Arctic Ice Discussion (the Refreeze 2012-2013)

[4wd]

I knew you would bite, however there is nothing wrong with the data and it's a perfectly legitimate less gloom laden viewpoint.

[Gray-Wolf]

But some poor deluded saps with think it is 'good news' 4? Do you think raising hopes/winding folk up is 'less gloomy' than the truth?

How much 'open water' ,available to re-freeze over winter, was there in Sept 82'?

[Geordiesnow]

I have to agree with GW in all honesty, its very easy to twist those figures to make it look good for so called recovery!

Saying that, I'm surprised 2007 is much smaller than say 2008 despite 2007 being a record low in terms of extent therefore I assume record low in terms of area.

I guess the figures do show that Arctic ice will still recover each winter(albeit still below average) despite low extents.

[BornFromTheVoid]

The good new just keeps on coming.

From Watts himself:

"This continued growth of ice in the Arctic make the arguments for ice mass loss in Antarctica rather hard to believe"

The logic there is just mind blowing.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Some actual good news?

NSIDC extent is now up to 14.63 million, just 59k off the 2011 maximum extent.

If we were to follow the trajectory of the 1979-2011 average daily values from now, we reach a maximum of 14,906,460km2 on February 28th, which would be the 4th lowest on record.

If we followed the same as the last 5 year, we'd reach 15,129,380km2 on March 7th, which would be the 5th lowest on record.

[Gray-Wolf]

Now i see why Anthony W. decided to run with his 'recovery' story;

http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/02/13/european-satellite-confirms-uw-numbers-arctic-ocean-is-on-thin-ice/

[BornFromTheVoid]

Another rare piece of positive news.

On the IJIS extent (after a few days with no values... sensor issues?) we've already surpassed the annual maxima of 2006, 2007 and 2011, and are now above the 2002-2012 average.

Looks like the recent growth spurt has come from the Bering Sea and Okhotsk.

[Methuselah]

Now i see why Anthony W. decided to run with his 'recovery' story;

http://www.washingto...is-on-thin-ice/

He runs with that every year!

[BornFromTheVoid]

Sea ice growth continues at a rapid pace for the time of year on the IJIS values, now at 13,991,406km2. The growth continues to come from the Bering sea, where strong northerly winds over the last week have been driving sea ice south and increasing extent values.

Wind Vector Anomaly

[Gray-Wolf]

How long before we get the first post telling us about the recovery and promising us record ice by Sept?

[4wd]

Another rare piece of positive news.

On the IJIS extent (after a few days with no values... sensor issues?) we've already surpassed the annual maxima of 2006, 2007 and 2011, and are now above the 2002-2012 average.

Looks like the recent growth spurt has come from the Bering Sea and Okhotsk.

That's something of a recovery then

[BornFromTheVoid]

That's something of a recovery then

Yep, a temporary partial recovery to more recent extent norms... if only that was all it took!

[Gray-Wolf]

With the volume measures we have I think I'd prefer a smaller extent myself!!! (and inside the basin !).

[keithlucky]

Yep, a temporary partial recovery to more recent extent norms... if only that was all it took!

Third time in history when more than 10 million km"2 of new ice has formed http://arctic.atmos.....anom.1979-2008 and still at least one month grow to come,

[BornFromTheVoid]

Third time in history when more than 10 million km"2 of new ice has formed http://arctic.atmos.....anom.1979-2008 and still at least one month grow to come,

Why do you think that is?

[keithlucky]

Why do you think that is?

We in a solar grand minimum 24 GW has very little effect on world weather solar impact controls our weather.So with will continue having massive ice loses and massive ice gains as records show. .From 1957:

“Northpole ice has decreased by something as 40% in volume…this has been going on for 30-40 yearsâ€

Also predicting no ice in year 2000 if trend continues

http://i680.photobucket.com/albums/vv161/Radiant_2009/popularmechanics1957-2.jpg andFrom 1957:

“Northpole ice has decreased by something as 40% in volume…this has been going on for 30-40 yearsâ€

Also predicting no ice in year 2000 if trend continues

http://i680.photobucket.com/albums/vv161/Radiant_2009/popularmechanics1957-2.jpg etc etc.

