Arctic Ice Discussion (The Melt)

[phil nw.]

I find this subject greatly interesting. And this is an open forum for everyone to voice there opinion and express there views, so let's respect that.

As has been said plenty of times 'we are going through uncertain times' so let's keep that in mind..... Thanks to everyone who contributes to this thread.

A very reasoned post PM.

As i see it there`s a general acceptance in here of Arctic warming now.The debate is over what it may do to our weather patterns and how much of a factor on it`s own it is.

It will be difficult to separate ice reduction as the main cause or influence as there are so many other drivers involved.

However i do believe that the reduction in ice cover must have an increasing influence if this trend continues.

A warmer Arctic ocean must shift thermal gradients away from recent norms and thearby influencing the strength and flow of the jet stream in the process.

The last 6 years reanalysis of 500hPa NH Summer patterns have shown on average a more southerly tracking jet along with more blocking over the Arctic.I posted these a few weeks ago in one of the Summer threads.

On it`s own we cannot be sure this is because of ice reduction and others may point out solar influences as another cause.

What i am saying is that i can only give a view on recent changes and future trends adding that these observations are not embedded for long enough to offer scientific proof of real change yet.

[pottyprof]

I find this subject greatly interesting. And this is an open forum for everyone to voice there opinion and express there views, so let's respect that.

This is where some people get it wrong. This is an open forum for everyone to voice an opinion and express their views provided they can provide a link to research, papers, and websites that support their take on climate change.

As many of our long time posters will verify, we don't accept personal opinion without the link to something regarded as proof.

Many thanks.

[cooling climate]

I've seen all that.

All I'm asking for is evidence that nothing else is responsible or could be responsible. Unless you can show that then all you're saying and showing is that less ice COULD be influencing the weather. I've never said any different.

As for the CET, my point was and is that we've always experienced spells of prolonged types of weather. The evidence is there for you to read for yourself, do you seriously want me to list groups of years in order to save you the effort? You link to papers all the time and expect people to read them - the difference is? Is being critical of me asking you to put some effort in really the best that you can do to refute what I've been saying?

You are quite right in what you say Jethro. At only 50 to 60 degrees latittude north the British

Isles is open to many different climate teleconnections and the Arctic ice is probably the least

influential of all if it in fact has any forcing. For some to say that it is now without question that

Arctic ice melt is having a big impact on climate change is wrong. It is at the moment just one

of the many theories put out there from the experts. You only need look at the theories and

quotes put out by the Met office the last several years to see that when one theory does not

fit they move on to another. A bit like trying to pin the tale on the donkey blindfolded.

I have posted several times that the theory of high summer Arctic sea ice melt will they say lead

to more high pressure in the autumn and winter over the Arctic, ie a more negative AO and NAO

must be flawed other wise why did the theory fail so badly in the Autumn and Winter of 2007

and 2011. The obvious answer to this is that there are larger forcings at play ie QBO, solar, ENSO

etc than Arctic sea ice melt.

[Methuselah]

Aye CC. And that's precisely why nobody is disputing it...

But, written language being what it is, there's always plenty of scope for people's intentions not being received quite in the way they were intended...Nuance an' all that?

And 'proof'? there'll be no proof (either way) regarding this year's melt's possible effect on next year's winter until after the event. I hope that that doesn't make the subject taboo, as well as moot?

[pottyprof]

Have to agree P.M., the only fly in the ointment is when folk are unwilling to use their own common sense in the discussion and hide behind a 'need' for 30yrs of data

Says he who elsewhere on these boards insists that 30 years is the immoveable standard. You can't have it all ways GW. I't's either 30 years or it isn't. If you have changed your view, can you explain why after the last 7-8 you've suddenly accepted that it is a flexible figure?

I mean, it's very grand of you to finally see a common sense attitude to the current stagnating of global temperatures over the last 10 years. There will be many who read this board that are happy with your move.

[Gray-Wolf]

I think we only have Antarctic in a kind of 'splendid isolation' a.t.m. C.C.? The rest of the global climate is interconnected and to think that the Arctic is somehow more removed to us than the tropical Pacific is ludicrous (IMHO)?

Nino/nina forcings are quite happily accepted as 'forcing' alterations in our weather patterns .a small drop off in solar forcing (at solar min) also seems quite accepted in having an impact on our fair isles and yet you question the impacts of the massive energies now being made available immediatlely to our north?

And what of the 'new' centre for the Polar vortex over Greenland (check the past few years of data?) does that not influence our weather patterns?

As I've said before the question is better phrased "how could the changes 'Not' impact our weather patterns?"

