Arctic Ice Discussion. 2013 Melt Season

[Isolated Frost]

Isn't ice volume much more important than area or extent, the latter two simply more perimeters, not necessarily useful ones, but interesting nonetheless?

Nothing to write home about for me; it just seems as though any recovery is futile, and that it's damage limitation, a matter of when, not if.

[Geordiesnow]

Got to be careful talking about "recovery" when the melt season is not even over yet but as BFTV has stated, things could of been a lot worse than we are now and as I said previously, for any chance of a recovery, we need a run of cold Arctic summers and this year has been one it appears, will 2014 be the same? We simply don't know! 

 

That said, I'm still not convinced sadly we will see any sustained recovery unfortunately but we got to start somewhere however you can't help but feel it probably be one step forwards and two step backwards. 

 

Would of been interesting where we would be in terms of extent figures if the Atlantic side of the Arctic was not such below average, the main part of the Arctic basin looks to have quite a bit ice this year so we may of had a higher extent if the Atlantic sector was not so low. 

 

Hopefully sea ice in barents/Kara refreeze quicker and more extensively this year than during last Autumn also, was way below average last Autumn.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Wow compared to what 1932, records only are go back to 1970 lol

 

Doing worse than August 1932

 

 

Anyway, we should wait and see how PIOMAS and/or Crysosat-2 see things later on. We need to see the volume up significantly, as opposed to up to 2011 levels (for example). We still have much less multiyear ice, so we need a good boost in volume in order for a near average extent to be possible in September 2014.

[stewfox]

Isn't ice volume much more important than area or extent, the latter two simply more perimeters, not necessarily useful ones, but interesting nonetheless?

fd.png

Nothing to write home about for me; it just seems as though any recovery is futile, and that it's damage limitation, a matter of when, not if.

 

Ice volume was up at the start of the melt season and the weather has turned out to be a little bit cooler then average in the artic.

 

What's driven peoples predictions (on many forums) is a 'run away' mentality that the artic in the summer months will be ice free in a few years.

 

There was no empirical evidence that 2013 would be worse then 2012 though many were predicting such a out come.

 

A slight increase in ice volumes this winter and a average/poor summer in 2014 and we would be looking at cira 1990s summer levels.

 

If you can show me the 'mean; temperature across the whole of the artic has got up by 9c in the last 10 years I would agree re futility, clearly it has not.

Edited August 24, 2013 by stewfox

[Interitus]

 

A slight increase in ice volumes this winter and a average/poor summer in 2014 and we would be looking at cira 1990s summer levels.

 

If you can show me the 'mean; temperature across the whole of the artic has got up by 9c in the last 10 years I would agree re futility, clearly it has not.

 

At various points this year area has been more than 1990, 1995, 1996 and 1997 but volume is far, far less. It's going to take more than a cold winter and summer for volume to get anywhere near the levels in the nineties even if superficially the extent/area were to look positive.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Ice volume was up at the start of the melt season and the weather has turned out to be a little bit cooler then average in the artic.

 

What's driven peoples predictions (on many forums) is a 'run away' mentality that the artic in the summer months will be ice free in a few years.

 

There was no empirical evidence that 2013 would be worse then 2012 though many were predicting such a out come.

 

A slight increase in ice volumes this winter and a average/poor summer in 2014 and we would be looking at cira 1990s summer levels.

 

If you can show me the 'mean; temperature across the whole of the artic has got up by 9c in the last 10 years I would agree re futility, clearly it has not.

 

According to the PIOMAS data, ice volume was essentially joint lowest on record with 2012 and 2011 around March and April.

 

And 8% less in March according to Cryosat

 

While your reason is also valid, in my opinion, what caused other people to guess quite low, was the trend of recent years, the generally -ve AO of the last few months before summer, the loss of multiyear ice, especially across the central Arctic and other such things. There really wasn't much reason to expect such a dramatic reversal from the summer weather pattern of the last 6 years.

The loss of multiyear ice and the poor volume are two examples of empirical evidence that could have caused people to think 2013 would be worse than 2012.

