Arctic ice

[Iceberg]

Looking at the latest ice situation it's quite clear that a number of critical high risk areas are occuring, even some of the fast ice on the Siberian side is looking less stable..

The Patch from greenland to the north pole is still on there and the the % chart shows how little of the arctic is now sheet ice, most of it is broken.

We still have another 6 weeks at least of melt maybe 12 weeks.

[Gray-Wolf]

Everything was pretty much mashed up when I took a MODIS trip over things yesterday. I did not a lot of sediment flushing out into the sea along the Siberian coastline which ,to me, would suggest melt of the land/permafrost is occuring first and the land is melting back the sea ice.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

We know how that works BFTP, cos 70% of the contribution to mean global temperatures comes from sea surface (give or take a few metres) temperature measurements. All of the land surface stations that have urban tendencies are discounted, and all the remaining "rural" temperatures are corrected to fit the 0.7C rise. QED.

So the sea has warmed first then? That ain't AGW

BFTP

[Gray-Wolf]

But I'd say this was Blast......

July 2, 2008 Melt onset earlier than normal

Sign up for the Arctic Sea Ice News RSS feed for automatic notification of analysis updates.

Arctic sea ice extent for June 2008 is close to that for 2007, which went on to reach the lowest minimum since at least 1979. More notably, however, satellite data indicate that melt began significantly earlier than last year over most of the Arctic Ocean. The large area of the Arctic Ocean covered by first-year ice (described in our June analysis) coupled with the early onset of melting may mean more rapid and more severe summer ice retreat than last year.

Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for June 2008 was 11.44 million square kilometers (4.42 million square miles). The magenta line shows the median ice extent for June from 1979 to 2000. Data information —Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

See High Resolution ImageOverview of conditions

Arctic sea ice extent averaged for June stood at 11.44 million square kilometers (4.42 million square miles), 0.72 million square kilometers (0.25 million square miles) less than the 1979 to 2000 average for the month. This is very slightly (0.05 million square kilometers; 0.02 million square miles) lower than the average extent for June 2007, but not the lowest on record, which occurred in June 2006 (see Figure 3).

Figure 2 indicates that on a daily basis, sea ice extent appears slightly higher than 2007 for most of the month. This apparent contradiction arises because of the monthly averaging calculation and because some days may have areas of missing data. To be included as an ice-covered region in the monthly average, the average concentration for that region must exceed 15 percent. So if the concentration is 15 percent for 29 days, but less than 15 percent for 1 day, it will not be included in the average ice extent for the month. Also, since ice extent decreases during June, if there is slightly more missing data in the early part of the month the monthly average could slightly underestimate the sea ice extent.

June sea ice extents in 2008 and 2007 are essentially identical, and near the lowest values for June ever recorded by satellite for the Arctic.

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

http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

EDIT: and also ,we hear it from the horses mouth, don't take the sea ice conc. maps as gospel as 'missing data' (cloud blight etc.) does play it's part.

See also;

http://www.arcus.org/SEARCH/seaiceoutlook/report_may.php

for the lead authorities from around the Arctic month by month reports and predictions.

Edited July 3, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

But I'd say this was Blast......

July 2, 2008 Melt onset earlier than normal

Sign up for the Arctic Sea Ice News RSS feed for automatic notification of analysis updates.

Arctic sea ice extent for June 2008 is close to that for 2007, which went on to reach the lowest minimum since at least 1979. More notably, however, satellite data indicate that melt began significantly earlier than last year over most of the Arctic Ocean. The large area of the Arctic Ocean covered by first-year ice (described in our June analysis) coupled with the early onset of melting may mean more rapid and more severe summer ice retreat than last year.

Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for June 2008 was 11.44 million square kilometers (4.42 million square miles). The magenta line shows the median ice extent for June from 1979 to 2000. Data information —Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

See High Resolution ImageOverview of conditions

Arctic sea ice extent averaged for June stood at 11.44 million square kilometers (4.42 million square miles), 0.72 million square kilometers (0.25 million square miles) less than the 1979 to 2000 average for the month. This is very slightly (0.05 million square kilometers; 0.02 million square miles) lower than the average extent for June 2007, but not the lowest on record, which occurred in June 2006 (see Figure 3).

Figure 2 indicates that on a daily basis, sea ice extent appears slightly higher than 2007 for most of the month. This apparent contradiction arises because of the monthly averaging calculation and because some days may have areas of missing data. To be included as an ice-covered region in the monthly average, the average concentration for that region must exceed 15 percent. So if the concentration is 15 percent for 29 days, but less than 15 percent for 1 day, it will not be included in the average ice extent for the month. Also, since ice extent decreases during June, if there is slightly more missing data in the early part of the month the monthly average could slightly underestimate the sea ice extent.

June sea ice extents in 2008 and 2007 are essentially identical, and near the lowest values for June ever recorded by satellite for the Arctic.

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

...............or maybe a volcano.....................

Thanks GW. I think March was a damaging month.

BFTP

[tundra]

GW and Iceberg keep the AGW belief going."It's melting its melting oh please please let it melt". :lol:

[Devonian]

GW and Iceberg keep the AGW belief going."It's melting its melting oh please please let it melt". :lol:

Actually they're interested in the evidence and the data. What else would you have them be interested in?

[Richie V]

Everything was pretty much mashed up when I took a MODIS trip over things yesterday. I did not a lot of sediment flushing out into the sea along the Siberian coastline which ,to me, would suggest melt of the land/permafrost is occuring first and the land is melting back the sea ice.

All of us grown up children love a snowman.... well almost all us children! GW and is band of mild doomsday rampers love nothing more than to torch their chilly chums with incessent AWG articles.

