F%3FcHash%3Dfcb492606efbfcf37064c9573a0f73bc&act=url

very intersting piece from the A.Wenger uni (Polarstern vessel)?

[paul tall]

This whole climate change reminds me of religion.

I bet that the people that believe that we are causing it (sin) and can somehow reverse it or prevent it getting worse, are on the whole religious.

I bet that people who are not convinced, who require more convincing evidence for the pro man made warming stance, who think that perhaps this could be nothing unusual in the grand scheme of things, are on the whole generally skeptical atheists.

The Climate Change Industry is a golden goose to a lot of people, and it's Church is the Met Office, who deliver regular sermons.

There will be exceptions to my belief/non belief, theist/atheist theory, before anyone says "no, it's not true for me actually/ no, it's not relevant"

[BornFromTheVoid]

This whole climate change reminds me of religion.

I bet that the people that believe that we are causing it (sin) and can somehow reverse it or prevent it getting worse, are on the whole religious.

I bet that people who are not convinced, who require more convincing evidence for the pro man made warming stance, who think that perhaps this could be nothing unusual in the grand scheme of things, are on the whole generally skeptical atheists.

The Climate Change Industry is a golden goose to a lot of people, and it's Church is the Met Office, who deliver regular sermons.

There will be exceptions to my belief/non belief, theist/atheist theory, before anyone says "no, it's not true for me actually/ no, it's not relevant"

The comparison has already been made in the New Research thread, and even discussed a little.

It seems the idea of religion is getting dragged into these debates quite a bit lately, along with the hostility. I wonder how long before Godwins law is proven correct here

[Gray-Wolf]

Hitler ,Hitler ,Nazi's

[Thundery wintry showers]

Interesting points by Geordiesnow- I did see high pressure back in 2007 advocated as a possible contributor to the ice melt (in the area that gets covered by the high under the dipole anomaly situation). This year's synoptics weren't as conducive to rapid ice melt because of the relative lack of transport of warm air into northern Eurasia (as happens with the dipole anomaly) but perhaps an extensive area of high pressure may still be anomalously conducive to rapid melting.

Is it down to global warming or synoptics? I think it's a combination of the two and a few other factors, though I can't be sure of the relative weightings, and of course we also have feedbacks between the variables to take into account (e.g. is the change in synoptics related to the rising temperatures and dwindling ice amounts?)

Re. the 20C anomalies, I certainly have seen 20C anomalies in the Arctic before, but always over a limited area for a limited period of time, and always in the winter half-year.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi TWS!

As the A.Wenger 'clip' above points out , once the ice is thin enough the 'solar' is able to penetrate it and warm the waters below leading to both 'top' and 'bottom' melt of the pack. The 'window of opportunity' for 'top melt' in the high latitudes is as short as some of the sceptic's seem joyous to make out (mid season!) and a lot of our melt is purely bottom melt driven. With both warm water incursions into the basin ( via Atlantic and Pacific) and 'home grown' SST anoms (where the ice cover disappears or is very thin) you can see why we suffered so much this year from 'insitu melt' and why we should thank our lucky stars that we did not see synoptics favouring the kind of 'ice export' out of the basin as we have over previous years (that said the high SST anoms seem to be an in situ place where thin ice can get blown to die??).

To me it appears that the 'perfect storm' requirements of a massive summer melt (as in 07') are now being overwritten by the quality of ice in the basin (it's thickness , age and position). This year may well be used (in future and today) to highlight this process at work?

Edited September 6, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[Cutty Dyer]

There's a wonderful animation of global sea surface temperature anomaly (2002 to 2011) at:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=AMSRE_SSTAn_M

There are two areas of particular interest that catch my eye. The 1st being the above norm waters around the Arctic Circle (cause of excessive melt?), the 2nd being the apparent cooler waters along the length of the Gulf Stream.

Below is a graph of AMSR-E global sea surface temperatures which suggests that the overall surface temperature is falling - this I find surprising.

[Gray-Wolf]

Does ENSO not impact such C.D.? Are we not looking at a nina and a neutral over the recent past (with the Nino before wrote large?)

[Iceberg]

There's a wonderful animation of global sea surface temperature anomaly (2002 to 2011) at:

http://earthobservat...1=AMSRE_SSTAn_M

There are two areas of particular interest that catch my eye. The 1st being the above norm waters around the Arctic Circle (cause of excessive melt?), the 2nd being the apparent cooler waters along the length of the Gulf Stream.

Below is a graph of AMSR-E global sea surface temperatures which suggests that the overall surface temperature is falling - this I find surprising.

I think you have to ask the question why June 2002 ?. I am always a little suspicious when dates seem to be randomly plucked out of the air, why not August 2001 to allow a 10 year period or August 2006 to allow a 5 year period.? Or even Aug 2001 to allow a 9 year period......

