Arctic Ice Discussion (the Refreeze)

[BornFromTheVoid]

An update on the current re-freeze.

As of now, we're almost joint with 2009 and 2007 on the DMI graph and above 2007 on the NSIDC graph, so it's unlikely we're lowest on record any more.

On the IJIS figures, 2009 is lowest on record this time of year but saying that, there are less than 20,000km2 between 07,09 and 10. So here's the comparison from CT

850s are looking quite good at the moment. Below -15C around the Bering strait which should help ice build up there after it took a battering from the Alaska storm. This looks like lasting only the next 48 hours, as the main cold gets held up N of the Bering strait.

850s and surface temperatures getting progressively colder over the next week around Hudson Bay, so hopefully the sea ice can climb back closer to average there.

By t144 a large depression centred around Greenland draws much milder air up towards the N. Pole but pulls very cold air down across NW Canada and into the Baffin sea, so something of a balance there.

[BornFromTheVoid]

The sea ice extent/area appears to be booming once more.

On CT, we're now the closest to average we've been since early July and global sea ice is within 1 million of average for the first time since about May.

NSIDC has the extent close to 2007, which at this time of year is joint 4th lowest on record. If we can get close to 2005, or, even better, 2008, then we'll be doing well.

With very cold air now crossing Hudson Bay, we should see the first of the sea ice begin to develop across northern and western there parts very soon.

[summer blizzard]

The sea ice extent/area appears to be booming once more.

On CT, we're now the closest to average we've been since early July and global sea ice is within 1 million of average for the first time since about May.

NSIDC has the extent close to 2007, which at this time of year is joint 4th lowest on record. If we can get close to 2005, or, even better, 2008, then we'll be doing well.

With very cold air now crossing Hudson Bay, we should see the first of the sea ice begin to develop across northern and western there parts very soon.

There is a few days delay on the ones in this thread but the snow charts (in the seasonal section) do show ice forming across the north of Hudsons Bay.

[BornFromTheVoid]

There is a few days delay on the ones in this thread but the snow charts (in the seasonal section) do show ice forming across the north of Hudsons Bay.

It could be that the sea ice just hasn't reached the 30% coverage threshold to appear on the CT maps, rather than them being behind.

There is ice to the very north anyway, but being awkward, I wouldn't really consider that Hudson Bay myself!

[stewfox]

It could be that the sea ice just hasn't reached the 30% coverage threshold to appear on the CT maps, rather than them being behind.

There is ice to the very north anyway, but being awkward, I wouldn't really consider that Hudson Bay myself!

What an example of the effects of the North Atlanic current !

[4wd]

Another early Arctic blast (followed by a middling Jan/Feb/March) and I'm properly sold on the changes loss of ice cover is bringing to the N. Hemisphere.

You watch for the 'developed worlds' renewed interest in the Arctic Amplification should the shaky economies be hit by early winter ( chrimbo shopping etc.) freeze up?

How is this grand new order prediction looking?

Not based on analysis of one year - 2010 was it ....

[Gray-Wolf]

I think you need ask the west Canadians/NW U.S./west Alaskans 4wd as it appears to be their turn for an early winter? As I've posted thinks are all dependant on where the ocean is shedding it's heat, this year it appears the Siberian/Beaufort sea areas have stolen the show (so far) but I'm still keeping my eye on the ocean to the East of Svalbard as this is much slower on the refreeze than last year?

As we saw from 02' onward these 'polar displacements' will occur somewhere around the N. Hemisphere (be it Asia, E. Europe, USA or here) and tis year is no exception.

[jethro]

So the ocean's not storing the heat? I thought the problem was the ocean getting warmer and warmer, leading to less ice, leading to decreased albedo and a never ending circle of decline.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Nope, it's warming up, slowly releasing it's heat in Autumn, delaying the onset on the refreeze, resulting in slower ice formation, thinner ice, which is then more susceptible to an early melt and thus the cycle continues. (ignoring all other factors)

[jethro]

Given how heat is transferred around the globe and the Poles are part of that thermostat system, the system is clearly working exactly as it should.

[4wd]

As we saw from 02' onward these 'polar displacements' will occur somewhere around the N. Hemisphere (be it Asia, E. Europe, USA or here) and tis year is no exception.

So this never happened before?

I suspect the displacement notion was mostly invented by PNS explain why colder is actually warmer.

( - Post Normal Science - )

[BornFromTheVoid]

Given how heat is transferred around the globe and the Poles are part of that thermostat system, the system is clearly working exactly as it should.

If your thermostat is set to encourage more warming. There is no right or wrong way for the system to work, it works however it will work, according to the main influences on it.

[jethro]

If your thermostat is set to encourage more warming. There is no right or wrong way for the system to work, it works however it will work, according to the main influences on it.

How does an ocean shedding heat encourage more warming?

