Arctic Ice Discussion (The Melt)

[Methuselah]

Here you go, folks...A shiny new thread for a shiny new season...

[Gray-Wolf]

So guys? It appears (to me) to be nought other than 'second guess, educated supposition' so where will that min. line fall this year?

You know me , I've had the min falling well below what we have seen and this year might prove no different (to the joy of some?) but it may also be the year where the 'old Arctic ' hangover shakes out and we see what a 'young pack' acts like? I believe we saw a glimpse of this last year ,but for the lack of ice export, as we were set to trump 07', even without a 'perfect storm' synoptic......but then the ice stayed in the basin.

That said I've got to plump for a min. below 07' (can we see 'no export' synoptics 2 years running???). We know that the ice can challenge 07' even with low export so, with such a propensity for in-situ melt, surely any resumption in 'average' export places us below 3 million (above 2.5 million)?

Any other brave soul want to make an early guess???

Edited March 28, 2012 by Gray-Wolf

[songster]

Nope, gonna wait for some early season indications. It's down to how well the Beaufort and Chukchi seas hold up this year. They've been colder than usual, and had a lot of compression that may have ridged/thickened the ice. Kara and East Siberian seas are however looking vulnerable. If we have a repeat of the last few years' early melt in the Beaufort/Chukchi, then I'll agree a new minimum or near-minimum is likely.

[BornFromTheVoid]

CT has updated to the 28th. After remaining relatively stable for the last week, the latest day has seen quite a jump, from 13.55861 million to 13.6367 million km2. Another day of these kinda gains and we'll be back to a new maximum.

The melt thread may have been a bit premature!

[4wd]

It probably won't melt at all this year

[Methuselah]

I've made the title a tad more realistic...

[The PIT]

Uhm err um splutter splutter you mean it's not all gone yet?????????????????

Well at the present time good news and hopefully this year will be better than last which was disappointing. I'll have a laugh a sea ice area of 3.3 too 3.5 million

[Geordiesnow]

I wonder if part of the increase is down to the Northerly winds through svalbard and the ice is spreading out towards the Svalbard isles and it would appear that the flow would suggest the thicker ice leaving through the fram stright? The increase may also come from the bering sea from ice again spreading out and perhaps some growth in the Sea of Okhotsk. At the moment as per usual at this time of year, we are seeing some melting but gains in other areas thus the extent figure is steady until todays gain.

Going to be interesting how that very deep low will affect the ice in the Sea of Okhotsk which is seeing quite high amounts of ice compare to recent times and how the much warmer but perhaps more favourable in terms of wind direction will affect the ice in the Labrador Sea with from what I understand if the ice starts to compact together, it can be a bit more resistant to melt despite warmer temperatures?

All seasonal ice of course but important to keep that extent figure from reaching record lows because I can't see the ice in the Kara sea lasting much longer with how long it took for the whole sea to freeze over for more than a few days and the ice there as a result must be very weak at the moment and prone to melting as we head through into April.

[Gray-Wolf]

it is easy to imagine that any 'gain' through to expansion of existing ice can only occur if the fringes are supplied with thick enough ice to maintain?

If we do see 'expansion' into ares that we also see melt in this area it would seem to indicate that the 'thicker ,older ice' that we saw culler From N.Beaufort?East Siberian Sea (in early winter) has indeed made it to the melt zone of the Atlantic?

It may be interesting to observe the areas that we know have 'gained ice thickness' , over last years average, as the season begins? Any early exit of such Ice will place us in a similar position to last year but this time probably with 'normal' amounts of ice export?

[keithlucky]

Global cooling is taking place according to russian scientists.

In London, about 2 thousand 800 experts from various countries meet in the conference Planet Under Pressure.

Russian scientists say that the cycles of waxing and waning of ice in the Arctic show that continued global warming "is a myth" and the current climate cycles will follow a period of global cooling towards the end of this century.

Recent studies have observed alternating cycles of growth and decline in Arctic ice mass, said yesterday in Novosibirsk, Russia, Nikolai Dobretsov scholar, president of the Scientific Board of Natural Sciences of Russian Academy of Sciences.

"The ice minimum was recorded in 2007. Between 2008 and 2011, and it seems in 2012, the ice has grown back. The winters in the Arctic are getting colder. It is obvious that continued global warming is a myth, "said Dobretsov at a press conference, quoted by Interfax.

