Arctic Ice Discussion

[stewfox]

You're not concerned by the fact that it's the second lowest on record, almost as bad as 2010? This despite the fact that we're still clinging on to some ice in Hudson Bay, meaning this year's melt is occurring at higher latitudes than last year?

Its the 2nd lowest in the last 30yrs, rather then 'on record'

Concern for me is a fundemental 'step change'

There will always be areas above below /average

Lets see what the next 4 weeks brings but talk of sub 4m at present looks OTT

[scotty_boy_winter]

Dont mislead people, we have records dating back to the 1700's that is 3011 years so not on absolute record but youd have to be an absolutely incredible spinster to not conclude we are in unprecedented times. Our planet is in danger and denialist attitudes like yours are only going to harm us all. As a world we need to pull together to help ourselves

Its the 2nd lowest in the last 30yrs, rather then 'on record'

Concern for me is a fundemental 'step change'

There will always be areas above below /average

Lets see what the next 4 weeks brings but talk of sub 4m at present looks OTT

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/canadian-scientists-discover-new-clues-to-rapid-arctic-ice-melt/article2078461/

More evidence of the 'mixing out' of the Arctic ocean courtesy of the Catlin team. Makes me wonder just how much of the Halocline layer (present since the ice age) is left ?

As this cold salty sinks the warmer waters are forced up effectively making a 'Lava lamp' of the basin.

[jethro]

Dont mislead people, we have records dating back to the 1700's that is 3011 years so not on absolute record but youd have to be an absolutely incredible spinster to not conclude we are in unprecedented times. Our planet is in danger and denialist attitudes like yours are only going to harm us all. As a world we need to pull together to help ourselves

The records which are used and quoted for comparison of modern day Arctic ice measures against historical levels are 32 years old - the satellite record started in 1979. Older records do exist but these are not referenced in the day to day comparisons, nor are they used for the year end comparisons; the head lines of "record breaking ice melt" do only refer to the satellite era of measurements.

As a world, we need to live peaceably with one another, with or without climate change, friction helps no one; acerbic, moralistic accusations merely create conflict and encourage entrenched views - a pointless exercise apart from possibly experiencing a brief moment of feeling superior. The trouble with pedestals is you're likely to fall off, get down before you injure yourself eh.

[Gray-Wolf]

I would tend to support S B W's position myself? No pedestal required though as most of the major agencies, looking into the unprecedented ice loss over the past 60 years, compare back beyond the last ice age at least? The latest paper I read was quite sure that we were seeing events not witnessed in over 2 million years so to 'hide behind' the 'Sat. Era' as a way of obfuscating (not you J, but some do just that esp. in the blogosphere) can be most frustrating.

It was the same with the links between smoking and cancer. We all accepted the link but certain agencies demanded irrefutable proof (before paying out settlements) and so cost more lives before common sense prevailed.

The same individuals are now helping 'Denialists' to obfuscate the 'climate Change' debate and I wonder if , once again, they will end up with blood on their hands by successfully delaying any moves toward mitigating the worst impacts of climate Shift/Chaos?

Anyhoo's , back to the melt at hand. with H.P. looking to be in charge for the foreseeable future across the Arctic Basin , and the Di-Pole in place, I think we can expect to see high loss rates starting to appear over the next 2 weeks (high losses when compared to recent 'record losses' since 07'). The pack 'looks' very ragged on the Modis images and C.T. shows Beaufort Sea as a very prone area for melt/compaction (and the remaining section of the NW Passages ice looks the same?) so that end of the Basin may well be open water before the end of July. With such a long time under the sun we may well see a different pattern for our early winter weather with NW Europe finally being positioned for WAA and record night time temps in late Nov/Early Dec?

Edited June 30, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

Stewfox is not a denialist. The number of people who absolutely deny we can have any impact upon our planet are tiny in number, on this forum I can think of possibly one or two. The rest, the overwhelming majority on here merely differ in their opinions of the scale of our impact. The use of the term denialist with the attached moral judgements (which always seem to go hand in hand) are merely used as a means of saying "I'm right, you're wrong, I'm better than you".