[BornFromTheVoid]

It leaves more low albedo sea water open for warming during the Arctic summer which, may cause extra warming generally through different currents, and also heats the atmosphere during the Autumn causing large positive anomalies during that time. All adding to the global temperature, no?

Sorry if I'm being dense and missing something obvious!

[Gray-Wolf]

I think you're missing the 'balance ' issue? If more heat is trapped in the system then even with more vigorous 'shedding' of heat from the surface the deeper levels of the ocean continue to warm as 'warmer' waters are descending into the depths (as measurements show , most recently a study around the Indian ocean abbysal plain).

The other point being the seasonal 'layering' of the Arctic Ocean which eventually 'traps' the heat at depth. The exchanges over on 'Nevens Blog' (about the Alaskan 'Hurricane'?) links to a couple of buoys data showing heat content (and salinity) down to 50m depth both at the edge of the pack and further away from the mixing caused by the storm. The Buoy further away shows this 'inversion' well with a cold Halocline skin sealing in the warmer ,more Saline, waters below. Basically waters can warm even with the yearly imposition of ice above as long as the top section of ocean 'sheds it's heat' in late Autumn allowing the ice to form and insulating snow to be deposited on top.

Let's not forget Once upon a not long ago the whole ocean had a very deep 'Halocline horizon' which insulated the ice above from the deeper ,warmer ,waters allowing year round deep ice over the Arctic Basin.

[jethro]

So, as I said, the ice is doing exactly what it is supposed to do.

[Village]

I still dont see any real change in the Arctic. The Arctic ice has retreated many times in the past. The most resent time when there was a minimum was between the late 1920's and 1950's before it again increased in the 1960's. There are plenty of reports about this waxing and waning of the ice extent.

The only diference between the past and now is that all of a sudden we have very good satelite data and we can study it in detail without having to spend many years and exposure to this dangerous region to obtain the data.

Basically all this data is still a novelty to climatologists and they only have the past few decades of very detailed data to look at ....so again its a snippet of time taken out of context. One cant draw any meaningful conclussions from this tiny snippet of data any more than if one solely had obtained an isolated twenty year snippet of data from two thousand years ago to play with. It would mean that we would be no more able to predict the future from that.

Its fun to observe and to theorise, however, I think that its just as likely that we will be looking at increasing amounts of ice once again in the region in thirty years from now. Personally as I have said before in other sites I think the key to the regions ice is precipitation. I am very sure that it is the very slow shift of the input source in the lowest portion of the atmoshere at the surface. Critically this slow change can reduce or increase the amount of moisture to the region. This I feel is driven by the temperature changes in the Stratosphere which are influenced by changing input from the Sun.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Village

[BornFromTheVoid]

So, as I said, the ice is doing exactly what it is supposed to do.

... right...

I still dont see any real change in the Arctic. The Arctic ice has retreated many times in the past. The most resent time when there was a minimum was between the late 1920's and 1950's before it again increased in the 1960's. There are plenty of reports about this waxing and waning of the ice extent.

The only diference between the past and now is that all of a sudden we have very good satelite data and we can study it in detail without having to spend many years and exposure to this dangerous region to obtain the data.

Basically all this data is still a novelty to climatologists and they only have the past few decades of very detailed data to look at ....so again its a snippet of time taken out of context. One cant draw any meaningful conclussions from this tiny snippet of data any more than if one solely had obtained an isolated twenty year snippet of data from two thousand years ago to play with. It would mean that we would be no more able to predict the future from that.

Its fun to observe and to theorise, however, I think that its just as likely that we will be looking at increasing amounts of ice once again in the region in thirty years from now. Personally as I have said before in other sites I think the key to the regions ice is precipitation. I am very sure that it is the very slow shift of the input source in the lowest portion of the atmoshere at the surface. Critically this slow change can reduce or increase the amount of moisture to the region. This I feel is driven by the temperature changes in the Stratosphere which are influenced by changing input from the Sun.

Variability in ice extent from one year to the next can be impressively large. While there is some evidence of ice extent retreat before the middle of the 20th century, I haven't seen anything yet that remotely compares to what we've seen in recent years. A couple of years with low ice levels in 1 or 2 areas and some high SSTs but nothing as widespread as the last half dozen years or so.

The 33 years of sea ice data we have appears to be enough to see the year on year variability, but is also enough to make out a very clear trend. As of now, the trend has not changed and has infact become stronger. What will happen in the next few years, nobody can say for certain. We can only make the best guess with the data available. Without having to argue over the cause of recent warming and the patterns that result in diminishing sea ice, it would seem as though without some pronounced cooling and a pattern change over the Arctic, we'll continue to see a gradual reduction in sea ice extent if things remain as they are now.

[4wd]

.