Research by Russian scientists show that the mass of ice in the Arctic rises and falls cyclically, so it's natural that heating phase followed by other stages cooling.

"By the late start global cooling, not warming, are the latest forecasts," said Russian scientist.

[Krakatoa01]

The ice has been increasing since 2007? No it HASN'T! The average yearly line has continued to fall at a rate of 7% per annum!

Embarrassing claims!

Global cooling is taking place according to russian scientists.

In London, about 2 thousand 800 experts from various countries meet in the conference Planet Under Pressure.

Russian scientists say that the cycles of waxing and waning of ice in the Arctic show that continued global warming "is a myth" and the current climate cycles will follow a period of global cooling towards the end of this century.

Recent studies have observed alternating cycles of growth and decline in Arctic ice mass, said yesterday in Novosibirsk, Russia, Nikolai Dobretsov scholar, president of the Scientific Board of Natural Sciences of Russian Academy of Sciences.

"The ice minimum was recorded in 2007. Between 2008 and 2011, and it seems in 2012, the ice has grown back. The winters in the Arctic are getting colder. It is obvious that continued global warming is a myth, "said Dobretsov at a press conference, quoted by Interfax.

Research by Russian scientists show that the mass of ice in the Arctic rises and falls cyclically, so it's natural that heating phase followed by other stages cooling.

"By the late start global cooling, not warming, are the latest forecasts," said Russian scientist.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm concerned about the coverege that this single group of Russian experts? We have been hearing from them since the late 80' (I believe the same group?) warning about a 'sudden cooldown in global temps' and a 'Slowdown and reversal of Arctic Ice loss' midst it's sudden final meltdown?

The rest of the worlds science seems to be totally unconcerned about 'Ice Gain' but are focused on the changes to the ice we have witnessed and the continued loss of ice shelf/sheets/old Ice across the Arctic?

In some ways , were there a choice, I'd vote for warming over cooling as we (as a planet) seemed better able to mitigate warming than cooling (and the loss of food/increased energy needs?).

We will see, soon enough, how things pan out esp. if we are now at the beginning of a CH4 episode from the submerged Siberian permafrosts?

[Methuselah]

Agreed, Ian. To me, it looks like another vain attempt by climate-change deniers to grab their share of media coverage? Don't let the facts ruin a good story, eh?

[4wd]

Perhaps however this is not entirely incorrect either.

The ice minimum was recorded in 2007. Between 2008 and 2011, and it seems in 2012, the ice has grown back. The winters in the Arctic are getting colder

What is clear is that wild claims about no summer ice in 2 or 3 years were unfounded - being based largely on extrapolating the unusual synoptics that caused the high loss of 2007.

[loafer]

Agreed, Ian. To me, it looks like another vain attempt by climate-change deniers to grab their share of media coverage? Don't let the facts ruin a good story, eh?

I really hate the term "climate change deniers" which I don't think does anyone who has an interest in the climate any favours.

The fact is that most people who question the models (how about "global warming sceptics"?) do not deny the climate changes, but they do not agree with the premise that it is man-made, nor that the dominant cause is CO2.

[laserguy]

I really hate the term "climate change deniers" which I don't think does anyone who has an interest in the climate any favours.

The fact is that most people who question the models (how about "global warming sceptics"?) do not deny the climate changes, but they do not agree with the premise that it is man-made, nor that the dominant cause is CO2.

It's simple; CO2 has got to be villified and the most effective,convenient and convincing (for the ignorant masses) vehicle for that is the ever-changing climate. If there wasn't a fossil fuel catastrophe looming, CO2-inspired AGW would never have been invented. Call me a sceptic,denier,whatever; I'm past caring. It's all cobblers.

Edited March 31, 2012 by laserguy

[Gray-Wolf]

4WD, the amount of ice in the Arctic is it's total 'Volume'. you can spread it out as thin as you like to make it 'look big' but , as grown ups do, we can still see there is less ice.

i know you have issues with piomass but I'm also sure that ice volume has continued to fall since 07' hence 'Less ice' in the Arctic?

[BornFromTheVoid]

It was only the extent minimum that occurred in 2007. The area and volume minima both occurred in 2011.