No one is hiding behind the satellite era, it is the official record against which the annual figures are calculated; should we abandon the CET record and refer to proxy records as the mood suits or adhere to the official records? We measure annual temperature against the METO running 30 year average, it is the accepted standard against which to measure the christmas pudding, the satellite ice record is the equivalent.

There's no science to support an absolute stance on any topic connected with climate change, there are simply best estimates with the knowledge we currently have; entrenched views which accuse others of being in denial maybe a great thing to wave around or hide behind, but all they really reveal is a personality more driven by righteousness than realism. This is a science debate, not a religious debate; righteousness has no place here.

[Village]

We should not be concerned about a period of less ice in the Arctic IMO. It is very possible that the net impact will be good for life on this planet.

[cooling climate]

Nothing yet to cause any real concern

The next 4 weeks will be interesting.

http://www.ijis.iarc...ce_Extent_L.png

Agreed and I doubt there will be in four weeks time or 4 years for that matter

unless of course global cooling really starts to take hold then we could start

to see something really interesting happening in the Arctic summer months.

As it is its a case of same old, same old although I am sure G.W. will waffle

on about something or other.

[stewfox]

Agreed and I doubt there will be in four weeks time or 4 years for that matter

unless of course global cooling really starts to take hold then we could start

to see something really interesting happening in the Arctic summer months.

As it is its a case of same old, same old although I am sure G.W. will waffle

on about something or other.

Have to say strange looking graph at present showing a real slow down in lost which I wouldn't expect , this time of year

[Geordiesnow]

I'm wondering those who are not concerned about the ice situation have seen the charts projected for the foreseeable future because too my eye, they are the worse I have ever seen for summer conditions in the Arctic. I might be wrong but too me we will see winds through fram(Probably hence today's big drop) and a large part of the Arctic dominated by a huge high pressure with VERY warm upper air temps(I looked through previous years charts and I have never seen one chart where the whole of the Arctic was covered by such high positive upper air temps). Today ECM runs have indicated we may see lower pressure developing in more favourable areas but this is a long way off.

So I'm wondering those with more experience than me regarding Arctic set ups and the consequences of them, do you think by this time next week, we will be below the 2007 line even more and way off 2006/2010 figures or is the set up is not as bad as it looks?

[jethro]

I'm wondering those who are not concerned about the ice situation have seen the charts projected for the foreseeable future because too my eye, they are the worse I have ever seen for summer conditions in the Arctic. I might be wrong but too me we will see winds through fram(Probably hence today's big drop) and a large part of the Arctic dominated by a huge high pressure with VERY warm upper air temps(I looked through previous years charts and I have never seen one chart where the whole of the Arctic was covered by such high positive upper air temps). Today ECM runs have indicated we may see lower pressure developing in more favourable areas but this is a long way off.

So I'm wondering those with more experience than me regarding Arctic set ups and the consequences of them, do you think by this time next week, we will be below the 2007 line even more and way off 2006/2010 figures or is the set up is not as bad as it looks?

I'm one of those not particularly concerned about the ice levels. The ice levels wax and wane, they always have, they always will; the world hasn't ended in the past when ice levels were low, I can't see that it will make a jot of difference now.

The Arctic is used as the poster boy of climate change simply because Arctic amplification was predicted to happen and it's a very obvious demonstration of possible changes which is clearly visible on an annual basis, unlike many climate changes which can take decades to become noticeable. The fact that a teeny percentage of current Arctic change can actually be traced back to climate change, is a fact which seems to fall by the wayside. What's happening up there has far less to do with AGW and a great deal more to do with natural climate factors.

For arguments sake, let's imagine that all the ice has melted, ice cover in the summer months is a thing of the past; will the world end, will the climate have reached a point of no return and we'll all boil away? Nope. The weather systems may change track a little and Canada will be full of Polar Bears but that's about it.

[Gray-Wolf]

For arguments sake, let's imagine that all the ice has melted, ice cover in the summer months is a thing of the past; will the world end, will the climate have reached a point of no return and we'll all boil away? Nope. The weather systems may change track a little and Canada will be full of Polar Bears but that's about it.