I think we only have Antarctic in a kind of 'splendid isolation' a.t.m. C.C.? The rest of the global climate is interconnected and to think that the Arctic is somehow more removed to us than the tropical Pacific is ludicrous (IMHO)?

Nino/nina forcings are quite happily accepted as 'forcing' alterations in our weather patterns .a small drop off in solar forcing (at solar min) also seems quite accepted in having an impact on our fair isles and yet you question the impacts of the massive energies now being made available immediatlely to our north?

And what of the 'new' centre for the Polar vortex over Greenland (check the past few years of data?) does that not influence our weather patterns?

As I've said before the question is better phrased "how could the changes 'Not' impact our weather patterns?"

[Mark Parsons]

The science is all there, what could or might happen is all real, I think you lot ought to sit down this afternoon and watch " An Inconvenient Truth " and remind yourselves that what is happening now is just the start of it and mother nature will adjust herself to counter the affects us filling the atmosphere with more and more Co2. We should be concentrating on how we are going to cope rather than debating the inevitable!!!

[Greybird]

Really guys, I think that the question of UK weather patterns is adding blinkers to a much more serious problem and "we ain't seen nothing yet".

With the warming Arctic Sea, surely this is going to have a massive impact on Ocean Currents.The loss of the Polar Jetstream will also add to the Ocean Current disruption. This will most certainly affect weather patterns.

We are entering uncharted territory here. We know more about the moon than than the oceans, especially the deep ocean. Past oceanic data is not really going to help forecast the changes to the currents, because the rate of change is happening so much faster than we can find in past records. The currents are going to flip about very chaotically before finding a balance.

The chaos of the currents may even halt the exchange of heat into the Arctic for a while, allowing a refreeze in the Arctic that would give false hope to some, but as a consequence this would allow more energy to be stored in the Pacific and Atlantic. Then we would get a massive temperature gradient with a massive, strong Polar Jetsream that would bring hurricane force, distructive storms? Before convection finally takes firm control and the Artic Sea heats up even further and quicker than we have measured to date along with the last breath from the Jetstream.

[Gavin Hannah]

The chaos of the currents may even halt the exchange of heat into the Arctic for a while, allowing a refreeze in the Arctic that would give false hope to some, but as a consequence this would allow more energy to be stored in the Pacific and Atlantic. Then we would get a massive temperature gradient with a massive, strong Polar Jetsream that would bring hurricane force, distructive storms? Before convection finally takes firm control and the Artic Sea heats up even further and quicker than we have measured to date along with the last breath from the Jetstream.

If the arctic did make a comeback to the extent it had pre 1970 or more, then it would reflect massive amounts of energy that is currently absorbed. It would also trap alot of greenhouse gasses.

[Greybird]

If the arctic did make a comeback to the extent it had pre 1970 or more, then it would reflect massive amounts of energy that is currently absorbed. It would also trap alot of greenhouse gasses.

But would the heat transfer be cut off long enough for that sort of recovery? Because the chaos that shuts the heat off may not be long lasting and with the current amount of heat stored already, in the Arctic Ocean, it would take decades to refreeze to that extent.

Maybe a very bad analigy but think of a racing car/dragster accelerating flat out, with it's wheels spinning. It's course is going very difficult to mantain and the rear wheels snake about. A similar thing will be happening with ocean currents, with fluid dynamics at play here.

The removal of heat being tranported to the Arctic will be very short lived, and just a blip of a giant eddy towards the new norm in currents. IF it happens at all

I did state "may" and not would. It MAY never happen that way, thus is the nature of chaos.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Greybird

[Methuselah]

You've hit on one of the real bugbears there, Greybird: the self-serving tendency, popular among absolutists, of mentally replacing cautious words like 'might', 'could', and 'may' with 'will', 'will', and 'will'...And then going on to shoot-down the resulting straw-man hypotheses...

[LincolnSnowstorm]

Hows the ice doing today???

2nd that it will be interesting to see if the 9th Sep map has moved away from the horizontal. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

[BornFromTheVoid]

Nice to see so many people joining in here!

Well, a little sea ice update I guess.

On IJIS we've seen a small increase up to yesterday of about 10,000km2. Much too early to call the minimum, but we're definitely getting close.

On the NSIDC extent we saw a large enough drop yesterday (~43k) to keep the 5 day mean falling. A 31k increase would be required today to cause the first 5 day mean increase.

I've downloaded all the past NSIDC extent data, so will start putting up some graphs from that over the next few days

For the next 5 days at least a -ve dipole pattern remains in place. A very stable and strong blocking high is anchored to the Laptev sea, with some strong depressions swinging up near the Greenland sea and into the southern Barents sea, with a relatively weaker low pressure area acorss the Canadian Archipelago. This -ve dipole used to be a positive for sea ice, with it correlating to a larger September extent increase and early minimum.

