Arctic Ice Discussion. 2013 Melt Season

[keithlucky]

Arctic sea ice now 1.7million square kilometers over lasts year total was 3.5sq km million this year it stand at 5.2sq km http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

Edited August 6, 2013 by keithlucky

[Methuselah]

Arctic sea ice now 1.7 square kilometers over lasts year total was 3.5sq km million this year it stand at 5.2sq km http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

Only 1.7? That'll be all gone by tomorrow! 

[masheeuk]

With large snowstorm to hit the arctic in 4days it should help to preserve the ice 

I thought this was meant to break up the ice not protect it !

[Geordiesnow]

I thought this was meant to break up the ice not protect it !

 

From what I learnt, snowfall can protect the ice from sunlight in the early part of the melt season but I did ask earlier whether snowfall can protect the ice during this stormy period, I guess we will see, will the cold air wrapped around this low protect the ice to a certain extent or not?

[knocker]

Some general info.

 

Since the 1980's, the summer minimum of the Arctic sea-ice area has been reduced by almost 30%, as seen over the past few years. The ice-covered area in summer is decreasing at twice the rate for the winter area. Nevertheless, the winter area is also decreasing. Here, almost 10% has disappeared. A trend line based on satellite data from OSISAF shows that the winter sea-ice cover is being reduced by 43,000 km2 per year and the summer ice cover by 98,000 km² per year (2). This has the consequence that an increasing amount of the Arctic sea ice is new, thin, first-year ice.

 

The total volume of ice is thus decreasing even faster than can be seen from satellites.

 

http://polarportal.org/en/arctic-sea-ice/

 

[Interitus]

 

Any update re the storm ?

 

Don't know can't see, something's blocking the view -

 

 

 

[knocker]

Midday chart

 

 

[stewfox]

Did anyone see 'Oceans -Arctic Ocean' on Eden channel , interesting

[knocker]

1800 chart

 

 

[Geordiesnow]

Its interesting to note according to those charts, the wind arrows on the Western flank of the low are not as large as one might imagine they would be, it seems the strongest of the winds are on the southern flank of the low, any explanations for this? 

 

I could just simply be reading the chart wrong but is it anything to do with its high latitude that may affect wind patterns differently to those at more mid-latitudes? 

[Interitus]

Its interesting to note according to those charts, the wind arrows on the Western flank of the low are not as large as one might imagine they would be, it seems the strongest of the winds are on the southern flank of the low, any explanations for this? 

 

I could just simply be reading the chart wrong but is it anything to do with its high latitude that may affect wind patterns differently to those at more mid-latitudes? 

 

The biggest cluster of arrows appear to be passing right over the north pole and so are at once southerly, westerly, easterly and northerly all at the same time even though they seem to be in the same direction! The normal cardinal directions are meaningless at this latitude.

 

The higher latitude causes a stronger coriolis effect but this affects direction and curvature, not wind speed.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Interitus

[Cheshire Freeze]

Just catching up on this thread. Sooooo if we can retain some of that 'fragile' new ice then we go into the next refreeze cycle in much healthier shape as the fragile ice becomes galvanised by another refreeze season?

 

Recoveries have to start somewhere! Certainly not looking as low at this point as I feared we may be earlier in the season.

 

If we were to see a recovery over the next 20 years or so, how would that be explained away? Any suggestions?

[East_England_Stormchaser91]

Just catching up on this thread. Sooooo if we can retain some of that 'fragile' new ice then we go into the next refreeze cycle in much healthier shape as the fragile ice becomes galvanised by another refreeze season?

 

Recoveries have to start somewhere! Certainly not looking as low at this point as I feared we may be earlier in the season.

 

If we were to see a recovery over the next 20 years or so, how would that be explained away? Any suggestions?

Would certainly prove these carbon taxes are just robbery! Correct me if I'm wrong but havent these changes to sea ice over decades happened for many thousands of years, this just being another one to add to the series. I definitely think ocean currents, the state of the sun and even volcanoes will have the greatest impact on our climate. Basically anything that could change the jet stream significantly should be taken greatly into account.

