Arctic Ice Discussion (the Refreeze)

[BornFromTheVoid]

Global sea ice area is the closest it's been to average in about 15 months, around 150,000km2 off. It's mainly thanks to the southern hemisphere, which is about 650,000km2 above average.

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

I though the quiet order that descended was on the back of the most persistant trouble makers being barred? When the 'truth' became overwhelming many folk appeared to take to stupidity and so lost the privaledge of posting here?

This has saved the remainder of us a lot of agro and the need to defend ourselves constantly against poor science and plain 'lies'.

Speaking as one who has not been barred, I CAN tell you why I haven't posted much. It's exactly what Jethro stated in an earlier post, you personalise the comments and then reject other comments as trivial or nonsensical.

I just got fed up of banging my head on a brick wall, you don't listen to reasoned argument, not even a jot, so no point in putting on a POV that you disagree with.

I feel that the GW believers have a greater prominance here, with at least 2 people I have spoken to via PM, telling me they had been warned they were going to be barred. One I thought was OTT, the other was marginal at best, I saw no personal comments by him, but I did see some strongly argued anti GW comments, now he's banned.

C'est la vie

I'll post when I feel I have something to say, but, if you wonder why the thread is quiet, I've told you above what my feelings are, I suspect many others feel the same way

[jethro]

NorthNorfolkWeather, I can say with absolute certainty that whether someone supports the AGW theory or not is utterly irrelevant when it comes to having posts edited/deleted or indeed harsher punishments. The one and only reason why anyone here would be on the receiving end of MOD attention would be if they breached the code of conduct. This forum is neither pro nor anti AGW, there is no agenda here, it is merely a space to have open and polite discussion from both sides of the debate

[stewfox]

Global sea ice area is the closest it's been to average in about 15 months, around 150,000km2 off. It's mainly thanks to the southern hemisphere, which is about 650,000km2 above average.

I don't post much now because no daily IJIS figures which allowed a 'daily debate' and of course the above which shows global sea ice. ie no significant change last 30 years

I am 'aware' of the 'reasons' why Antartica sea ice might be on the increase.

[BornFromTheVoid]

I don't post much now because no daily IJIS figures which allowed a 'daily debate' and of course the above which shows global sea ice. ie no significant change last 30 years

I am 'aware' of the 'reasons' why Antartica sea ice might be on the increase.

Up to 2000, there ain't much of a global trend, but it does seem a bit lower since then, with the slight gains in the SH not enough to even out large NH losses.

As for the reasons why SH sea ice is on the up, I don't know. I remember something mentioned about the increased precip causing more sea ice, but that just doesn't make sense to me, especially when it's used as part of the reason why NH sea ice doesn't get as thick any more. If the increased snow around Antarctica was the cause, then I'd imagine we'd see the maxima higher, but minima staying the same. But both maxima and minima have increased slightly in the SH. I suppose the more detailed discussion of this should be left for the Antarctic ice thread anyway...

[Optimus Prime]

One of the reasons why, personally I think southern hemisphere ice has been in the increase is because of much the area is made up off landmass. I would also suggest with it being more remote there are much less industrial factors that play in regional and national warming.

Landmass holds cold much better than the ocean and due to prevailing wind patterns the cold becomes more widespread during seasonal changes which freezes the surrounding water efficiently.

Once the ice over an ocean decreases it exposes water which will absord infrared, visible and ultraviolet radiation from the sun. This will then be released from the oceans going into the winter season which delays the onset of it freezing over. Over many years this makes an appreciable difference as more heat energy is being retained rather than lost in the cycle or it takes longer for the sea temperatures to support ice. The heat energy effectively builds up over the period of time. Increased cloud cover due to an increase in evaporation would act as ablanket in keeping the arctic warmer than on clearer days.

I guess one theory is that the globe should be cooling down, as evident in the Antarctic ice growing. But 'other' factors (human perhaps) is offsetting global cooling and so the opposite is happning.

I highly doubt precipitation plays a part in an increase in Antarctic ice gain. Would be interesting to see the Antarctic cloud cover records and compare them to the Arctic cloud cover records, if such exists.

[knocker]

Russian river water unexpected culprit behind Arctic freshening near US, Canada

A hemispherewide phenomenon – and not just regional forces – has caused record-breaking amounts of freshwater to accumulate in the Arctic's Beaufort Sea.

