Arctic Ice Discussion

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

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.

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!

Hi GW,

I think your comment of the snow of winter quickly melting is slightly disingenious. A consistent reduction of the CET would mean that there would need to be a significant adjustment in spring and autumn, with the hilltops probably having snow on them for all except 2-3 months. That means that frost hollows would slowly accumulate ice where they were north facing and less prone to sun induced melt, so, how would they look in 20 years with a little growth each year? The start of glaciers? However, in 20 years we'll probably be switching to a +PDO, so all this talk could come to nothing

You make a good point about the WAA, for some people to be colder, others have to be warmer, it all depends on where the block sets up.

[stewfox]

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

No idea however

However interesting article in Times supplement today re Article ice melt (runs to 6 pages) and current work going on up there.

Looking at many things including the effect of the melt under the ice and how has an re-enforcing influence.

Incidentally the article also suggest 2/3c drop re North West Europe if Gulf Stream effected

Edited July 7, 2011 by stewfox

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi GW,

I think your comment of the snow of winter quickly melting is slightly disingenuous. A consistent reduction of the CET would mean that there would need to be a significant adjustment in spring and autumn, with the hilltops probably having snow on them for all except 2-3 months. That means that frost hollows would slowly accumulate ice where they were north facing and less prone to sun induced melt, so, how would they look in 20 years with a little growth each year? The start of glaciers? However, in 20 years we'll probably be switching to a +PDO, so all this talk could come to nothing

You make a good point about the WAA, for some people to be colder, others have to be warmer, it all depends on where the block sets up.

Sorry NNW but the evidence seems to show an early melt date for N.Hemisphere snow even with our 'enhanced snowfall' the past 2 years? The formation of Cwm glaciers relies more on cool summers than cold winters as it is this season where the snow must survive.

As for 20 years before we turn PDO+ve again?

http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest

not much of a PDO-ve TBH? I think we need be more concerned with the developing world cleaning up their emissions than any 'natural cycle' as the 7 years it would take to drop out the Sulphur would see global temps rising in line with those of the 80's (and more so) and by the time we have 'clean air' the CO2 burden will be 1/3 above that of the 80's (if we do adopt a B.A.U. path forward).

[Geordiesnow]

Looks more and more likely I feel we will be very close, if not below the 2007 line by September although I am only looking at the future weather set up's rather than anything technical but it has 2007 all over it really. One thing I will say though, the weather in the Arctic has been largly dominated by high pressure and very high upper air temps since May so surely it will be more of a concern if one year we reach the 2007 line with more colder set ups and an Arctic summer more dominated by cool cloudy weather.

Rather depressing too see the Arctic shrinking but interesting how it may affect future weather set ups. The theory of less Arctic ice extent equals more blocking in the Arctic does look fairly plausible.

On an interest point of view, I would love too see the extent figures if we do have an Arctic winter which was less dominating by blocking and an Arctic summer also less dominating by blocking, I know after learning from this thread there is more variables than just what the temperatures are but it will be interesting too see.

[Gray-Wolf]

As things stand Gs I'm pretty impressed that all of the past 3 years came close to matching the exceptional melt year of 07'

We had all manner of papers showing how wind,weather and current went into forming a 'perfect storm' over the Arctic that summer yet 3 'bog standard' years can come so close to rivalling it?

The fact that all those years started the melt season with more ice than 07' seems overlooked when folk look at the final figure but the total areas melted out highlight just how bad the past 3 seasons melt has been!

Anyhoos , with even less ice this year (thickness and volume) I think we can expect more of the same (if not worse!!!).

[oldsnowywizard]

Came close ? 07 had exceptional Melt and Lots of Dark Open water to absorb extra energy as you keep telling everyone.. From this low a normal weather period should have returned roughly the same ice loss. Fact is it didn't and by no means was the winter of 08,09 exceptionally cold. Anyway the ice pack is not doing well at all and the mean temps are still not above the long term average line on the Danish site. Maybe you will get your wish gw and this year we will see the worst melt out so far in the 30 years period

Edited July 9, 2011 by oldsnowywizard

[songster]

... the mean temps are still not above the long term average line on the Danish site...

This means nothing. During melt season the surface temperature <i>has</i> to be within spitting distance of freezing, because you have a mix of ice and water present. That graph can't rise above the long term average until the ice has completely melted out right across the Basin.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I don't think the melting of the Arctic sea ice, in itself, is a major worry, but there are associated implications that are much more of a concern. Once we reach a stage where there isn't much sea ice left it's near-inevitable that we will get significantly warmer airmasses around the vicinity of Greenland, thus contributing to higher ice melt there (the main reason why most glaciers are in retreat is hot dry summers rather than lack of cold weather during the winters). The melting of the Greenland ice sheet is certain to contribute to sea level rises and subsequent inundation of coastal areas, with massive associated social and economic costs, unlike the sea ice which displaces the equivalent volume of water anyway. Others have mentioned changes to atmospheric circulation, but it is far from clear whether the impacts of those will be positive, negative, or most likely a mix of the two.