[BornFromTheVoid]

We in a solar grand minimum 24 GW has very little effect on world weather solar impact controls our weather.So with will continue having massive ice loses and massive ice gains as records show. .From 1957:

“Northpole ice has decreased by something as 40% in volume…this has been going on for 30-40 yearsâ€

Also predicting no ice in year 2000 if trend continues

http://i680.photobuc...anics1957-2.jpg andFrom 1957:

“Northpole ice has decreased by something as 40% in volume…this has been going on for 30-40 yearsâ€

Also predicting no ice in year 2000 if trend continues

http://i680.photobuc...anics1957-2.jpg etc etc.

But even the the quote of "something as 40% volume" was accurate, it's still a vast amount more than today.

Why would a grand solar minimum cause both massive summer melt and large winter gains?

Do you not think that the massive ice gain is just because it started off at such a low point? As long as the summer minimum decreased faster than the winter maximum, the chances of having record (from minimum to maximum) sea ice gains will continue to increase.

[pottyprof]

Keith isn't totally wrong to be fair. We know from our 'accurate' mock-up's of past climate that we cool faster than we warm up. I was watching something that I'd recorded a while ago and there is evidence that some glaciers that are currently melting, are known to have been replenished within a time-frame of approximately a decade. Now to me that says we're up one without a paddle IF we are in a period of much reduced solar input regardless of CO2. Don't ask me how it was worked out but they were professors in the field and as I've been told before, I must trust the scientists.

The evidence says that we are on that edge looking down, not up as far as the sun is concerned. AGW theory requires that the sun continues to be a constant or there abouts.

The sea temperatures may still be warm enough to keep the Arctic ice melting at a fair rate of knots for the next 5 decades... Then what? What if the sun wants to stay quiet for the next century?

Fair enough, it's all if's and but's. The original 2000's solar forecasts have been binned though. Projected solar forecasts from this solar peak have been much reduced to virtually nil for the next peak. I guess we'll have to wait and see as it will do as it pleases.

I do wish Keith would explain what he means when he posts bits from an article elsewhere on the net. We could all understand where he's coming from. How about it Keith?

Edited February 17, 2013 by pottyprof

[keithlucky]

The point i am trying to make that ice lose and ice gain runs in cycle"s it is nothing to do with GW (then you add the solar minimum into the equation that increases ice gains)

, .A powerful Arctic storm exaggerated the ice loss in the north pole last year,nice to see that the Arctic and Antarctic ice has returned to normal with excellent ice coverage on both continents.

Edited February 17, 2013 by keithlucky

[quest4peace]

Some -50's 2m temps just starting to appear on the coasts of russia note the purple -50 pixels

Interesting to see how much healthier kara is this year.And area being closer to averge then past years.The proper litmus test is at the start of the melt season though.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Keith isn't totally wrong to be fair. We know from our 'accurate' mock-up's of past climate that we cool faster than we warm up. I was watching something that I'd recorded a while ago and there is evidence that some glaciers that are currently melting, are known to have been replenished within a time-frame of approximately a decade. Now to me that says we're up one without a paddle IF we are in a period of much reduced solar input regardless of CO2. Don't ask me how it was worked out but they were professors in the field and as I've been told before, I must trust the scientists.

The evidence says that we are on that edge looking down, not up as far as the sun is concerned. AGW theory requires that the sun continues to be a constant or there abouts.

The sea temperatures may still be warm enough to keep the Arctic ice melting at a fair rate of knots for the next 5 decades... Then what? What if the sun wants to stay quiet for the next century?

Fair enough, it's all if's and but's. The original 2000's solar forecasts have been binned though. Projected solar forecasts from this solar peak have been much reduced to virtually nil for the next peak. I guess we'll have to wait and see as it will do as it pleases.

I do wish Keith would explain what he means when he posts bits from an article elsewhere on the net. We could all understand where he's coming from. How about it Keith?

I think you might have that the other way around. Typically, cool downs happen quite gradually, while the warm ups are rapid events

As for the rapid replenishment of glaciers, I guess it depends how much mass was lost in the first place. You are certainly limited by the amount of glacial ice it's possible to form in just a decade!

The sun is certainly looking very quiet. It's global influence of temperatures are still far from being known with any certainty, but so far, are considered to have little impact, compared to ENSO and GHG changes. Still after a 15 years of a downward tending ENSO and several years of unusually low solar activity, if we don't start seeing some kind of drop in global temperatures soon, the case for CO2 being the main driver of temperature change certainly becomes significantly stronger.

The point i am trying to make that ice lose and ice gain runs in cycle"s it is nothing to do with GW (then you add the solar minimum into the equation that increases ice gains)

, .A powerful Arctic storm exaggerated the ice loss in the north pole last year,nice to see that the Arctic and Antarctic ice has returned to normal with excellent ice coverage on both continents.