[UV-RAY]

Just catching up on this thread. Sooooo if we can retain some of that 'fragile' new ice then we go into the next refreeze cycle in much healthier shape as the fragile ice becomes galvanised by another refreeze season?

 

Recoveries have to start somewhere! Certainly not looking as low at this point as I feared we may be earlier in the season.

 

If we were to see a recovery over the next 20 years or so, how would that be explained away? Any suggestions?

Cat amongst pigeons there CC. I'm not one for if's and buts hence why I take all projections regarding AGW with a huge dose of salt, however if we are seeing the first signs of a recovery then that certainly would raise some serious questions and would probably put an end to a lot of grants!

[Radiating Dendrite]

Just catching up on this thread. Sooooo if we can retain some of that 'fragile' new ice then we go into the next refreeze cycle in much healthier shape as the fragile ice becomes galvanised by another refreeze season?

 

Recoveries have to start somewhere! Certainly not looking as low at this point as I feared we may be earlier in the season.

 

If we were to see a recovery over the next 20 years or so, how would that be explained away? Any suggestions?

 

Problem is CC that this was said after 2007 in 2008.

 

It never happened and we ended up with 2012!

[4wd]

You do have to wonder what the Climate Misleaders will say if/when Arctic ice does recover considerably.

[Radiating Dendrite]

Removed

Edited August 8, 2013 by Radiating Dendrite

[jethro]

As I understand it, one of the gravest concerns regarding loss of Arctic ice is the change in albedo - open dark water absorbing more energy than the frozen, reflecting ice. When it comes to climate change, we're talking global figures rather than local, so is the growth in Antarctic ice more than enough to compensate for the lower Arctic levels, when it comes to albedo?

[Gray-Wolf]

I think you need to look at the areas of lost snow /ice compared to gains J' to see just how silly that notion is when the final km sq figure is arrived at? The supposed 'balancing act' really does not hold water at all. the other thing you must entertain is the amount of solar Antarctica is receiving across those extra few thousand of km's compared to the amount of solar the Arctic basin ( land and ocean) is currently open too ( one being in the depths of winter and one being in the latter phases of summer). Do you see what I'm saying?

 

To me the albedo flip is one of the most immediate and worrying drivers in our current 'climate chaos' allowing a for a very different energy equation for the planet. Surely a sudden leap in the amount of incoming solar that can be captured by the planet must show effect? Couple that with an ever enhanced atmospheric ability to hold onto re-radiated heat and you must encounter changes?

 

Please do not merely focus on 'ice' though. This dance was lead by the collapse of summer snow cover across the N.Hemisphere and , worryingly, even the abnormally high ( neah 'record') snow cover we have seen since 2009 still drops to record lows by late May re-opening bare earth for the summer sun to warm/melt.

 

We know that the earth is in 'imbalance' by our measures of energy in ,energy out and many now accept that the oceans are soaking up this 'extra' . Ice sits on water so eventually this uptake will only go to compound the ice loss situation.

 

As for the 'air temps'? Well , once again we have seen max temp records set around the Arctic basin ( due to loss of influence from ice/snow cover?) with Greenland setting a new all time high temp record.

 

I am sure we still have room for natural variation in the levels of snow and ice driven by 'weather' over melt season but it will take an awful lot of 'weather' to rebuild the giga tonnage of ice/snow we have lost compared to the mid 20th Century 'norms'?

[Methuselah]

As I understand it, one of the gravest concerns regarding loss of Arctic ice is the change in albedo - open dark water absorbing more energy than the frozen, reflecting ice. When it comes to climate change, we're talking global figures rather than local, so is the growth in Antarctic ice more than enough to compensate for the lower Arctic levels, when it comes to albedo?

Isn't the Antarctic devoid of sunlight anyway, at this time of the year, J?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Just catching up on this thread. Sooooo if we can retain some of that 'fragile' new ice then we go into the next refreeze cycle in much healthier shape as the fragile ice becomes galvanised by another refreeze season?