It wasn't just the Dipole Anomaly that caused 2007. There had been similarly strong DAs in the past, but after the thinning and reduction in multiyear ice that had occurred up to 2007, meant the ice was left quite vulnerable to those kind of synoptics.

My dissertation this year was based on the influence of the Dipole Anomaly on melt season sea ice extent since 79. In it I created a DA index, which show a big jump towards a strong +ve phase since 2005.

This may go some way to explaining the recent low sea ice conditions. Also of note though, is that the correlation between sea ice extent and the DA were stronger in the 90s than since 2000...

As for the Russian scientists

"Recent studies have observed alternating cycles of growth and decline in Arctic ice mass...

...Research by Russian scientists show that the mass of ice in the Arctic rises and falls cyclically, so it's natural that heating phase followed by other stages cooling"

Sounds like they just discovered seasons!

[4wd]

I think they are referring to recent pointers that suggested no ice north of Greenland not that long ago - due to driftwood from Siberia, and wave-washed beaches.

It's easy to poke fun when you are looking at reported headlines with no context or detail.

This is a real problem when even quite knowledgeable posters here immediately dismiss it as poppycock because it doesn't fit the consensus position.

[BornFromTheVoid]

I think they are referring to recent pointers that suggested no ice north of Greenland not that long ago - due to driftwood from Siberia, and wave-washed beaches.

It's easy to poke fun when you are looking at reported headlines with no context or detail.

This is a real problem when even quite knowledgeable posters here immediately dismiss it as poppycock because it doesn't fit the consensus position.

Just having a laugh 4wd! If you have the link to the original article I'd appreciate it.

At the same time I find amusing how so many deniers/extreme sceptics treat anything that demonstrates Arctic sea ice loss as manipulated or fudged data based on the result rather than bothering to look at the method. Where as anything that tells them the sea ice is ok is rigorously defended without understanding the work or often even basic Arctic processes.

Of course the exact opposite occurs too, 'tis a pity...

[Methuselah]

I really hate the term "climate change deniers" which I don't think does anyone who has an interest in the climate any favours.

The fact is that most people who question the models (how about "global warming sceptics"?) do not deny the climate changes, but they do not agree with the premise that it is man-made, nor that the dominant cause is CO2.

But I have no beef with genuine sceptics, loafer; I'm sceptical myself. Genuine sceptics (IMO) don't routinely lionise each and every piece of research that happens to be contrary to the main consensus whilst, simultaneously, proceed to trash anything that agrees with what's mainstream...Claiming that the Arctic sea-ice is currently increasing is, to me, tantamount to denial?

By all means, question the models. But when that 'questioning' descends into concerted efforts to discredit (by fair means or foul) all the temperature- and ice-cover- trends that have been painstakingly constructed for years, that's just plain desperate...

Perhaps if the entire climate-change debate (outwith the scientific community, that is) were less politicized we might one-day get a better handle on the truth?

[karyo]

I have been following this link for a few years now and I have never seen the current coverage as near to the average as this! http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

Obviously, there is the subject of the ice thickness but in terms of extent I've never seen it so good!

Karyo

[BornFromTheVoid]

I have been following this link for a few years now and I have never seen the current coverage as near to the average as this! http://nsidc.org/dat..._timeseries.png

Obviously, there is the subject of the ice thickness but in terms of extent I've never seen it so good!

Karyo

You can't have been following it for even 2 years then, 2010 was quite a bit closer

[BornFromTheVoid]

New sea ice area maximum on CT. May well creep even higher...

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

[loafer]

But I have no beef with genuine sceptics, loafer; I'm sceptical myself. Genuine sceptics (IMO) don't routinely lionise each and every piece of research that happens to be contrary to the main consensus whilst, simultaneously, proceed to trash anything that agrees with what's mainstream...Claiming that the Arctic sea-ice is currently increasing is, to me, tantamount to denial?

By all means, question the models. But when that 'questioning' descends into concerted efforts to discredit (by fair means or foul) all the temperature- and ice-cover- trends that have been painstakingly constructed for years, that's just plain desperate...

Perhaps if the entire climate-change debate (outwith the scientific community, that is) were less politicized we might one-day get a better handle on the truth?

I agree with you, but by using the language you do, you have inadvertedly become part of the politicisation and therefore part of the problem.