While there is some evidence of ice extent retreat before the middle of the 20th century, I haven't seen anything yet that remotely compares to what we've seen in recent years. A couple of years with low ice levels in 1 or 2 areas and some high SSTs but nothing as widespread as the last half dozen years or so.

No one really knows, this sort of historical 'data' is mostly guesswork based on proxies.

The proxy-type findings won't have the resolution to to see short-term fluctuations either.

Considering the evangelical viewpoints of those involved I'm not inclined to take them too serious.

[BornFromTheVoid]

No one really knows, this sort of historical 'data' is mostly guesswork based on proxies.

The proxy-type findings won't have the resolution to to see short-term fluctuations either.

Considering the evangelical viewpoints of those involved I'm not inclined to take them too serious.

Much of it is guess work, but it's an educated guess. Even if we could go back in time, there would still probably be questions with regards the bias of the observer, and the algorithms used in the data processing and who funded the time travel!

I find the wide level of distrust of scientists a bit odd, especially when it comes to climate scientists. I don't think many go down the scientific route because they wan't to trick and manipulate the world and rake in lots of money for it. That's generally the route of marketing, advertising etc.

The majority of the lecturers I have, who are involved in various areas of Earth Science, emphasise the honesty of the work, of about gathering a greater understanding of how different systems work rather than being about proving your point. Most of all, we're told of how in science, you need to be able to let go of long held ideas when countering conclusive evidence is presented, because that's ultimately how progress is made.

[jethro]

Much of it is guess work, but it's an educated guess. Even if we could go back in time, there would still probably be questions with regards the bias of the observer, and the algorithms used in the data processing and who funded the time travel!

I find the wide level of distrust of scientists a bit odd, especially when it comes to climate scientists. I don't think many go down the scientific route because they wan't to trick and manipulate the world and rake in lots of money for it. That's generally the route of marketing, advertising etc.

The majority of the lecturers I have, who are involved in various areas of Earth Science, emphasise the honesty of the work, of about gathering a greater understanding of how different systems work rather than being about proving your point. Most of all, we're told of how in science, you need to be able to let go of long held ideas when countering conclusive evidence is presented, because that's ultimately how progress is made.

Personally speaking, I don't have a distrust of scientists nor do I think they're trying to trick anyone. I do however have a lot of scepticism about the confidence of their claims for both the past and the future. Again, not because I think they're trying to con, merely that the science and knowledge we have to date, makes it utterly impossible to be as confident as many claim to be.

[phil nw.]

We have had warmer periods in the Arctic in the historical past though,this is nothing new.

I can remember reading about settlers living in Greenland and Iceland in the middle ages and then we had the colder period which drove them away.

What i am saying is yes there is evidence of a recent warming but this is another phase of Earth`s climatic cycles.

[cyclonic happiness]

Does the Arctic ocean lose more heat when it's not covered by ice, like a blanket of cloud traps the warm air in the winter, but a clear sky allows the heat to leave more quickly?

Maybe the sea does warm up more quickly when it has no ice in the summer, but it could lose it a heck of a lot quicker before it refreezes?

Do they have any temperature sensors underneath the ice all around the Arctic ocean in winter to see what's happening?

I also wonder whether, if this is a cycle, then is this the part of the interglacial where the Arctic melts and throws both the jet stream and the gulf stream out of kilter causing the next glacial period?

That would seem logical to me at least?

I'd like for all the ice to melt one summer, I bet you we slip into an ice age within a couple of years of that!

There is also the 'Mpemba Effect' where warm water freezes faster than cold water and if the scientists still don't really know how that happens, can they know what affect it will have on the Arctic ice, especially being such a vast and complex ocean?

http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/General/hot_water.html

I'm not trying to put a spanner in the works, just trying to understand some of the blurry stuff in my mind

Edited November 26, 2011 by cyclonic happiness

[Gray-Wolf]

I'd also imagine that water losing heat would lead to blankets of Arctic Sea Smoke and ,as we're often told ,water vapour 'traps' more heat than CO2? If we look at 'increased cloudiness' then this would appear to be more responsible for nighttime max temp record's being broken than 'heat' itself. Over the 'Arctic Night' any increase in Fog/Low cloud would probably lead to similar occuring?

I know that in the past local folk could spot new 'leads' opening in the ice by the Sea Smoke that would appear over them as the warm ocean below was exposed to the Fridged air above.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[stewfox]

I still dont see any real change in the Arctic. The Arctic ice has retreated many times in the past. The most resent time when there was a minimum was between the late 1920's and 1950's before it again increased in the 1960's. There are plenty of reports about this waxing and waning of the ice extent.

Agree

Someone posted on here about 18 months ago an article from a paper written cira 1880s talking about less ice in the artic cira 1870s/80s (I think they were the decades) and how ships could go much further north then in previouls summers.

The artic will always flucuate but the chance of a ice free artic by 2013 (posted 2007) remains very slim.