Arctic Ice Discussion

[BornFromTheVoid]

If 'Min' has been called BFTV we'll know some time this week. I'd have imagined that this weeks synoptics may actually have us heading down again for a few days? (whether it gets as low as the 9th is another question entirely!)

I doubt we'll fall back below the figure on the 9th. Area has been increasing quite a lot recently so I imagine there isn't much room for compaction and any losses will be at the fringes and will be quite small.

I bet you are hoping it does drop back down to the levels of the 9th or below, though.

So anyway, the Met Office have an article about the "2nd lowest ice minimum" just to keep climate change in the forefront of everyone's mind.

The thing is, it isn't the lowest is it? Is it really that newsworthy? What if next year is the 4th lowest or something? Do we think there will be an article on how it is the 4th lowest and this is baaaaaad?

Just like all that media hoo-hah over having the 2nd coldest December CET on record! Conspiracies I tell ya

[BornFromTheVoid]

Another drop today of ~25,000km2. Having a look back over previous years stats, it wouldn't be quite without precedent to have us fall back below the min.

2005 lost a little over 200,000km2 between the 14th and 21st of September.

1990 was at 6,160,000km2 on the 11th, was on 6,225,000km2 on the 17th before finally dropping to 6,028,000km2 on the 21st for it's minimum.

So while it's becoming increasingly unlikely that we'll drop below the 9th this time round, I guess it can't be ruled out yet.

[Turnedoutniceagain]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2039262/Times-Atlas-error-exaggerates-ice-retreat-Greenland.html

More lying, cheating "Warmist" nonsense from the usual suspects.

Don't ever, ever believe what a Gov't "scientist" tells you - there's always an agenda behind it !!!

[Hiya]

http://www.dailymail...-Greenland.html

More lying, cheating "Warmist" nonsense from the usual suspects.

Don't ever, ever believe what a Gov't "scientist" tells you - there's always an agenda behind it !!!

Don't tar all scientists with the same brush!

[songster]

So, the artists working for the Times Atlas got stuff wrong, their press department hyped it up further, and the Government-funded scientists went on immediate public record to correct them. And yet somehow this is the scientists' fault?

Smart logic, Batman.

Edited September 20, 2011 by songster

[BornFromTheVoid]

What have government scientists got to do with this?

Someone (atlas) made a mistake (used a thickness map instead of extent), someone (Cambridge scientists) pointed it out... there was a little stubbornness and eventually the mistake was recognised and admitted.

[Methuselah]

http://www.dailymail...-Greenland.html

More lying, cheating "Warmist" nonsense from the usual suspects.

Don't ever, ever believe what a Gov't "scientist" tells you - there's always an agenda behind it !!!

I'd sooner believe a scientist, almost any scientist, before I'd take the media-generated nonsense seriously...

[summer blizzard]

Did we increase today and what is the figure in comparison to the 9th.

[BornFromTheVoid]

The updated figure will be out at about 3pm. You can find both here SB http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv

[loafer]

What have government scientists got to do with this?

Someone (atlas) made a mistake (used a thickness map instead of extent), someone (Cambridge scientists) pointed it out... there was a little stubbornness and eventually the mistake was recognised and admitted.

It is a bit surprising that the thickness map didn't start at nil thickness and work up from there, though, isn't it? By only starting at the thickness it did, it misrepresents the extent of ice by default.

[BornFromTheVoid]

It is a bit surprising that the thickness map didn't start at nil thickness and work up from there, though, isn't it? By only starting at the thickness it did, it misrepresents the extent of ice by default.

I'd have to see the page the map is from, it could have had 0-50m as a category or something as simple as that, I just don't know.

Besides, if you want an extent map, you get an extent map, not a thickness map. Considering what they charge, you'd think they'd check their data source!

This is just a silly mix up anyway, I don't see it as being anything more.

[loafer]

At the risk of labouring the point, if it had 0-50m as a category, this wouldn't have happened!

It must have had 5+m as the lowest category or something like that.

I do agree it is a fuss about nothing, however, caused by carelessness.

[songster]

The current best guess is that the Times used the NSIDC data for the thickness of the Greenland ice cap. Importantly, this particular dataset specifically covers the central cap, and not the peripheral glaciers and ice sheets around it. Time will tell exactly what the cockup was: the important point is that the scientists are the ones <i>pointing out</i> the error.

http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/atlas_north?zoomdir=0&zoomsize=2&zoom_to=&glossary_term=&img.x=295&img.y=241&imgxy=250.0+250.0&imgext=-2431433.227011+-2541753.976512+-172222.536511+-282543.286012&layer=land&layer=coastlines&layer=copyright&layer=&layer=greenland_ice_thickness&layer=&layer=&layer=&layer=

[Shunter]

A 27,000KM2 increase today ( 4690938km2 )

[summer blizzard]

A 27,000KM2 increase today ( 4690938km2 )

With an increase of around 170,000 since the minimum i think it very unlikely that it will be defeated.

[stewfox]

With an increase of around 170,000 since the minimum i think it very unlikely that it will be defeated.

So is the last post for this thread.

[Gray-Wolf]

No! , this is!!!

What an odd season that turned out to be? Very limited in the amount of ice transported from the basin and a 'year of two halves' regarding the weather conditions up there? All that remains to be said is see you again come spring! Off to my little hibernation suite now (Esp. if Autumns coming in early and cold!!!!!). Cheers Guys!

[knocker]

Model provides successful seasonal forecast for the fate of Arctic sea ice

ScienceDaily (Sep. 22, 2011) — Relatively accurate predictions for the extent of Arctic sea ice in a given summer can be made by assessing conditions the previous autumn, but forecasting conditions more than five years into the future depend on understanding the impact of climate trends on the ice pack, new research shows.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110922142010.htm?keepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=480&width=650

[Gray-Wolf]

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00070.1

I found the above well worth a read through?

[Edward]

Another early release, without peer review at this point - http://news.yahoo.com/canadian-arctic-nearly-loses-entire-ice-shelf-214311365.html

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15105747

When we do our 'strat temp watch' we look for the opposite and look for temp spikes to herald cold temps in the northern hemisphere......is this a two way street? Could heightened Arctic temps lead to a chilly strat and Ozone loss???

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-15105747

When we do our 'strat temp watch' we look for the opposite and look for temp spikes to herald cold temps in the northern hemisphere......is this a two way street? Could heightened Arctic temps lead to a chilly strat and Ozone loss???

Hi GW,

Did I misunderstand the winter just past? I thought the Vortex was disrupted more than normal, whereas that article says it was stronger than normal?

And your question is a good one

[stewfox]

Where does one post ?The re freeze is well under way

[BornFromTheVoid]

I'd say it might be time to close this thread? I'm sure most discussions from now will fit the theme of the new thread.

[pottyprof]

Going to close this now and the freeze season can be found here