It strikes me that some of the views on the subject don't necessarily represent outright denial that anything is happening, but rather head-burial/hopecasting ("hopefully everything will turn out for the best, and therefore, let's assume that it will") as a comfort zone against exposure to possible negative scenarios.

Don't bring Antarctica into it though- we'd need a colossal amount of warming in order to have a major impact on the ice sheet there.

[Guest]

I don't think the melting of the Arctic sea ice, in itself, is a major worry, but there are associated implications that are much more of a concern. Once we reach a stage where there isn't much sea ice left it's near-inevitable that we will get significantly warmer airmasses around the vicinity of Greenland, thus contributing to higher ice melt there (the main reason why most glaciers are in retreat is hot dry summers rather than lack of cold weather during the winters). The melting of the Greenland ice sheet is certain to contribute to sea level rises and subsequent inundation of coastal areas, with massive associated social and economic costs, unlike the sea ice which displaces the equivalent volume of water anyway. Others have mentioned changes to atmospheric circulation, but it is far from clear whether the impacts of those will be positive, negative, or most likely a mix of the two.

It strikes me that some of the views on the subject don't necessarily represent outright denial that anything is happening, but rather head-burial/hopecasting ("hopefully everything will turn out for the best, and therefore, let's assume that it will") as a comfort zone against exposure to possible negative scenarios.

Don't bring Antarctica into it though- we'd need a colossal amount of warming in order to have a major impact on the ice sheet there.

I can only speak from my observations in this country mostly from ice & snow build up and melting. I thought that glaciers grew through abundant winter precipitation in the form of snow and that with less snow they could retreat due to the lack of being fed at their source.

In the summer I would have thought that wet rainy conditions would have had more of an effect in melting ice & snow than hot dry conditions. However on the top of the Greenland ice cap, I expect that summer precipitation would fall as snow, continuing the build up.

I do recall being taught in geography at school a very long time ago that many of the Arctic regions have less than 10 inches of "rainfall" or its snow equivalent a year and could be considered desert regions.

It seems clear to me that there is no simple answer and that the growth or retreat of glaciers depends on a number of different factors and that warmth or cold is only a part of it.

[jethro]

Morning folks, sorry for the delayed response, I've been on holiday (busman's).

GW: You're still extrapolating. You assume that the current melt situation is a result of a run away train, fuelled by CO2, with no one at the helm. In your scenario we have miraculously over-ridden all natural drivers and have become more powerful than nature - we haven't. When you speak of the straw that broke the Camel's back you are still assuming that there is nothing in nature to counter-balance the warming - you are wrong. Even just looking at the albedo issue demonstrates the fine detail which needs to be looked at before jumping to your conclusions; taking your argument that less ice leads to more southerly tracking weather patterns, the decline in albedo due to lower summer levels of ice may well be matched by increased albedo levels in winter by a greater portion of the NH covered with winter snow. When it comes to balancing the energy budget of the Planet, it doesn't matter where the snow is. No one has yet managed to calculate the difference the lower summer albedo makes to the energy budget - you speak as though we know all these answers and we simply don't. The scientists are all working hard to figure out whether more open water leads to increased cloudiness, whether or not those clouds will trap heat or allow it to radiate to space, whether or not the loss of the insulating layer of ice results in increased warming due to loss of albedo or leads to greater heat loss through heat transfer from the oceans. There are sooooo many un-answered questions which need answering before anyone is anywhere close to knowing the complete future picture that you predict - stop simplifying a really complex problem in order to paint the vision you yourself see. Mother Shipton, Runes Stones and crystal balls can't even buy me the winning numbers for the £166 million up for grabs on Tuesday, they're even less likely to show the future path of the Arctic.

BFTV: The paper you link to has been super-ceded by newer, more in-depth studies - the latest of which is from a respected scientist who is not known for his love of scepticism of the AGW theory.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/11/13829/2011/acpd-11-13829-2011.pdf

http://www.350resources.org.uk/2010/05/06/europe-quiet-sun-means-colder-winters-in-europe-but-this-is-a-local-effect-not-a-globally-one/

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/3/034004/

The newer studies look at the causes behind the seasonal melt rather than at the knock on effect. They show that the blocking and shift in atmospheric patterns are as a result of the shifting impact of Solar variation; this shift in Solar output causes the blocking and atmosphere change, it is not as a result in the decline in ice. There is less ice because of the shift, but the lower ice levels did not drive the shift in weather patterns. The study you link to made the same assumptions that GW made, the links above show the larger picture.

[Richie V]

If CT is to be believed were painfully close to the lowest global sea ice extent since 1979!