Frigid freshwater flowing into the Arctic Ocean from three of Russia's mighty rivers was diverted hundreds of miles to a completely different part of the ocean in response to a decades-long shift in atmospheric pressure associated with the phenomenon called the Arctic Oscillation, according to findings published in the Jan. 5 issue of Nature.

The new findings show that a low pressure pattern created by the Arctic Oscillation from 2005 to 2008 drew Russian river water away from the Eurasian Basin, between Russia and Greenland, and into the Beaufort Sea, a part of the Canada Basin bordered by the United States and Canada. It was like adding 10 feet (3 meters) of freshwater over the central part of the Beaufort Sea.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-01/uow-rrw010412.php

[Gray-Wolf]

This is 'odd' if we find this to be true? the Beaufort Sea (south) has shed all of it's Paleocryistic ice over this period but the 'freshening' of the surface should protect the ice there? (form a barrier to the warmer ,saltier waters below?).

The same should be true for it's 'path' across the basin as it forms an isolated layer of water above the warmer saltier waters beneath?

We seem to be seeing an opposite of what we would expect frtom this phenomina?

The other 'worry' is the emerging Arctivc Amplification. Are we seeing different circulation patterns across the basin these days? Do we see any 'enhancements' of existing patterns or the 'dissappearence' of other 'regular patterns'?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Global sea ice is now very slightly above average, with the NH having a -ve anomaly of 531,000km2, while the SH has a +ve anomaly of 557,000km2

http://arctic.atmos....edu/cryosphere/

[pottyprof]

We seem to be seeing an opposite of what we would expect from this phenomena?

Strange isn't it? Perhaps it's something we don't fully understand?

[knocker]

Strange isn't it? Perhaps it's something we don't fully understand?

Surely not?

[scotty_boy_winter]

This graph says it all. Looking at where we are over a near 1500 year period puts it all into context for the doubters..

Anyone ready for another hockey stick?

[Gray-Wolf]

Indeed S.B.W. but it does not seem to do? Had we not the ability to have flown satellites ,and relied on ships data, obs. ets, they would still be saying we could not trust the paleo proxies. As it is all you will hear is records only go back to 79 (or 64' when we had the first image of the caps from space) and so all else is supposition. I'm surprised they believe in astronomy at all!!!

A recent report has highlighted the 'freshening' of the Arctic ocean ,esp. the Beaufort sea/Siberian sectors,where river runoff (from melting permafrosts) which should have helped with sea ice thickness by forming a kind of 'faux Halocline' protecting ice and allowing 'early re-freeze'. This is not occuring.

On another note the Cryosat2 mission (and lack of data from it). It would appear that conditions have altered since the project was sanctioned (and one mission lost) again highlighting just how rapid this 'final collapse' in ice volume has been.

We are now into the 'new' Arctic and ,as such, should expect the lows we see come ice minimum but should we also expect to see a slowing of re-freeze 9remebering how early min was called the past year?)?

Edited January 6, 2012 by Gray-Wolf

[4wd]

Parading that ridiculous graph of 'modern observations' tacked onto 'reconstructions' as if it was proof of anything doesn't work I'm afraid.

Reconstructions from proxies might give an idea on a large scale but can't show brief fluctuations and rely on too much estimation and guesswork.

[laserguy]

Parading that ridiculous graph of 'modern observations' tacked onto 'reconstructions' as if it was proof of anything doesn't work I'm afraid.

It does for those of a "certain persuasion". Ah if it keeps them happy...

[Methuselah]

It does for those of a "certain persuasion". Ah if it keeps them happy...

And the evidence for the opposition is??? Non-existent?

[pottyprof]

And the evidence for the opposition is??? Non-existent?

In all fairness Pete, all we have is recent data, which nobody can argue against. Best guesses have their limitations and there are huge error margins which to me says that confidence isn't exactly a strong point. That graph shows an error of +/- 1 million square kilometres dropping to +/- 0.5 million square kilometres towards the end of the graph. There are at least 3 points on that graph where the best guess could be out by a million square kilometres having a similar result as we see today. We just don't know for sure and sometimes no evidence can be better than incorrect evidence.

[Devonian]

Parading that ridiculous graph of 'modern observations' tacked onto 'reconstructions' as if it was proof of anything doesn't work I'm afraid.