Time and time again you choose to misrepresent the concerns that the mainstream 'worriers' have. The world will not end , just sections of it who have built themselves into the niche that is todays (and for the past few thousand years) stable climate. Changes to the climate/weather of the main grain producing regions put large swathes of the human race in a very prone position.

The changes to global circulation , that we already witness today in the form of atmospheric anomalies over the pole (and the teleconnections further south) in late Autumn early winter, will become more pronounced and the weather patterns we used to rely upon in certain key grain producing areas will no longer materialise reducing the amount of grain we can produce in a time when global population is set to increase dramatically.

Were this danger not enough the reduction in ice , and the increase in temps that follows this, also promises to release an mega tonnage of GHG's in the form of CO2 and methane as the permafrost regions thaw.

These are not 'predictions' of a far off catastrophe but the next stage in the process we see in action across the Pole today.

Folk (like me) who worry too much about such do so on the back of the failure , by science, to predict the time scales by which this 'climate shift' will occur. In 07' the ice melt was 30yrs ahead of even the most pessimistic of predictions of such an event and since then we have lost ice volumes greater than those of 07' each consequent summer.

It is all well and good science finding the mechanisms for such a 'step shift' after the event but it does not instill confidence in the population to know that such surprises are to be expected as our climate oscillates before finding it's new 'rest point'.

As for the folk who have claimed a 'slow down ' in ice melt over the recent days? To me this merely highlights some folks failure to understand both the measurement of ice extent (15% of more coverage) and the mechanics of summer melt in the Arctic. The Kane basin at present;

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/kane.uk.php

illustrates this amply. For the past 3 months we have had an ice bridge with clear water in front of it (into Baffin). This would score as 'open water'. It's collapse over the past 2 weeks has flooded that area with ice rubble over the 15% criteria making it score as ice cover. Has this section of the basin grown ice?, has ice melt stopped in this region? Nope, this is occuring all over the basin with open water now allowing ice to 'relax' into it. What some folk see as a 'slow down' is , in effect, an intensification of the summer melt with total melt out the next stage of the melt process.

The worry is a combination of export from the basin and 'in-situ' melt as the thin ice now 'relaxing' into dark water is allowing a greater exposed surface area into contact with warm waters. Though no real measure of the final melt extent I would suggest that we are about to see a number of 'Century Breaks' in the extent losses over the coming weeks?

[jethro]

And time and again you mis-represent the atmospheric anomalies as being as a consequence of the lower ice levels and AGW. The anomalies are nothing to do with the ice levels, they're not a consequence of AGW, they are driven by the influence of the Sun and the resulting impact upon both Ozone and the Brewer Dobson circulation.

Science predicts Arctic amplification and declining sea ice levels, you take every change in ice as being proof positive that it is happening, it will get worse and we'll end up with very little or no summer ice before too long. You then extrapolate this into widespread warming of the Northern territories and expect increased warming to thaw perma frost. All well and good if the decline in sea ice was due to AGW driven warming but only a tiny percentage actually is.

The weather anomalies we have seen in recent years are not a consequence of AGW, all the science (which I have linked to several times) shows that it is due to Solar influence. Your approach of expecting less ice due to AGW, seeing less ice and assuming the two are linked is confirmation bias. There are so many inter-connected climate drivers, your apparent focus upon just one contributing factor seems to blind you to the other more influential ones.

[Nights King]

I nearly went into my medical store and took an OD on painkillers after reading the doomsday outlook GW posted last! :blink: You do seem to relish over dramatising every loss of ice in the basin an blame the whole thing on CO2 when there is clearly something else at work (sun) altering the natural way of things.

Even if we lost the entire summer ice cover over the NH which I am sceptical we will then I doubt it would cause disaster on such an epic scale as you describe. As humans we are very adaptable and can move and change according to situation like we have through many past changes in climate. People settled the hills and mountains far more in the past accross uk for example when we had a warmer and wetter climate and then when it cooled down they moved away from certain parts and vice versa.