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Edited July 10, 2011 by Richie V

[Gray-Wolf]

Firstly I'd challenge anyone to bring forward posts where I claim that any changes (weather or climate) are solely down to it being 'fuelled by CO2'.

Anyhoo's , we are now getting into this bit of 'weather driven' losses and ,by the looks of IJIS, it's having an effect!

The next melt 'milestone' (I believe) is the melt out of the NW Passage (deep channel) later on this month...... and possibly the North pole Cams taking an early bath?

EDIT: oops! looks like cam 1 has his toe in already!!!

Edited July 11, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

Firstly I'd challenge anyone to bring forward posts where I claim that any changes (weather or climate) are solely down to it being 'fuelled by CO2'.

Anyhoo's , we are now getting into this bit of 'weather driven' losses and ,by the looks of IJIS, it's having an effect!

The next melt 'milestone' (I believe) is the melt out of the NW Passage (deep channel) later on this month...... and possibly the North pole Cams taking an early bath?

EDIT: oops! looks like cam 1 has his toe in already!!!

You regularly and routinely claim that the ice loss is driven by warming due to CO2 emissions and that the resulting increase in open water is driving the changes in weather patterns. In particular regarding the weather, your stance for at least the last couple of years is that we have had colder, snowier winters as a direct result of the lower ice levels.

[Gray-Wolf]

You regularly and routinely claim that the ice loss is driven by warming due to CO2 emissions and that the resulting increase in open water is driving the changes in weather patterns. In particular regarding the weather, your stance for at least the last couple of years is that we have had colder, snowier winters as a direct result of the lower ice levels.

As far as the 'Arctic Amplification' (A.A.) is concerned I seem to remember a certain M.Serezze pointing us towards the Overland paper (then under construction) as a way to see the impacts of a decades worth of building A.A. in Arctic circulation? The 20c anoms across the Barents/Kara seas are easy to track and the temp. anomalies through the atmosphere over late Autumn/early winter are also fully documented? The H.P. system that this period of heat loss brings with it is also well noted?

As for the past 2 winters I'm sure i went on (at length?) about the paper linking low solar to a predominance in Atlantic blocking? and how our A' Level Geog master had already taught us about this back in the mid 80's??

We can all track this winters 'developments' but last winter seems closer to the type of A.A. augmented winter that we can (1 in 3 winters?) expect as the Arctic Amplification grows stronger and stronger in it's influence as more and more summer ocean is open to warming for longer and longer each year? The 'late winter' cold of 09/10 was (I believe) as a result of Atlantic blocking more tied to the Solar min than the A.A. and any early winter arctic plunges this year (and WAA in the western sector) will be solely a result of Air mass displacement due to rising warm air across sectors of the Arctic Ocean Basin.

I also recall the winters that some more 'eastern regions' suffered through the noughties (from Japan through to eastern Europe) and the exceptional snowfalls these 'Arctic Escapes' brought with them (collapsing stadia/shopping mall roofs etc)? I would again place the 'early winter' events at the feet of the developing A.A.

This year? Well I feel it depends on how early Beaufort melts out? The more heat this ocean area has to shed shifts the temp anoms across a further sector in the basin and could maybe shift the 'Arctic Escapes' back into Eurasia leaving us with the WAA sector? Time alone will tell.

I would also hazard a gues that when we do see a seasonal pack that the start of the Arctic freeze up will take on quite a 'novel' time frame with most of the temperate latitudes having extended Indian summers as the Arctic is effectively 'shut off' from the rest of the N. Hemisphere by the H.P. that the warm ,rising air builds as the Ocean sheds it's heat. Northern blocking with a difference? we would not have 'colder airs flowing south only the mixing of the tropical/Med airs at the 'boundary zone' where the blocking meets the air masses trying to push north? Anyhow , lets hope we have a lifetime to wait 'till we see that!!!!

As for 'Ice loss' , Yup CO2 levels play their part but , as we all know, the majority of the 'extra heat' we have acrued since the start of our elevated GHG pollution has gone into the Oceans. If we want a culprit for the melt out of the Arctic then the water is the biggest cause we have? The sub data from the 50's to the sat era shows that 50% drop in ice volume over the period.......all of that prior to the 80's atmospheric temp rises.....The Oceanic impacts on the Basin are highlighted ever more by the re-introduction of species into the Atlantic Basin, from the Pacific, over the last decade (some species extinct in the basin for over 80,000yrs!)...if the critters are re-colonising the high Arctic /northern Atlantic then we can see there must be quite a flow through to Baffin/Fram from Bering. The speed up of Buoy transit times may not merely be the impact of a fragmented pack but also the increase in flow across the tran-arctic drift from the Bering inputs?

The ingress of Atlantic 'tropical' waters (melting out the bases of Greenlands Glaciers) must be replacing something that has flowed out surely?