 

Until the planet stops accumulating heat, I doubt we'll see anything more than a continuation of the long-term downward trend, which includes the odd good year and temporary increases.

 

As for hopes of what may come next year, let's see if we can get a close to average Autumn temperature first, as looking at the DMI data, we haven't had one since the mid 90s north of 80N.

[stewfox]

At various points this year area has been more than 1990, 1995, 1996 and 1997 but volume is far, far less. It's going to take more than a cold winter and summer for volume to get anywhere near the levels in the nineties even if superficially the extent/area were to look positive.

 

We need to start somehwere

 

Interesting read

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/18/sea-ice-news-volume-4-number-4-the-maslowski-countdown-to-an-ice-free-arctic-begins/

[Cheshire Freeze]

At various points this year area has been more than 1990, 1995, 1996 and 1997 but volume is far, far less. It's going to take more than a cold winter and summer for volume to get anywhere near the levels in the nineties even if superficially the extent/area were to look positive.

 

We have to start somewhere though. What you're saying is correct but no-one (and I mean not one person) knows what the state of Arctic ice will be in 20-30 years time. We may see a recovery, we might not. Anything else is pure propaganda and conjecture.

 

I'm on the fence personally and would rather wait to see how this pans out over the next decade or so. Whilst I agree there seems to be a trend of declining ice, I just can't see there being a complete melt out. A complete melt out would be a complete climatological catastrophe, leading to all sorts of atmospheric changes. I just can't see it happening.

Edited August 24, 2013 by CreweCold

[Methuselah]

We have to start somewhere though. What you're saying is correct but no-one (and I mean not one person) knows what the state of Arctic ice will be in 20-30 years time. We may see a recovery, we might not. Anything else is pure propaganda and conjecture.

 

I'm on the fence personally and would rather wait to see how this pans out over the next decade or so. Whilst I agree there seems to be a trend of declining ice, I just can't see there being a complete melt out. A complete melt out would be a complete climatological catastrophe, leading to all sorts of atmospheric changes. I just can't see it happening.

From a philosophical standpoint, you are quite correct...Though any evidence that points towards any sustained recovery is, to say the least (and pardon the pun) extremely thin on the ground...

[Cheshire Freeze]

From a philosophical standpoint, you are quite correct...Though any evidence that points towards any sustained recovery is, to say the least (and pardon the pun) extremely thin on the ground...

 

In terms of climate you don't really get evidence to suggest something *may* happen. It usually just happens. Our understanding of climatic drivers is still in an embryonic stage and trying to second guess something 10-20 years down the line is fraught with difficulties. That's my point. For all we know we could be unknowingly omitting a fundamental variable in the whole saga.......not because it doesn't exist but because we haven't found or understand it.

 

If a recovery was to happen, for all we know it could be triggered by something as simple as a cessation of warm water transport from the tropics towards the pole. Something I believe is far more likely than a complete melt out of the ice. As we know, for everything that happens in nature there is usually an inverse reaction, it's hard to believe that won't be the case here and that warming will go rampant and unabated. Again, this is conjecture just as much as any other theory so we're back to having to play the waiting game!

Edited August 24, 2013 by CreweCold

[Methuselah]

Agreed, CC...IMO, if anyone does claim to know, they would also be claiming possession of psychic powers of the type that I consider to be impossible...

[BornFromTheVoid]

In terms of climate you don't really get evidence to suggest something *may* happen. It usually just happens. Our understanding of climatic drivers is still in an embryonic stage and trying to second guess something 10-20 years down the line is fraught with difficulties. That's my point. For all we know we could be unknowingly omitting a fundamental variable in the whole saga.......not because it doesn't exist but because we haven't found or understand it.

 

If a recovery was to happen, for all we know it could be triggered by something as simple as a cessation of warm water transport from the tropics towards the pole. Something I believe is far more likely than a complete melt out of the ice. As we know, for everything that happens in nature there is usually an inverse reaction, it's hard to believe that won't be the case here and that warming will go rampant and unabated. Again, this is conjecture just as much as any other theory so we're back to having to play the waiting game!