 

Recoveries have to start somewhere! Certainly not looking as low at this point as I feared we may be earlier in the season.

 

If we were to see a recovery over the next 20 years or so, how would that be explained away? Any suggestions?

 

A recovery over the next 20 years would require some explanations, but it's not going to happen. Just like the earth isn't going to go back to the 1800s temperatures in the next 20 years.

 

There will be year to year fluctuation, as there always has been. That doesn't mean each upward tick is the beginning of a recovery!

 

 

Cat amongst pigeons there CC. I'm not one for if's and buts hence why I take all projections regarding AGW with a huge dose of salt, however if we are seeing the first signs of a recovery then that certainly would raise some serious questions and would probably put an end to a lot of grants!

 

Who will fund all those oil company propaganda blogs when the ice disappears!?

 

As I understand it, one of the gravest concerns regarding loss of Arctic ice is the change in albedo - open dark water absorbing more energy than the frozen, reflecting ice. When it comes to climate change, we're talking global figures rather than local, so is the growth in Antarctic ice more than enough to compensate for the lower Arctic levels, when it comes to albedo?

 

The Arctic ice loss on trends, is about 3 times greater than Antarctic sea ice gain, so not enough to compensate. We 're still seeing quite a bit of Arctic Amplification also, to the poles will continue to warm anyway. The increased albedo from the additional sea ice, while a slight -ve feedback, has not been enough to cool Antarctica, and the ice sheet continues to melt.

[UV-RAY]

A recovery over the next 20 years would require some explanations, but it's not going to happen. Just like the earth isn't going to go back to the 1800s temperatures in the next 20 years.

 

There will be year to year fluctuation, as there always has been. That doesn't mean each upward tick is the beginning of a recovery!

 

 

 

Who will fund all those oil company propaganda blogs when the ice disappears!?

 

 

The Arctic ice loss on trends, is about 3 times greater than Antarctic sea ice gain, so not enough to compensate. We 're still seeing quite a bit of Arctic Amplification also, to the poles will continue to warm anyway. The increased albedo from the additional sea ice, while a slight -ve feedback, has not been enough to cool Antarctica, and the ice sheet continues to melt.

I wouldn't know as I rarely read them or any of the propaganda sites on either side, I was merely stating the obvious as there would be no need for obscene amounts of money to continue being wasted.

 

The Antarctic is only melting around the edges and even then it's nothing  unusual.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[Methuselah]

 

 

Who will fund all those oil company propaganda blogs when the ice disappears!?

 

 

The same folks who fund them now - the customers...

[UV-RAY]

The same folks who fund them now - the customers...

But what's the difference from political motivated organisations such as Greenpeace and the WWF being involved in policy making by the IPCC, surely that is of far greater concern to the tax payers  of the world.

 

Edit; This is taking us way off the subject so it would be better discussed elsewhere.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[Tamara]

A recovery over the next 20 years would require some explanations, but it's not going to happen. Just like the earth isn't going to go back to the 1800s temperatures in the next 20 years.

 

There will be year to year fluctuation, as there always has been. That doesn't mean each upward tick is the beginning of a recovery!

 

 

 

 

Do you actually know this or is it opinion?   On the basis that the upward tick in temperatures that was predicted with such high confidence in line with AGW theory has not materialised over the last 10 years or so, then it is surely unwise to make absolute predictions about sea ice amounts/concentrations and patterns for double that future period!!

 

I don't think anyone would disagree that it is far too early to call any meaningful recovery, and also most would agree that year to year fluctuations are almost certain. However, on the basis that (at the very least) AGW effects could well have been overstated, at the same time that natural cyclical (and most especially solar) drivers could well have been understated, we should all be avoiding making cast iron decadal and most especially multi decadal predictions about sea ice, global temperatures or anything else related for that matter

Edited August 8, 2013 by Tamara Road