Edit: Apart from going sub 8 million in extent (and over 2million down in global ice extent according to C.T.!) the NW Passage 'Deep Channel' seems to be on it's way to being 'ice free' earlier than ever before? ;

http://lance-modis.e...172500.250m.jpg

the remaining ice is now fracturing and will crumble out over the next few days? remarkable really.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[BornFromTheVoid]

Morning folks, sorry for the delayed response, I've been on holiday (busman's).

GW: You're still extrapolating. You assume that the current melt situation is a result of a run away train, fuelled by CO2, with no one at the helm. In your scenario we have miraculously over-ridden all natural drivers and have become more powerful than nature - we haven't. When you speak of the straw that broke the Camel's back you are still assuming that there is nothing in nature to counter-balance the warming - you are wrong. Even just looking at the albedo issue demonstrates the fine detail which needs to be looked at before jumping to your conclusions; taking your argument that less ice leads to more southerly tracking weather patterns, the decline in albedo due to lower summer levels of ice may well be matched by increased albedo levels in winter by a greater portion of the NH covered with winter snow. When it comes to balancing the energy budget of the Planet, it doesn't matter where the snow is. No one has yet managed to calculate the difference the lower summer albedo makes to the energy budget - you speak as though we know all these answers and we simply don't. The scientists are all working hard to figure out whether more open water leads to increased cloudiness, whether or not those clouds will trap heat or allow it to radiate to space, whether or not the loss of the insulating layer of ice results in increased warming due to loss of albedo or leads to greater heat loss through heat transfer from the oceans. There are sooooo many un-answered questions which need answering before anyone is anywhere close to knowing the complete future picture that you predict - stop simplifying a really complex problem in order to paint the vision you yourself see. Mother Shipton, Runes Stones and crystal balls can't even buy me the winning numbers for the £166 million up for grabs on Tuesday, they're even less likely to show the future path of the Arctic.

BFTV: The paper you link to has been super-ceded by newer, more in-depth studies - the latest of which is from a respected scientist who is not known for his love of scepticism of the AGW theory.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/11/13829/2011/acpd-11-13829-2011.pdf

http://www.350resources.org.uk/2010/05/06/europe-quiet-sun-means-colder-winters-in-europe-but-this-is-a-local-effect-not-a-globally-one/

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/3/034004/

The newer studies look at the causes behind the seasonal melt rather than at the knock on effect. They show that the blocking and shift in atmospheric patterns are as a result of the shifting impact of Solar variation; this shift in Solar output causes the blocking and atmosphere change, it is not as a result in the decline in ice. There is less ice because of the shift, but the lower ice levels did not drive the shift in weather patterns. The study you link to made the same assumptions that GW made, the links above show the larger picture.

Cheers for the links. Quite busy, so have only had a brief look through them and thus far, nothing to say the loss of sea ice has no influence, just that there are more and more factors to consider! Will have a better look through when I get the time though.

[trevw]

In your scenario we have miraculously over-ridden all natural drivers and have become more powerful than nature - we haven't.

Agree with some of the rest of your post, though I think you may exagerate the level of some of the unknowns as a lot has been done in these areas..

But what do emotive statements like this one even mean? In what way are you measuring 'Power'? With a bit of actual effort I am sure mankind could sterilize the planet, put the climate back into an ice age or any number of things that would demonstrate a level of significant 'Power' over the rest of nature - on the flip side 'Nature' by which I guess you mean all things not a result of mans activity? Can wipe out populations with tidal waves, volcanoes, disease etc. It's not really measurable unless you narrow down the point of comparison?

Fortunately, despite appearances, we are not 'actively' trying to trash the planet, so what is more interesting is to what extent the side affects of our activities are nudging nature in a direction it would not otherwise have gone. Whether the climate system is in some kind of generally stable equilibirum or a meta-stable equilibrium with many different possible 'quasi-stable' states and maybe even some completely unstable states (hopefully not).

To me your comment suggests an assumption that 'natural drivers' work to maintain an equilibrium and anything we do has to 'override these' and seems to include some anthropomorphising of our climate system in a Mother Nature/Ghia like direction. There are good reasons to believe that there are alternate less icy 'quasi-stable' states for our planets climate as they have occurred in the past. And no reason as far as I can tell that our activities couldn't (if continued) move us towards one.. That's not to say they will - but they could, and the level of perturbation required to do so may be less than we would wish (or greater than some fear).

All the while that the ice levels in the arctic trend towards a roughly linear decline it doesn't seem massively unreasonable to extrapolate? This may not continue for ever - it may accelerate or recover (hopefully). Might be a bit fatalistic, but given human nature and the short termism inherent in all of our government structures I suspect we will see minimal action without some kind of crisis, so I imagine we will get to continue to watch until it goes one way or the other..