 

There's plenty of evidence in climate science, and evidence to back up many forecasts. There is, of course, no absolutes in forecasting!

 

We can propose that there are some undiscovered unknowns causing everything and anything. That, is the realm of feelings and speculation. There is plenty of evidence to suggest a seasonal ice pack within the next few decades though.

 

Warm water no longer moving to the poles would be a truly remarkable thing, a new Heinrich Event! I've seen little evidence that suggests the THC will shut down this century though, especially it happening before the sea ice goes seasonal.

 

Climate is known to fluctuate relatively easily. Even the small periodic fluctuations in insolation due the Milankovitch Cycles cause huge variations in global temperatures, thanks to +ve feedbacks.

There doesn't seem to be any huge unknown or unaccounted for negative feedback, or any need for one to explain anything. That's not to say one won't be found, there doesn't appear to be much evidence for it, and it's evidence that matters imo.

[Cheshire Freeze]

There's plenty of evidence in climate science, and evidence to back up many forecasts. There is, of course, no absolutes in forecasting!

 

We can propose that there are some undiscovered unknowns causing everything and anything. That, is the realm of feelings and speculation. There is plenty of evidence to suggest a seasonal ice pack within the next few decades though.

 

Warm water no longer moving to the poles would be a truly remarkable thing, a new Heinrich Event! I've seen little evidence that suggests the THC will shut down this century though, especially it happening before the sea ice goes seasonal.

 

Climate is known to fluctuate relatively easily. Even the small periodic fluctuations in insolation due the Milankovitch Cycles cause huge variations in global temperatures, thanks to +ve feedbacks.

There doesn't seem to be any huge unknown or unaccounted for negative feedback, or any need for one to explain anything. That's not to say one won't be found, there doesn't appear to be much evidence for it, and it's evidence that matters imo.

 

Yes but the trump card that the pro-complete melt out crew have is that there is years of empirical evidence to reinforce their assumptions looking forward. Anyone who suggests otherwise RE a complete melt out seem like loons as they're effectively going against the grain of what is showing and what has been showing previously within the Arctic. Therefore even if their theory turns out to be correct when all said and done, no-one will take notice in the here and now because they're constrained by what is currently occurring; with aforementioned empirical evidence to seemingly back their assertions up. 

Edited August 24, 2013 by CreweCold

[keithlucky]

Arctic ice gain 74.000 thousand sq km impressive considering the time of year .Red is ice loss blue is ice gain

Edited August 25, 2013 by keithlucky

[BornFromTheVoid]

Keith, please post a link to the source, or at least state what sea ice metric your graph shows

 

 

Yes but the trump card that the pro-complete melt out crew have is that there is years of empirical evidence to reinforce their assumptions looking forward. Anyone who suggests otherwise RE a complete melt out seem like loons as they're effectively going against the grain of what is showing and what has been showing previously within the Arctic. Therefore even if their theory turns out to be correct when all said and done, no-one will take notice in the here and now because they're constrained by what is currently occurring; with aforementioned empirical evidence to seemingly back their assertions up. 

 

They can't really be "assumptions" if they've got a lot of empirical evidence to support them? I'd rather predictions that are made on the foundation of strong empirical evidence, rather than pure guess work. You haven't been treated like a "loon" for suggesting the Arctic won't melt out, but without a plausible physical mechanism, and to a lesser extent, evidence to support that mechanism, your idea is just an idea.

 

[stewfox]

Keith, please post a link to the source, or at least state what sea ice metric your graph shows

 

 

 

They can't really be "assumptions" if they've got a lot of empirical evidence to support them? I'd rather predictions that are made on the foundation of strong empirical evidence, rather than pure guess work. You haven't been treated like a "loon" for suggesting the Arctic won't melt out, but without a plausible physical mechanism, and to a lesser extent, evidence to support that mechanism, your idea is just an idea.

 

 

Agreed 'strong imperial evidence' which we have had for the last 30 years.