Some areas would surely benefit from less ice and more CO2 for all our plants and crops?

[Gray-Wolf]

I take it neither J nor Mullender have been around sea ice? I remember a time up at TraveMunde (at the mouth of the river Hamburg is on) when there was sea ice still on the beach. The temp on the prom was in the 70's but , by the ice, it was 38. Ice does tend to cool things down guys ! Be it frozen ground or sea ice once it has gone temps 'normalise' to a point they would have been at without the ice.

Look at it this way, the north is still in the dying glow of the last ice age and , once the ice is gone, the temps there will 'normalise' over the summer months. We don't even need a warming climate for this to occur once the ice/frozen ground retreats. As it is I suspect that the human race has tilted things a little by adding Gigga tonnes of GHG's into the atmosphere.

As for us being a 'clever ,clever Ape' , well , yes, yes we are. It is just that we are not as spontaneous in our abilities to adapt as J would wish. If one or more of our grain producing areas start to fail how long (in years) do you think it will take to up and shift production to the areas that will become more favourable to cereal crops? How long does it take for a million or more people to starve?

Do you see where I'm coming from or is it just 'doomsaying ' at it's worst?

I'm oft reminded of the straw that broke the camels back when looking at humanity and impacts on climate. Whatever 'cycles' aided in the ice losses over the past 150yrs that 'extra mile' was the thing to have brought us to a point well above and beyond 'natural variation' of the sea ice/permafrost melt.

If you do not see an issue with where we find ourselves today then I suggest you re-visit our current understanding of the Arctic and the concerns Science has for it?

[BornFromTheVoid]

And time and again you mis-represent the atmospheric anomalies as being as a consequence of the lower ice levels and AGW. The anomalies are nothing to do with the ice levels, they're not a consequence of AGW, they are driven by the influence of the Sun and the resulting impact upon both Ozone and the Brewer Dobson circulation.

Science predicts Arctic amplification and declining sea ice levels, you take every change in ice as being proof positive that it is happening, it will get worse and we'll end up with very little or no summer ice before too long. You then extrapolate this into widespread warming of the Northern territories and expect increased warming to thaw perma frost. All well and good if the decline in sea ice was due to AGW driven warming but only a tiny percentage actually is.

The weather anomalies we have seen in recent years are not a consequence of AGW, all the science (which I have linked to several times) shows that it is due to Solar influence. Your approach of expecting less ice due to AGW, seeing less ice and assuming the two are linked is confirmation bias. There are so many inter-connected climate drivers, your apparent focus upon just one contributing factor seems to blind you to the other more influential ones.

To be fair to GW, how can millions of square kilometres of of high albedo ice loss not have a large effect on atmospheric circulation? If the position of land masses, mountain chains, sst patterns and various other factors can influence weather patterns on a hemispheric scale then why not changes in sea ice?

Perhaps it was just a snap reaction, but to say recent atmospheric anomalies have had nothing to do with sea ice loss is plain wrong. There are studies and peer reviewed work published on that very effect of sea ice changes. Perhaps the recent prolonged solar minimum and the changes in the Arctic both contribute (as well as numerous other factors) to the Autumn/Winter patterns we've seen in the last few years, but to say one or the other has no influence or scientific backing is untrue.

This paper may be of interest.

http://www.colorado.edu/geography/class_homepages/geog_4271_f10/readings/week_12_13_francis_et_al_2009GL037274.pdf

Nobody is claiming the world will end if we end up with no summer sea ice. I don't think anybody is even claiming the demise of humanity because if it, but the possibility does exist that the changes we are seeing in the Arctic, if continued, could have a major effect on the global climate. There will always be some positives along with the negatives and people can and will adapt, but whether you believe the changes are from mostly AGW or not, if things continue in the same vein as the last decade then we may all be around to witness a fundamental shift in the workings of the Arctic climate and ecosystem, which is why I personally find it fascinating to monitor.