T

[Gray-Wolf]

Thank you for that 'T', superb post and sentiments.

As for the Arctic i feel it has already reached another 'quasi-stable' state and will continue to settle into this 'new Arctic' until we all recognise the new state. To me the loss of the halocline (and not necessarily the loss in ice thickness over the past 60yrs as ,with a deep Halocline this could recover) is key and now we'd need look for the conditions that gave the Arctic Ocean this uniquely deep layer (another ice age???) before we could look toward a proper recovery.

The other 'feedbacks' that the loss of the deep keeled Paleocrystic backbone to the Arctic ocean are the permafrost shallows off Siberia and the permafrosts through Eurasia/America/Canada. with less ice over the summer months temps inland reach ever higher levels (did we just have another Canadian max exceeded with a 19.8c???) and fail to freeze as deep over the 'shorter' winter season.

We all know that these deposits carry a cargo best not released into the atmosphere lest we hasten toward another 'quasi -stable' state across the globe.

[jethro]

As far as the 'Arctic Amplification' (A.A.) is concerned I seem to remember a certain M.Serezze pointing us towards the Overland paper (then under construction) as a way to see the impacts of a decades worth of building A.A. in Arctic circulation? The 20c anoms across the Barents/Kara seas are easy to track and the temp. anomalies through the atmosphere over late Autumn/early winter are also fully documented? The H.P. system that this period of heat loss brings with it is also well noted?

As for the past 2 winters I'm sure i went on (at length?) about the paper linking low solar to a predominance in Atlantic blocking? and how our A' Level Geog master had already taught us about this back in the mid 80's??

We can all track this winters 'developments' but last winter seems closer to the type of A.A. augmented winter that we can (1 in 3 winters?) expect as the Arctic Amplification grows stronger and stronger in it's influence as more and more summer ocean is open to warming for longer and longer each year? The 'late winter' cold of 09/10 was (I believe) as a result of Atlantic blocking more tied to the Solar min than the A.A. and any early winter arctic plunges this year (and WAA in the western sector) will be solely a result of Air mass displacement due to rising warm air across sectors of the Arctic Ocean Basin.

I also recall the winters that some more 'eastern regions' suffered through the noughties (from Japan through to eastern Europe) and the exceptional snowfalls these 'Arctic Escapes' brought with them (collapsing stadia/shopping mall roofs etc)? I would again place the 'early winter' events at the feet of the developing A.A.

This year? Well I feel it depends on how early Beaufort melts out? The more heat this ocean area has to shed shifts the temp anoms across a further sector in the basin and could maybe shift the 'Arctic Escapes' back into Eurasia leaving us with the WAA sector? Time alone will tell.

I would also hazard a gues that when we do see a seasonal pack that the start of the Arctic freeze up will take on quite a 'novel' time frame with most of the temperate latitudes having extended Indian summers as the Arctic is effectively 'shut off' from the rest of the N. Hemisphere by the H.P. that the warm ,rising air builds as the Ocean sheds it's heat. Northern blocking with a difference? we would not have 'colder airs flowing south only the mixing of the tropical/Med airs at the 'boundary zone' where the blocking meets the air masses trying to push north? Anyhow , lets hope we have a lifetime to wait 'till we see that!!!!

As for 'Ice loss' , Yup CO2 levels play their part but , as we all know, the majority of the 'extra heat' we have acrued since the start of our elevated GHG pollution has gone into the Oceans. If we want a culprit for the melt out of the Arctic then the water is the biggest cause we have? The sub data from the 50's to the sat era shows that 50% drop in ice volume over the period.......all of that prior to the 80's atmospheric temp rises.....The Oceanic impacts on the Basin are highlighted ever more by the re-introduction of species into the Atlantic Basin, from the Pacific, over the last decade (some species extinct in the basin for over 80,000yrs!)...if the critters are re-colonising the high Arctic /northern Atlantic then we can see there must be quite a flow through to Baffin/Fram from Bering. The speed up of Buoy transit times may not merely be the impact of a fragmented pack but also the increase in flow across the tran-arctic drift from the Bering inputs?

The ingress of Atlantic 'tropical' waters (melting out the bases of Greenlands Glaciers) must be replacing something that has flowed out surely?

Edit: Apart from going sub 8 million in extent (and over 2million down in global ice extent according to C.T.!) the NW Passage 'Deep Channel' seems to be on it's way to being 'ice free' earlier than ever before? ;

http://lance-modis.e...172500.250m.jpg

the remaining ice is now fracturing and will crumble out over the next few days? remarkable really.

With respect GW sometimes your responses begger belief.

For years I badgered you about ocean heat and ice melt, I bombarded you with papers from Polyakov, at every turn and you persistently adopted the view that it was an insignificant factor and that warmer air temps were to blame. I applaud the fact that you now at last accept the major role they have played but am torn between amusement and dismay that you now claim to have always held this view.