 

We can make 'assumptions' about whats happen to some floating ice up there in the last 10,000 + years but as Kinnard and others have suggested 'extensive uncertainties remain'

 

http://gizmo.geotop.uqam.ca/devernalA/Kinnard_et_al_nature_2011.pdf

 

Also posting a August 1932 Artic 'map' has no more credibility then posting a 1500 map showing the state of the artic (looks ice free to me), we just don't know

Edited August 25, 2013 by stewfox

[BornFromTheVoid]

http://gizmo.geotop.uqam.ca/devernalA/Kinnard_et_al_nature_2011.pdf

 

Also posting a August 1932 Artic 'map' has no more credibility then posting a 1500 map showing the state of the artic (looks ice free to me), we just don't know

 

Why?

We have good data on ice extent this century from all the shipping logs, research expeditions, flights, coastal observations etc, especially for the Atlantic and Eurasian side of the Arctic. We're much less certain about what was going on deep inside the pack or toward N. America, but the peripheries were quite well documented, especially in summer.

Certainly much more credible than a map from 1500.

http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g02203-dmi/

[stewfox]

Why?

We have good data on ice extent this century from all the shipping logs, research expeditions, flights, coastal observations etc, especially for the Atlantic and Eurasian side of the Arctic. We're much less certain about what was going on deep inside the pack or toward N. America, but the peripheries were quite well documented, especially in summer.

Certainly much more credible than a map from 1500.

http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g02203-dmi/

 

The maps you refer to bring up as many questions as answers as you probably know. Its a interesting read for those who haven't seen it.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/02/cache-of-historical-arctic-sea-ice-maps-discovered/

 

IJIS shows a 22k drop yesterday

 

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

 

Would ne nice to see the earliest end to the melt season , we should start to see refreeze above 80N on the western side,

 

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

 

Of course there was no open water to refreeze in earlier decades above 80N at summers end. A early refreeze in itself doesn't mean much, to me anyway.

[Devonian]

Agreed 'strong imperial evidence' which we have had for the last 30 years.

 

We can make 'assumptions' about whats happen to some floating ice up there in the last 10,000 + years but as Kinnard and others have suggested 'extensive uncertainties remain'

 

http://gizmo.geotop.uqam.ca/devernalA/Kinnard_et_al_nature_2011.pdf

 

Also posting a August 1932 Artic 'map' has no more credibility then posting a 1500 map showing the state of the artic (looks ice free to me), we just don't know

Interesting map. I can't see enough to be able to google it, so who's map is it?

 

Anyway, see how it appears to only show the west coast of Novaya Zemlya and the south cost of Iceland. A clue, I wonder?

[Tamara]

Interesting map. I can't see enough to be able to google it, so who's map is it?

 

Anyway, see how it appears to only show the west coast of Novaya Zemlya and the south cost of Iceland. A clue, I wonder?

A clue to what?

 

One obvious factor behind the better summer season in the arctic is the +AO pressure profile which has prevented warmer air from mid latitudes encroaching the region and has bottled up colder air instead.

[stewfox]

A clue to what?

 

One obvious factor behind the better summer season in the arctic is the +AO pressure profile which has prevented warmer air from mid latitudes encroaching the region and has bottled up colder air instead.

 

In need its a long read

 

http://gizmo.geotop.uqam.ca/devernalA/Kinnard_et_al_nature_2011.pdf

 

I have taken out a relevant section.

------------------------------------------

These comparisons suggest that, over the past 1,450

years, changes in the summer extent of Arctic sea ice were not solely

forced by SATs or by the NAO/AO, but more probably by a combination

of these (and/or other) forcings.

The pronounced decrease in ice cover observed in both our terrestrial

and oceanic proxy-based reconstructions between the late fifteenth and

early seventeenth centuries occurred during the widespread cooling

period known as the Little Ice Age (about AD 1450–1850 (ref. 18)).