But the sea ice was already lowest on record by most counts even before the storm last August. The volume trend (and to a lesser degree, the entent and area trends) show no sign of being influence by solar activity in recent decades and are on accelerating declines. Clearly they haven't reacted to the lowering of solar activity since 2008.

So Keith, if we have another record melt this year, will you still consider the sea ice trends as linked to solar activity?

Some -50's 2m temps just starting to appear on the coasts of russia note the purple -50 pixels

Interesting to see how much healthier kara is this year.And area being closer to averge then past years.The proper litmus test is at the start of the melt season though.

Good to see ya back Q4P!

Over 14 million on the IJIS extent now, and just 80k off the 2005 maximum, having already passed 06,07 and 11.

[BornFromTheVoid]

As of February 16th on the NSIDC extent dataset, we've now passed the 2011 maximum and are just 20k off the 2006 maximum.

Here's a graph showing the annual extent maxima and the difference with the current extent.

[quest4peace]

I think you might have that the other way around. Typically, cool downs happen quite gradually, while the warm ups are rapid events

As for the rapid replenishment of glaciers, I guess it depends how much mass was lost in the first place. You are certainly limited by the amount of glacial ice it's possible to form in just a decade!

The sun is certainly looking very quiet. It's global influence of temperatures are still far from being known with any certainty, but so far, are considered to have little impact, compared to ENSO and GHG changes. Still after a 15 years of a downward tending ENSO and several years of unusually low solar activity, if we don't start seeing some kind of drop in global temperatures soon, the case for CO2 being the main driver of temperature change certainly becomes significantly stronger.

But the sea ice was already lowest on record by most counts even before the storm last August. The volume trend (and to a lesser degree, the entent and area trends) show no sign of being influence by solar activity in recent decades and are on accelerating declines. Clearly they haven't reacted to the lowering of solar activity since 2008.

So Keith, if we have another record melt this year, will you still consider the sea ice trends as linked to solar activity?

Good to see ya back Q4P!

Over 14 million on the IJIS extent now, and just 80k off the 2005 maximum, having already passed 06,07 and 11.

As of February 16th on the NSIDC extent dataset, we've now passed the 2011 maximum and are just 20k off the 2006 maximum.

Here's a graph showing the annual extent maxima and the difference with the current extent.

Hi BFTV Couldn't access the thread for seemingly ages But i see it's back So on the face of it things are looking promising? What are your current views on the current situation Nice to see the whole arctic basin very cold now and even some -50c 2m temps developing

[BornFromTheVoid]

Hi BFTV Couldn't access the thread for seemingly ages But i see it's back So on the face of it things are looking promising? What are your current views on the current situation Nice to see the whole arctic basin very cold now and even some -50c 2m temps developing

The whole climate area was closed off for a while, seems the admins weren't too happy with all the arguing and whatnot!

I wouldn't say things were looking promising, but I suppose they could be worse. We still have the lowest volume on record, so the current high extent values indicates a very thin covering.

We're seeing a similar pattern to last year, strong +ve sea ice anomalies on the Pacific side not being enough to counter the losses on the Atlantic side.

What's interesting, is that the pattern over the Arctic looks like turning to a +ve dipole one during the next week, which might encourage an increase in sea ice around the Greenland and Barents sea. With a large +ve anomaly already over the Bering Sea, we could find the extent climbing well above 15 million and possibly pushing close to the long term average if Barents and Greenland sea ice begin to increase.

A February maximum this year perhaps?

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi BFTV!

Feb max? that sounds like bucking the trend of late?

Are you thinking of a kind of 'faux max' with transient ice in Greenland/ Barrentsz as ice expands/flows into those regions and pushes out to areas where melt occurs?

So like when wind events spreads out the ice and gives a false extent gain before the ice falls foul of the 15% or less marker?

It has been a different type of freeze season this time though with the AO acting in a different way than of late. I wonder if this is tied in with a natural signal and not a 'low ice' forcing? (or both).

I just hope we do not see an early start to the season as the thin ice must surely wane in the same way that we have seen over recent years (no matter what predominant weather we get) and nearly a month longer in melt would surely lead to renewed record losses due merely to the thin ,young nature of the ice?

I will also be watching for a re-run of last years H.P. anoms over Southern Greenland?

Anyhows, the first sign that we might be needing a new thread?