Serrenze? I'm afraid I don't hold him in the high regard that you do, try Googling 'Mark Serrenze wrong' and you'll find many more who share my view. The man is a self confessed alarmist (at least he had the decency to apologise), here's a selection for you:

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2010/06/bishop-hill-blog-sea-ice-modellers.html

http://cbltoo.blogspot.com/2008/06/latest-agw-hypocrite-mark-c-serreze.html

His death spiral prediction is professionally refuted in the peer reviewed Geophysical Research Letters journal:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010GL045698.shtml

[jethro]

Agree with some of the rest of your post, though I think you may exagerate the level of some of the unknowns as a lot has been done in these areas..

But what do emotive statements like this one even mean? In what way are you measuring 'Power'? With a bit of actual effort I am sure mankind could sterilize the planet, put the climate back into an ice age or any number of things that would demonstrate a level of significant 'Power' over the rest of nature - on the flip side 'Nature' by which I guess you mean all things not a result of mans activity? Can wipe out populations with tidal waves, volcanoes, disease etc. It's not really measurable unless you narrow down the point of comparison?

Fortunately, despite appearances, we are not 'actively' trying to trash the planet, so what is more interesting is to what extent the side affects of our activities are nudging nature in a direction it would not otherwise have gone. Whether the climate system is in some kind of generally stable equilibirum or a meta-stable equilibrium with many different possible 'quasi-stable' states and maybe even some completely unstable states (hopefully not).

To me your comment suggests an assumption that 'natural drivers' work to maintain an equilibrium and anything we do has to 'override these' and seems to include some anthropomorphising of our climate system in a Mother Nature/Ghia like direction. There are good reasons to believe that there are alternate less icy 'quasi-stable' states for our planets climate as they have occurred in the past. And no reason as far as I can tell that our activities couldn't (if continued) move us towards one.. That's not to say they will - but they could, and the level of perturbation required to do so may be less than we would wish (or greater than some fear).

All the while that the ice levels in the arctic trend towards a roughly linear decline it doesn't seem massively unreasonable to extrapolate? This may not continue for ever - it may accelerate or recover (hopefully). Might be a bit fatalistic, but given human nature and the short termism inherent in all of our government structures I suspect we will see minimal action without some kind of crisis, so I imagine we will get to continue to watch until it goes one way or the other..

T

I don't exaggerate the unknowns; a comprehensive breakdown of the unknowns concerning the Arctic and the proposed work to solve the puzzles can be found here:

http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/research/highlights/2011/isac-science-plan

http://www.arcticchange.org/isac2009/images/stories/files/ISAC_Science_Plan_11-15zip.pdf

The knowledge on clouds and their impact upon climate is still sparse, the IPCC cite this as being one of, if not the biggest unknown factors in climate prediction and understanding.

As for Solar impact, we've gone from only TSI being considered the one factor contributing to climate variation to acknowledgement by the METO that Solar variation accounts for up to 50% of annual climate variation and the widespread acceptance of a now expected deep Solar minimum, we've also had reputable research which indicates seasonal/regional variation due to the deep minimum - despite all of this new research, all Solar physicists and climatologists share one thing in common, an acceptance that their work is a work in progress and they're only scratching the surface of understanding.

My use of the term power? It wasn't intended to be emotive, it was a lazy, in a hurry, must get to work response. In the simplest of terms, our contribution of all possible climate changing actions, be it CO2, aerosols, land change uses etc have not over-ridden one single natural process. When it comes to the Arctic in particular, at best we may have augmented a natural warming cycle - we haven't caused the warming cycle. Does that make any more sense or is it a lazy, it's late, must get to bed or I'll be late for work tomorrow too response?

Mother Nature/Ghia - that's the absolute antithesis to my way of thinking. There is no such thing as a steady state climate, it is not static, it is always changing. One of my biggest bugbears is the assertion that we have caused X amount of warming in X amount of years when we haven't got a clue just how warm we would be without our influence. We may be able to take an educated guess but it's still a guess and when you factor in just how much climate variation there is over years/decades/centuries, I find it faintly amusing that there's so much hoohar about the 0.5c rise over recent decades. We're supposed to be convinced because the models only work when our contribution is factored in - great in theory, not so great in practise when we haven't got any where near enough knowledge to program in all the natural contribution.

Extrapolating the Arctic ice levels? See the Geo Physics paper in my response above to GW.

[noiv]

> Fortunately, despite appearances, we are not 'actively' trying to trash the planet, ...

Can't agree with the line above. Actually we do. We are just pretending not to know and blame scientists for their inefficient work, so that the results can be easily ignored. Ever asked a child hammering a fly to stop and received "Nobody told me it could die."? So we do with the climate and forget we are part of the experiment. Oups.