Reconstructed Arctic SATs show episodes of warming during this period

(Fig. 3f), but according to our results the decrease in Arctic sea ice

extent during the Little Ice Age was more pronounced than during the

earlier Medieval Warm Optimum. A recent climate model simulation

of the fifteenth-century Arctic warming (about AD 1470–1520) suggests

that it could have been solely driven by enhanced southerly advection of

warm air into the Arctic2

------------------------------------------------------

 

LIA could have implied a warming in the artic. Of course man made activities maybe over riding these feed back mechanisms. 

 

Dev the map was just a global map (google old world maps). The point being 'old maps' don't tell us much about summer artic ice.

Edited August 25, 2013 by stewfox

[Methuselah]

A clue to what?

 

One obvious factor behind the better summer season in the arctic is the +AO pressure profile which has prevented warmer air from mid latitudes encroaching the region and has bottled up colder air instead.

But, surely that is merely a numerical, abstract, index...and, as such, is arithmetically derived form the actual weather? It doesn't drive anything?

[Tamara]

My post however, stated the pressure profile as a result of the state of the Arctic Oscillation being positive, which means that warm air advection into the arctic is reversed (under the -AO conditions of recent summers) and therefore better ambient conditions for ice retention

Edited August 25, 2013 by Tamara Road

[Methuselah]

My post however, stated the pressure profile as a result of the state of the Arctic Oscillation being positive, which means that warm air advection into the arctic is reversed (under the -AO conditions of recent summers) and therefore better ambient conditions for ice retention

Not really disagreeing with what you say,T...just butting in before anyone takes things the wrong way... 

 

In the mean time, have you any idea why this summer's been the way it has, apart from the pressure profile? I haven't!

 

As a bit of an aside, however, I'm interested in whether the Arctic's open water will increase October snowfall, adjacent to the Arctic Ocean, this time...Any thoughts on that? 

Edited August 25, 2013 by A Boy Named Sue

[oldsnowywizard]

DMI showing a drop again temps below 0 for most of the week and slowly getting colder and colder.. There is no warmth set to penetrate into the arctic waters for at least the next week (subject to normal ts and cs about forecasting). Ok I can add the DMI isnt that great as a temperature source, however as an averagely accurate data source and comparing it to previous years this really is an early drop.. even with 850 temps being similar to previous years..99 being a good example..

 

from the following website and the temp charts from the uni of cologne.....http://www.arctic.io/sea-ice-charts/

nice cold temps considering the time of year -10,-5 -8... so lets hope we get a nice early refreeze....

 

the alsakan sea ice desk also mentions the following..

...AUGUST 2013 ICE OUTLOOK...

THE AUGUST 2013 ICE RETREAT HAS BEEN MUCH CLOSER TO NORMAL THAN IN
THE PAST FEW YEARS. THE NORTHWARD MOVEMENT OF THE ICE PACK WILL
CONTINUE THROUGH SEPTEMBER AND REACH THE SEASONAL MINIMUM AROUND THE
FIRST WEEK OF OCTOBER.

IN THE CHUKCHI SEA A TONGUE OF ICE EXTENDS FROM THE MAIN PACK TOWARD
THE NORTHWEST ALASKA COAST. THIS ICE COULD THREATEN THE ALASKA COAST
FROM WAINWRIGHT TO POINT BARROW THROUGH THE FIRST WEEK OF SEPTEMBER
BY A PERIOD OF SUSTAINED NORTHWEST FLOW. BY THE THIRD WEEK OF
SEPTEMBER THIS ICE WILL LIKELY MOVE NORTH OF 74N.

IN THE BEAUFORT SEA THE MAIN ICE PACK WILL SLOWLY RETREAT TO NORTH OF
73N THROUGH THE SECOND WEEK OF SEPTEMBER. THE PACK EDGE SHOULD VARY
BETWEEN 73N AND 74N THROUGH THE END OF SEPTEMBER.

 

ALso to me at least the sea surface temps although warm around the fringes look slightly cooler when compared to last year.. i remember 10 + degree areas around Chuckchi..

 

all positive considering... about time we had some variables working in favour of ice retention... now lets see what happens...