Frostys nose Is'nt just shiny, It's dripping with gasoline..... anyone got a match! :lol:

BTW gray It's a joke and no harm intended

[Gray-Wolf]

All of us grown up children love a snowman.... well almost all us children! GW and is band of mild doomsday rampers love nothing more than to torch their chilly chums with incessent AWG articles.

Frostys nose Is'nt just shiny, It's dripping with gasoline..... anyone got a match!

BTW gray It's a joke and no harm intended

I'd love a world where everything was OK and I could just worry about whether it should be 2 or 3 orgasms before I should be thinking about my personal pleasures ..........sadly it ain't like that is it?

[Richie V]

I'd love a world where everything was OK and I could just worry about whether it should be 2 or 3 orgasms before I should be thinking about my personal pleasures ..........sadly it ain't like that is it?

Indeed.

[Gray-Wolf]

Rain splashes on the lens again today. Still no sign of the normal -1.5c temps yet though. The Terra satellite does some good over flys this a.m. .Go to the first images and you'll get N.Greenland/Canadian archipelago and the next is over the pole,which has cloud as the web image shows, but 50 miles either side is clear and full of meltwater pools,and the edge of this is polygonal ice slabs where the meltwater has separated plates of ice. This seems a lot closer to the pole than I thought it should be and wasn't present 4 days ago (on the same image-ish).

[jethro]

Interesting article here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03/goddard_polar_ice/

[tundra]

hi Jethro you beat me to it. I found the same article posted on the solar cycle 24 forum. Nothing new about melt water at the pole,or the the N.W. passage being ice free. in a cooling world the AGW crowd have got to pin there beliefs on whatever little spurious information they can find.

[0000]

If you're worried about all the ice throw some rock salt on it.............or have I missed the point??

[Richie V]

hi Jethro you beat me to it. I found the same article posted on the solar cycle 24 forum. Nothing new about melt water at the pole,or the the N.W. passage being ice free. in a cooling world the AGW crowd have got to pin there beliefs on whatever little spurious information they can find.

"Someone is apparently having trouble reading maps at either the BBC and/or NSIDC."

As I've said before these organisations show an amazing amount of zero credibilty and something should be done about it. It's a waste of everyones time and money, I think a round of lay offs may wake them up. Sensationalised lies is all they seem to be intereasted in and I'm surprised that they think that the world believes them because It's patiently obvious that most of us don't, (me included)

Edited July 4, 2008 by Chassisbot

[0000]

"Someone is apparently having trouble reading maps at either the BBC and/or NSIDC."

As I've said before these organisations show an amazing amount of zero credibilty and something should be done about it. It's a waste of everyones time and money, I think a round of lay offs may wake them up. Sensationalised lies is all they seem to be intereasted in and I'm surprised that they think that the world believes them because It's patiently obvious that most of us don't, (me included) :lol:

Are you accusing the BBC of having their pants on fire?

[Richie V]

Are you accusing the BBC of having their pants on fire?

Yes and global warming did it!

[Gray-Wolf]

At last Hannegan, someone to throw things back into some kind of civil disorder .

When it's getting close to 'the finish line' folk tend to shout louder and become more agitated. Maybe an ice free pole is too much like a 'finish line' so folk need to move it back a little.

"........nothing to see here, before sat images the pole was always ice free................."

[0000]

At last Hannegan, someone to throw things back into some kind of civil disorder .

When it's getting close to 'the finish line' folk tend to shout louder and become more agitated. Maybe an ice free pole is too much like a 'finish line' so folk need to move it back a little.

"........nothing to see here, before sat images the pole was always ice free................."

shall we take up ice free pole dancing for the xmas party GW?

[Richie V]

At last Hannegan, someone to throw things back into some kind of civil disorder .

When it's getting close to 'the finish line' folk tend to shout louder and become more agitated. Maybe an ice free pole is too much like a 'finish line' so folk need to move it back a little.

"........nothing to see here, before sat images the pole was always ice free................."

Are you a betting man gray?? :lol:

Fancy a little wager?

Would you put a few quid on the melt been equal or more severe than '07? lol :lol:

And for the next 5 years at that????

Edited July 4, 2008 by Chassisbot

[0000]

Are you a betting man gray??

Fancy a little wager?

Would you put a few quid on the melt been equal or more severe than '07? lol :lol:

Hells bells! save ya bets for Newmarket man :lol: BTW GW........... You must pop into banter more often me matey hardly see you there atm :lol: erm.........oo look ice (that kept me on topic I feel)

Edited July 4, 2008 by hannegan

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Interesting article here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03/goddard_polar_ice/

The AGW spin does the argument of CO2 no favours.....good

BFTP

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa3.jpg

Web cam 1 hasn't updated (maybe it sank ) but the 'fisheye' cam has and show another sunny day at the pole (above).

Again, it would appear that folk are playing 'Pedant King' again (Register article).It neither moves their argument forward nor does it help in our greater understanding.

Of course we've smashed the ice at the pole with our nuclear subs, of course 'tears' in the ice have drifted over the pole before .What was being proposed by NASA/NSIDC/NOAA is contiguous open water all the way from Bering to ,and beyond, the pole.

Now people of 'normal' intelligence don't seem to have a problem understanding how 'unique' this would be....the rest of the nit pickers.....well

[SnowBear]

GW, dont think NOAA Cam 1 updates that often does it?

It seems to be updated at a period of over twelve hours at times.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/gallery_np_selectall.php

I did a search on Cam 1, between July 1st and July 5th, and by the looks of it we may be looking for an update around 1300-1500?

[SnowBear]

Above link fails as its a query on a database, try this and look for NOAA 1 from 1st July to 5th July 2008, time range "all" and thumbnailed.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/index.php?year=2008