[Nights King]

I take it neither J nor Mullender have been around sea ice? I remember a time up at TraveMunde (at the mouth of the river Hamburg is on) when there was sea ice still on the beach. The temp on the prom was in the 70's but , by the ice, it was 38. Ice does tend to cool things down guys ! Be it frozen ground or sea ice once it has gone temps 'normalise' to a point they would have been at without the ice.

Look north is still in the dying glow of the last ice age and , once the ice is gone, the temps at it this way, the there will 'normalise' over the summer months. We don't even need a warming climate for this to occur once the ice/frozen ground retreats. As it is I suspect that the human race has tilted things a little by adding Gigga tonnes of GHG's into the atmosphere.

As for us being a 'clever ,clever Ape' , well , yes, yes we are. It is just that we are not as spontaneous in our abilities to adapt as J would wish. If one or more of our grain producing areas start to fail how long (in years) do you think it will take to up and shift production to the areas that will become more favourable to cereal crops? How long does it take for a million or more people to starve?

Do you see where I'm coming from or is it just 'doomsaying ' at it's worst?

I'm oft reminded of the straw that broke the camels back when looking at humanity and impacts on climate. Whatever 'cycles' aided in the ice losses over the past 150yrs that 'extra mile' was the thing to have brought us to a point well above and beyond 'natural variation' of the sea ice/permafrost melt.

If you do not see an issue with where we find ourselves today then I suggest you re-visit our current understanding of the Arctic and the concerns Science has for it?

I can see where you are coming from GW and I would not argue against your extensive knowledge of how the arctic works. However do you not think it is possible that mans contributions to the warming could be smaller than once expected and over ridden by external forces outside of our control?

J mentions the atmospheric cycles being altered by the sun which could be damaging to ice coverage etc but 'if' the sun was to go into a long period of quiet like many scientists are expecting could this not over a few decades haul us back to a cooler regime and reverse the ice loss over time?

I personaly don't expect a return to mini ice age type scenario however I am inclined to believe that it could at least bring around a healthier NH ice sheet in the long run and maybe more discussion on factors other than mans CO2 and the daily ice loss. I am no expert like yourself but I am not always sure constantly beating the ice loss drum of doom constructive to wider discussion as people can feel intimidated by it and contribute less.

[scotty_boy_winter]

BFTV! Finally someone that speaks some sense! This board is so frustrating, you have to sift through so much rubbish, it's good to have you on here to bring some realism back!!

To be fair to GW, how can millions of square kilometres of of high albedo ice loss not have a large effect on atmospheric circulation? If the position of land masses, mountain chains, sst patterns and various other factors can influence weather patterns on a hemispheric scale then why not changes in sea ice?

Perhaps it was just a snap reaction, but to say recent atmospheric anomalies have had nothing to do with sea ice loss is plain wrong. There are studies and peer reviewed work published on that very effect of sea ice changes. Perhaps the recent prolonged solar minimum and the changes in the Arctic both contribute (as well as numerous other factors) to the Autumn/Winter patterns we've seen in the last few years, but to say one or the other has no influence or scientific backing is untrue.

This paper may be of interest.

http://www.colorado.edu/geography/class_homepages/geog_4271_f10/readings/week_12_13_francis_et_al_2009GL037274.pdf

Nobody is claiming the world will end if we end up with no summer sea ice. I don't think anybody is even claiming the demise of humanity because if it, but the possibility does exist that the changes we are seeing in the Arctic, if continued, could have a major effect on the global climate. There will always be some positives along with the negatives and people can and will adapt, but whether you believe the changes are from mostly AGW or not, if things continue in the same vein as the last decade then we may all be around to witness a fundamental shift in the workings of the Arctic climate and ecosystem, which is why I personally find it fascinating to monitor.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'd reinforce what BFTV posts in that I cannot recall ever seeing a post which puts down the Arctic melt solely to man's activities. Mans role in all of this must be (it appears) just enough to push the Arctic 'warm cycle (60-80yr period?) over the edge in a 'phase/shift change' allowing the planet to emerge further from the last ice age.