What I am also unsure is why the anom is taken from a base period of 85 to 97, it seems really strange and random from NASA.

What the above really shows in an extrapolation on ENSO.

[Cutty Dyer]

Does ENSO not impact such C.D.? Are we not looking at a nina and a neutral over the recent past (with the Nino before wrote large?)

I don't know.

Interestingly, the land temp anomaly graphic for July'11 also shows high temps for the Arctic but low for large areas globally? - very difficult to quantify area visually.

[BornFromTheVoid]

There's a wonderful animation of global sea surface temperature anomaly (2002 to 2011) at:

http://earthobservat...1=AMSRE_SSTAn_M

There are two areas of particular interest that catch my eye. The 1st being the above norm waters around the Arctic Circle (cause of excessive melt?), the 2nd being the apparent cooler waters along the length of the Gulf Stream.

Below is a graph of AMSR-E global sea surface temperatures which suggests that the overall surface temperature is falling - this I find surprising.

Odd, looking at this I really wouldn't have thought global SSTs were below average, even with La Nina ramping up in the last few weeks..

Edited September 6, 2011 by BornFromTheVoid

[Cutty Dyer]

I think you have to ask the question why June 2002 ?. I am always a little suspicious when dates seem to be randomly plucked out of the air, why not August 2001 to allow a 10 year period or August 2006 to allow a 5 year period.? Or even Aug 2001 to allow a 9 year period......

What I am also unsure is why the anom is taken from a base period of 85 to 97, it seems really strange and random from NASA.

What the above really shows in an extrapolation on ENSO.

I suspect your suspicions are correct; while the data is reported to be from NASA the graph originates from the "skeptic" blog of Roy Spencer (apologies for not stating source).

[Iceberg]

Hi TWS!

As the A.Wenger 'clip' above points out , once the ice is thin enough the 'solar' is able to penetrate it and warm the waters below leading to both 'top' and 'bottom' melt of the pack. The 'window of opportunity' for 'top melt' in the high latitudes is as short as some of the sceptic's seem joyous to make out (mid season!) and a lot of our melt is purely bottom melt driven. With both warm water incursions into the basin ( via Atlantic and Pacific) and 'home grown' SST anoms (where the ice cover disappears or is very thin) you can see why we suffered so much this year from 'insitu melt' and why we should thank our lucky stars that we did not see synoptics favouring the kind of 'ice export' out of the basin as we have over previous years (that said the high SST anoms seem to be an in situ place where thin ice can get blown to die??).

To me it appears that the 'perfect storm' requirements of a massive summer melt (as in 07') are now being overwritten by the quality of ice in the basin (it's thickness , age and position). This year may well be used (in future and today) to highlight this process at work?

In full agreement with this GW.

I still very vividly remember talking to Dr Chapman about arctic ice back in 2007 and the causes for it and the common believe was HP and the resulting IR fed melting in the Early melt season. Then the second half of the melt season with a strong negative AO causing plumes which worked their magic on the weaken ice. The later part of the season wasn't great for melting so it was only nearly a perfect melt season IMO.

Again this spring I spoke to Dr Chapman again as well and the consensus was that the ice was weak (far weaker than the start of 2007) and that the eventual level of melting would be dependent on the ice retention conditions over the spring and summer.

Basically a good ice retention year might see 5.5 million or so, an average year 4.5 to 5.0 and a poor year 4.0 to 4.5. A 2007 style year probably 3.5 to 4.0.

Until we see a substantially stronger ice pack come winters end It won't improve and we will just continue to average lower and lower at least IMO.

Just like with the current global warming trends and last year, I am happy to see some evidence that natural cycles are in play to give the general trends but have not yet seen anything.

[Gray-Wolf]

Again I'd very much want to emphasise that the folk who saw this type of Arctic developing , and talked here about it , do not wish for this to be. This is not a thing of 'right' and wrong' just a 'thing' and it is it's behaviour under the conditions we perceive that is spoken of. We , the folk who see quite a dire outlook, would wish to see things shift back to where they historically resided (when the sat. era began or even earlier?) and can at times be frustrated at both the broken promises of those who call 'recovery', 'cool-down' etc. and the reluctance of folk to accept that any part of our assessments are correct. Even now we will have folk telling the board that the 'usual suspects' are proven wrong 'yet again' about their predictions for the year.

Unless treated to a large, but not yet accepted/measured natural element to the past 100yrs of Arctic degradation (and a real prospect of it throwing itself into reverse) I'm condemned into holding the views I have arrived at regarding the Arctic sea ice loss/permafrost melt/Greenland ice sheet losses/Antarctic ice sheets losses.

EDIT: I'm sorry if some folk may feel I'm speaking without consent, I hope I am voicing the real wishes of those I include.

Edited September 6, 2011 by Gray-Wolf