Just learned the metabolic rate of this planet - forcing the continents to drift and once raised the Himalaya - consumes 44 trillion watts. A value we are going to surpass this century. Natural erosion in Australia moves ~100 million tonnes of sediment per year, human exports of coal and iron ore are now at about 600 million tonnes, same continent. We even trigger earthquakes by constructing dams. Need More?

Surely, we don't need more alarm. We have the ability to understand and plan our actions, it is just because we are all distracted by business and don't have the time and the money, well not now. What we even need less are such ill-advised appeasements misprizing our own comprehension. The reality is we are trashing the planet and have to face that and then stop it.

Back to the subject my question is will an ice free Arctic change anything?

[songster]

His death spiral prediction is professionally refuted in the peer reviewed Geophysical Research Letters journal:

http://www.agu.org/p...0GL045698.shtml

As I've covered before at length, you are massively misinterpreting this paper. It showed that Arctic ice is robust to random perturbations caused by freak weather events, and that after such a perturbation it recovers within a couple of years to the level dictated by "general climatic conditions."

This is what we saw in the real world as well as in their model. After the 2007 freak low melt, extent rebounded fractionally in 2008 and 2009, back up to the general long-term trend. However, it is this long term trend itself, i.e. the "general climatic conditions" that are currently in a death spiral. It's downwards - sharply downwards - and accelerating. The paper is quite clear on this front: it predicts almost complete loss of ice by ~2060, along with the majority of other Arctic models - and note that these models have consistently underpredicted the melt. If there were a sudden random drop to zero in (say) 2040, then the ice would indeed recover by 2042 - all the way to the dizzying heights of 1 or 2 million km^2, which is all that's predicted to be left by then.

If anything, this paper puts a nail in the coffin of the hope for sustained recovery - it says that you get all the recovery you will ever get within the first two to three years. That is, 2009/2010 levels of ice are the new "normal", despite being dramatically reduced compared to historical levels. And the longterm trend carries on inexorably downward, ever faster.

Edited July 12, 2011 by songster

[Gray-Wolf]

It is , as ever, a pedant's paradise when it comes to disseminating papers songster! I've even had papers concerning fluctuating ice cover in the east Chukchi sea being held up as proof of Basin wide ice variance?

We can see where the 'trend line' is going and this 30yrs now falls within sat data so we can actually 'see' extent over the period.

When we read the Whalers logs from the end of the 1800's we can also see what an impenetrable Barrier NE Greenland and N. Fram used to be with the ice dammed area east of Svalbard and the Paleocrystic, stacked as high as office blocks, back along the N.Greenland coast and on into S.Beaufort.

We know from the Sub Data that the pack of the late 50's lost 50% (and more) of it's depth before the 1980's (a continuation of the degradation of the 'Backbone of the Arctic' and it's impacts across the basin via the Beaufort Gyre and trans polar drift).

We can read the studies on Fram export throughout the 1900's.

We can also take note of the folk who live on the polar margins and the changes that their communities are witnessing (and some 'relocations due to the 'new' coastal erosion in areas where permafrost meets ocean).

The 'Scale' of the changes to the Arctic cannot be played down. They are occuring and continue to trend away from the historical Arctic with sharp 'step changes' along the way (perfect storm years?)

Until someone provides us with 'strong evidence' that the changes we witness are a 'normal' part of a cyclical Arctic then I have to listen to the science that is telling us that the melt/ice loss is unprecedented in it's speed and scale.

Back to today. Well N.Pole cam 1 is looking a bit skewed as it sinks into the slush?

The blockage through Viscount Melville is starting to fragment (with the prospect of the earliest 'opening' of the NW Passage 'Deep Channel') and Nares is exporting Lincoln sea ice.

The sea ice 'extent' set a record for the earliest recorded drop below 8 million 2 days ago and 'century breaks' seem to be the norm at the moment with 3 of them in the top 10 highest loss days.

The 'Healy Cam' ( http://mgds.ldeo.columbia.edu/healy/reports/aloftcon/2011/ ) is showing us an interesting glimpse of the conditions in the basin (off Siberia?) so we can 'interpret the MODIS images better (using the lat/long plots)

All in all it appears to be the type of season many on here expected? The next surprises come with the complete 'melt out' phase in Aug. This may be the year with an ice free pole? the web cams kinda lean towards this??? (LOL)

[songster]

The 'Healy Cam' ( http://mgds.ldeo.col.../aloftcon/2011/ ) is showing us an interesting glimpse of the conditions in the basin (off Siberia?) so we can 'interpret the MODIS images better (using the lat/long plots)

I'd be amazed to see a US ship noodling around in Russian waters. The Healy is at ~160W, 73.5N, i.e. in the edge of the ice pack on the border between Beaufort and Chukchi seas, northwest of Point Barrow.