Personally I do not know the figures but if we removed all the major ice sheets then the global temp would rise esp. over the polar regions during their periods of max solar input. This would be without any tinkering with the atmospheric gas mix by man's exploitation of the planets natural resources.

The carbon cycle would also find a 'new' stable level as the permafrosts melt out and that 'locked away' carbon returns into the system.

Oceanic circulation would also alter as the pacific/Atlantic polar link becomes further established and the link through Antarctica (Weddell to Ross) opens up in the Southern Ocean.

As we are already finding 'dark water' at the pole takes quite a while to shed it's heat come the dark of winter altering the pressure and temp profile of the atmosphere above. The impacts on the 'normal pattern' of weather in lower latitudes (as we are finding out now) can cause major disruption to the developed nations and cost implications on their economies.

I agree that the last solar min was part responsible for the Atlantic blocking we saw in 09/10 but surely less so last winter? The 'extension' of the 09/10 winter I feel reflects this 'added bonus' (for snow lovers) with last years pattern reflecting the type of air mass displacement the Arctic Amplification is expected to provide (with a more 'normal' pattern established over the Basin as the sea ice forms and traps in the last of the heat.

I seem to constantly refer back to my last conversation with Richard Alley and his view that we will not see a shift toward an new 'ice age' for at least 2 precessional cycles (46,000yrs?) due to our orbital positioning and the forcings this brings with it so talk of a 'new ice age' leaves me un-moved. Sure ,we may find a 'cooling' due to a combination of natural 'cool drivers' but this would be short lived (in the way of most natural cycles) and will not drive us into a 'recovery' of sea ice. The loss of the 'Halocline layer' is the bigger part of this position and I have asked , on numerous occasions, for someone to explain how we regain this lost remnant of the last ice age to the depth we knew but have had no replies to the conundrum. The Catlin expedition found a new overturning of the Arctic Ocean on their 2010 trek with cold melt water flowing down the column to at least 200m (the old depth of the Halocline) with warm water replacing it at the surface. To me this speaks of 'normal oceanic processes now establishing themselves across the Arctic ocean replacing the unique system that existed before. We can see from the workings of the southern ocean what this means for the basin with all sea ice remaining thin and ,eventually ,turning into a seasonal pack. Again I have asked ,plenty of times, as to why this would not occur in the basin once the 'Old Halocline' is destroyed and ,again, have had no replies to calm my fears.

So where are we now? Well, as I see it, in very exiting times. It is rare for changes of the scale and impact of the Arctic meltdown to occur over such a short period of time and we must count ourselves incredibly fortunate to be living through this process. To be scientifically developed and monitoring the process is an added boon with future generations being able to see the transition into the 'Anthropocene' making the proxy data for other such transitions all the more meaningful.

As for the ice melt this year? Well I was pleasantly surprised by the slow spring over large areas of Canada/Alaska but it appears as though B.A.U. is now taking over and we will see what such a skimpy,young pack does over an 'average melt season'. If we challenge 07's 'perfect storm' melt then surely some of the 'on the fence-ers' will have to accept that the changes now rampant across the Arctic basin are above and beyond 'natural variation' alone and maybe accept the small but important forcings mankind has brought to bare up there?

EDIT: Maybe Warren has a bead on it????

Edited July 5, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

Personally I do not know the figures but if we removed all the major ice sheets then the global temp would rise esp. over the polar regions during their periods of max solar input. This would be without any tinkering with the atmospheric gas mix by man's exploitation of the planets natural resources.

Oceanic circulation would also alter as the pacific/Atlantic polar link becomes further established and the link through Antarctica (Weddell to Ross) opens up in the Southern Ocean.

No, no, no

One minute we are talking about loss of ice in the ARCTIC when hey presto, we have a post with ALL Ice sheets melting out and all sorts of changes happening.

no wonder people get annoyed, I certainly do because it's almost as though you delight in doom. On a previous post you said about records, proxy or otherwise, over the holocene never recording this much loss, OK, I'll go with that, I appreciate that changes such as we have seen with a degraded pack MAY have some effects on the weather, which in turn may affect critical food growing areas, but the chances of ALL the food growing areas being affected at the same time are negligble

can we please stick to the terms of reference of this topic, the effects of Arctic Ice Loss

[stewfox]

can we please stick to the terms of reference of this topic, the effects of Arctic Ice Loss

Increased tourism up there with revenues going straight to the Swiss Bank accounts.