So hopefully we'll see an end to the melt season soon, unless the sea ice decides it still want to spring a few more surprises!

[phil nw.]

Compare the 2 images--such a dramatic loss of Summer ice in 3 decades.

At this rate of reduction it surely wont take another 3 decades to lose the Summer Ice totally.

[Polar Maritime]

Compare the 2 images--such a dramatic loss of Summer ice in 3 decades.

At this rate of reduction it surely wont take another 3 decades to lose the Summer Ice totally.

I nearly choked on my lamb looking at....

[Gray-Wolf]

Folk have to remember that part of the 'extent' is thickness so the second image doesn't tell the full story? The End will come fast and in August (first time?) it will not be a slow 'eat away' at the Sept end of the season. It may even be a july melt out for the first 'seasonal pack'? depends on the weather I suppose?

As for this season? I'm still worried thar any big storm could halt re-freeze due to the energy now held deeper in the water column?

Still a few days of losses yet methinks?

P.P. bite it!

[BornFromTheVoid]

It will be interesting to see how the ice thickness recovers during the Autumn and Winter.

[barrel1234]

Whats the best conditions for a good re-freeze? Perhaps cold and stormy so that more of the surface layer is mixed and cooled deeper? I would imagine that very cold and still would make a sharp uptick in extent but wouldn't do much for overall healthy volume as ice would form quickly and thinly and act as an insulation?

Anyone have any views on this?

Edited September 9, 2012 by barrel1234

[BornFromTheVoid]

Whats the best conditions for a good re-freeze? Perhaps cold and stormy so that more of the surface layer is mixed and cooled deeper? I would imagine that very cold and still would make a sharp uptick in extent but wouldn't do much for overall healthy volume as ice would form quickly and thinly and act as an insulation?

Anyone have any views on this?

My guess would be a slack high pressure centred in the middle of the Arctic. The clear skies should allow the oceans warmth to radiate away, cooling the SSTs rapidly. At this time of year, the sun is at a low enough angle that the oceans will reflect most the incoming energy.

I could well be wrong though.

[snowfluff]

This is where some people get it wrong. This is an open forum for everyone to voice an opinion and express their views provided they can provide a link to research, papers, and websites that support their take on climate change.

As many of our long time posters will verify, we don't accept personal opinion without the link to something regarded as proof.

Many thanks.

Sorry am a bit confused here, having just read the "Important points prior to posting in this part of the forum" i could not find where it says" you must provide a link to research,papers/and websites that support their take on climate change"

?

Many thanks.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Sorry am a bit confused here, having just read the "Important points prior to posting in this part of the forum" i could not find where it says" you must provide a link to research,papers/and websites that support their take on climate change"

?

Many thanks.

Few of the things PP mentioned there seem accurate to me. Saying that, they're probably more of a perceived unwritten rule set rather than based on the "forum charter"

[barrel1234]

My guess would be a slack high pressure centred in the middle of the Arctic. The clear skies should allow the oceans warmth to radiate away, cooling the SSTs rapidly. At this time of year, the sun is at a low enough angle that the oceans will reflect most the incoming energy.

I could well be wrong though.

It's definately a head scratcher as some form of logic can be made for both stormy and cold and still and cold (for quality of regrowth).

On another note it doesnt look like the Atlantic is ready to change from positive amo to negative anytime soon. Some slightly below average temps across part of the southern Atlantic at the moment but the north Atlantic is pretty warm compared to average, From the way that the low pressure systems generally track north before they get to the uk they must be moving a lot more heat towards arctic regions when the sst's are above average.

Edited September 9, 2012 by barrel1234

[Methuselah]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/08/120828-arctic-sea-ice-global-warming-record-environment-science/

[stewfox]

Whats the best conditions for a good re-freeze? Perhaps cold and stormy so that more of the surface layer is mixed and cooled deeper? I would imagine that very cold and still would make a sharp uptick in extent but wouldn't do much for overall healthy volume as ice would form quickly and thinly and act as an insulation?

Anyone have any views on this?

Good question. What is the 'best set up' for ice re-growth (calm or storm) .

The attached explains the differences but doesn't say which one is best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice

I dont know if there is any variation at say 10m depth now then cira 1980 ? Of course -40c would be better then -30c.

[pottyprof]

P.P. bite it!

The problem is that you know I'm right.

Few of the things PP mentioned there seem accurate to me. Saying that, they're probably more of a perceived unwritten rule set rather than based on the "forum charter"

Yes it was exactly that rather than part of the rules for this part of the forum. It saves arguments and provides detail which we all can follow. The detail which helps you reach your own conclusion is important from both sides of the coin.