[jethro]

I'm not misinterpreting it; late night, tired laziness probably didn't help me explain myself properly though.

The death spiral predicted by Serrenze was an over-excited reaction to the melt in 2007, even he admits he over-reacted. GW brings his work up regularly as the true picture of the Arctic and the predicted future - it isn't as sound as he claims. The paper above showed that Serrenze over-reacted.

The paper shows that one year dramatic melt doesn't produce a tipping point beyond which the decline to no summer ice is an inexorable tale waiting to unfold. Does it show that you get all the recovery you’ll ever get within the first two to three years? If it does then it’s playing the crystal ball trick again; saying the ice recovers to the previous level in two to three years is a valid comment but “all the recovery you’ll ever get�???? That’s not only an outrageous ‘out there’ comment but scientifically inaccurate too.

The general climatic death spiral hinges entirely upon the warming being relentless and CO2 driven - all well and good if that is the case but there are a few factors to consider before leaping to that conclusion. Firstly and foremost - just how much warming in the Arctic is CO2 driven? No one knows that answer but what we do know is that it is only a fraction of the current figure. A glance through this work will demonstrate the known variability and where today fits into the picture: http://research.iarc.../50yr/index.php Also: http://journals.amet.../2010BAMS2921.1

Then we've got to factor in the Solar contribution. The IPCC only considered the variation in TSI - all well and good if that is the only variant, especially when considering global influence. The newest research shows that TSI isn't the only consideration, especially when it comes to local, hemispheric patterns. In relative terms, the past few solar cycles have been fairly active; it stands to reason that if an in-active Sun can cause changes in pressure patterns then an active one can too or are we to suppose that the Sun can only cause cooling patterns to the NH? A quiet Sun causes increased blocking allowing colder airmasses to penetrate further south, wouldn’t that mean that an active Sun would have the inverse action, warmer air masses penetrating further north? Isn’t that supposed to be one of the causes of the Arctic melt? A symptom of AGW? All our soggy, warm winters of recent years were supposed to be due to AGW and the recent colder ones due to the decline in Solar activity – strikes me that there’s a bit of a contradiction going on there.

Extrapolating today into the future, predicting the level of Arctic ice in 2060, no more summer ice by that point in time…if that’s an allowable, scientifically valid presumption then is must also follow that it is possible to make alternative predictive assumptions. We are now in a period of time when La Nina is expected to dominate over El Nino; we have China belching out so much Sulphur that for the past few years it has successfully counter-balanced the warming from CO2 with atmospheric cooling. We are expected to have entered a prolonged period of quiet solar activity, a deep minimum is expected, merely the length and depth is unknown. I’d say there’s a fair chance that we’ll see a recovery in ice levels, it may not be spectacular, it may only result in a new stable, but lower level of summer ice but I doubt very much that we’ll see a period of no summer ice in our lifetime or even our children’s lifetimes. However, given it’s taken thirty odd years to reach the current low point, I wouldn’t expect levels to leap back up to ‘before satellite era’ levels in a year or three.

Until someone provides us with 'strong evidence' that the changes we witness are a 'normal' part of a cyclical Arctic then I have to listen to the science that is telling us that the melt/ice loss is unprecedented in it's speed and scale.

That statement’s all well and good GW but it’s also a vague, cover-all, get out statement too. As we cannot see into the future, we can’t accurately see into the past either – proxy measurements in whatever form they take just don’t give us the resolution to accurately compare today with hundreds of years ago. Today we notice and analyse the slightest change, changes which proxy measurements just cannot reveal. As for speed and scale, this is quite an interesting read: http://motls.blogspo...-from-1659.html

I’m not saying “it’s all naturalâ€, as you know I absolutely accept the theory of AGW and that we must have had some impact up north but it’s the absolute acceptance and interpretation of each and every change in ice levels being as a result of AGW that gets my goat. What gets my goat most of all is the predominance of soothsayer, crystal ball predictions – they all share one thing in common and that is because we have been warming, because ice levels have declined, this situation will continue ad infinitum. That’s not scientifically valid unless accompanied by a great big, whopping clause of “if everything remains the same with every other climate driver involved, this is the futureâ€. They never have that attached proviso, they all say “it’s changed, we’ve changed it and we’ll continue to change it unless we mend our waysâ€.

Seems to me that studies which show the human element of climate change are taken as having special predictive powers but those which show the natural element are given nothing more than a cursory glance, almost an irritation in this debate. That’s such an odd double standard to apply.

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

All in all it appears to be the type of season many on here expected? The next surprises come with the complete 'melt out' phase in Aug. This may be the year with an ice free pole? the web cams kinda lean towards this??? (LOL)

Ahh yes, never a ramper for ice melt

I seem to remember you predicted that last year as well, and the year before that, one day you are bound to be right.