More Gas and Oil exploration with revenues going to Moscow and Dallas (Canada moan)

More commercial fishing with the income going to Russia and Japan More Green peace boats

4c drop in mean CET value for uk in the winter

Edited July 6, 2011 by stewfox

[Gray-Wolf]

Hey NNW! Chill!!!

I was merely highlighting J's folly of thinking that the removal of ice ,as we are seeing across the basin right now in areas that , 20yrs ago, would have still been ice bound, have an immediate impact on the local temps. reference to a 'removal' of all ice was totally hypothetical and in noway a prediction (nor a wish as you seem keen to foist onto me?).

The 'fact' that temps are impacted 1,500km inland, once sea ice is removed, does not appear open for debate and as of my my personal experience of what 300m distance can mean from temps by the sea ice to the temps on the far shore are also not open to 'interpretation and if anyone chooses to doubt it then go try it our and report back here?

Polar web cams seem all at sea today?

Edited July 6, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[4wd]

Polar web cams seem all at sea today?

Well there's some surface melt pools a few inches deep - same as usual in July.

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

I was merely highlighting J's folly of thinking that the removal of ice ,as we are seeing across the basin right now in areas that , 20yrs ago, would have still been ice bound, have an immediate impact on the local temps. reference to a 'removal' of all ice was totally hypothetical and in noway a prediction (nor a wish as you seem keen to foist onto me?).

Ahhh GW, but you are deceptive in your writing and description of what was happening. I think J was suggesting that there would be a small difference in what would happen if everything in the arctic basin melted out, now I tend to agree with you that there may be a considerable impact.

But then you jump in talking of all the ice sheets world wide melting, and that's at a time when the Antarctic ice sheet may by growing, so you change the terms of reference of the discussion, which, in my opinion is somewhat naughty because no one can refer back to it in the future because you then give the type of answer you gave me, the important bit I have highlighted in bold.

I respect you for what you know, but sometimes your world view makes me squirm

Increased tourism up there with revenues going straight to the Swiss Bank accounts.

More Gas and Oil exploration with revenues going to Moscow and Dallas (Canada moan)

More commercial fishing with the income going to Russia and Japan More Green peace boats

4c drop in mean CET value for uk in the winter

Possibly so Stew, but do you really think the CET drop would be as big as 4c? Heading towards Glaciers in Wales let alone Scotland if that happened

Edited July 7, 2011 by NorthNorfolkWeather

[Gray-Wolf]

I think we can have a CET drop over winter without it altering the summer temps? The snow of winter would quickly melt away in early spring as we see it do across the globe at our latitude.

As for me I'm not sure how the Arctic Amplification pans out (over time)? I can see how we may be copping for displaced polar air from the parts of the basin that are unaffected by the A.A. but once these areas also turn dark water over summer then the whole basin sheds heat through late Oct/November and no deep cold pool is able to form (even with the winter dark?)

When we look at other times that the Arctic was ice free we find plants that are frost shy so the loss of heat must have 'centrally heated' the basin throughout the dark months. I'm in no way saying that this is what will occur though ! I can see the 'freeze up' period being shortened though and so ice thickness limited further across the basin. Were this to happen then that ice would melt out even earlier in the melt season leaving the ocean to warm up a little longer and increasing the period needed to shed all of this heat prior to re-freeze?

With Beaufort looking prone to melt out we will have two sides of the basin , this year, with a lot of heat to lose before it can freeze (unless ice drift 'caps' the area?) .

Maybe this winter there will be less of a 'cold pool' to spill over the N. Hemisphere come late Autumn/early winter? Maybe the areas where the pool develops will spill the air over ocean and NW Europe will benifit from the WAA (as east Canada did last winter?) We shall all find out soon enough though!

Edited July 7, 2011 by Gray-Wolf