Reconstructions from proxies might give an idea on a large scale but can't show brief fluctuations and rely on too much estimation and guesswork.

There might well be errors in the graph but I think describing it as 'ridiculous' is a bit much.

I've read a lot of people who say our warmth now is simply because we're coming out of the LIA, so it would be said that's was why Greenland was abandoned.There is some merit to such a view. But, if that graph is 'ridiculous' in what way did past ice differ? Well, given the graph essentially shows an iced up Arctic (10 million km average means a lot of ice summer and winter) it can only be in error in showing too much ice. Which leaves the LIA where?

Edited January 6, 2012 by Devonian

[pottyprof]

There might well be errors in the graph but I think describing it as 'ridiculous' is a bit much.

True Dev. There has to be a starting point and "ridiculous" is not the best way to describe a genuine attempt to obtain a data set. My problem with it is the fact that it is used as being "accurate", which, other than the recent data, we don't know if it's accurate or not.

[Methuselah]

In all fairness Pete, all we have is recent data, which nobody can argue against. Best guesses have their limitations and there are huge error margins which to me says that confidence isn't exactly a strong point. That graph shows an error of +/- 1 million square kilometres dropping to +/- 0.5 million square kilometres towards the end of the graph. There are at least 3 points on that graph where the best guess could be out by a million square kilometres having a similar result as we see today. We just don't know for sure and sometimes no evidence can be better than incorrect evidence.

I agree, PP. But the same is true of the Mediaeval Warm Period; it's mostly proxy data and estimation. Either we accept such evidence or we don't, is all I'm saying.

[pottyprof]

I agree, PP. But the same is true of the Mediaeval Warm Period; it's mostly proxy data and estimation. Either we accept such evidence or we don't, is all I'm saying.

Don't get me wrong, the same applies to the MWP. We just don't know for sure, though the vineyards of Northern England at that time suggest that it did exist. How warm though is anyone's guess. It would suggest temperatures that are similar to today's temperatures in the UK. Again though, the error margin in the proxy data is too big to call accurate. It may be a local anomaly, it may have been a world wide anomaly or it may not have existed at all. My own opinion is that we only have data when we are able to record it reasonably accurately without having to pretend "this is what happened". That applies to both sides of the argument.

[Isolated Frost]

CT has us above the 12m km2 mark...

Does anyone have any reasons as to why we do so horrendously bad in summer in the arctic? I mean, I know we do bad in the winter as well, but how do we do SO bad in summer?

[BornFromTheVoid]

As mentioned by IF, the NH sea ice has just passed the 12 million mark is getting slightly closer to average. This has been thanks to some extreme cold that's been sat over Hudson Bay which is slightly above average area now, and around the Bering Strait which is over 250,000km2 above average. Even the Kara sea ice has been improving in recent days.

The cold air over the Bering strait looks like moving back over the Arctic ocean in about 4 days, with more consistent cold over the Barents and Kara seas. If these areas can begin to get close to average themselves (Currently: Kara -150,000, Barents -350,000), NH sea ice extent could reach higher for the time of year than the last 6 or 7 years.

[Geordiesnow]

Does anyone have any reasons as to why we do so horrendously bad in summer in the arctic? I mean, I know we do bad in the winter as well, but how do we do SO bad in summer?

Because the ice pack is quite thin in the summer therefore its less resistance to milder air, the Arctic sun and the supply of thicker Arctic sea ice is dimminishing due to set ups which flush the thick ice out of fram stright. Also a di-pole set up in recent summers has also massively affected the Arctic sea ice which brings much milder air from the continents and again flushing the thicker ice out of fram stright.

It be interesting how much thicker ice will be in the Arctic by the springtime, so far this winter despite a positive AO, it appears too me that the Arctic has more Southerlies this year hence the low sea ice extent in the Berents and Kara Seas and on the Pacific side of the Arctic it appears to be colder than in the past few years and whilst it looks like we may head into a negative AO, it will be interesting if these set ups continue how this will affect sea ice thicknesses for the summer melt season.

[Isolated Frost]

Here's a question.. the NSIDC (I think) is above 13 mil and uses the area covered by 15% of sea ice as it's standard... CT is above 12 mil... so how much is CT (20% of area, 25%) and what is the standard that you use for the record-keeping?