Arctic Ice

[noggin]

But wont all that first year ice that has survived, be second year ice and that be much thicker so it takes longer to melt and more will survive as third year ice

That makes sense to me.........a "rebuild" has to start somewhere.

[Gray-Wolf]

That makes sense to me.........a "rebuild" has to start somewhere.

Most of the 'suviving ice' has gone through a summer and if you look at the way the ice circulates up there you'll see it has already experienced an amount of melt.

When the ice was less mobile, due to the perennial 'locking' sections in place, then the ice built over a single year would?? maintain it's thickness (if trapped far enough north), sadly a combination of poor ice growth over last winter and a moe 'mobile' pack would suggest that a significant proportion of the remaining single year is, by now, quite weak.

The other point being the trade off between perennial and single year survival. Which would be more useful in any 'recovery'? my monies on the perennial esp. if next melt season draws the ice towards warmer waters as 5m of ice will endure better than 2m of ice.

As a footnote I'd like to remind folk that only the countries wishing to exploit the actic would seem to harbour any wishes to see the current tend of ice mass loss continue but we all must try and remain objective however dire our minds tell us that the situation within the Arctic is.

[jethro]

Some interesting reading regarding short/long term changes in the Arctic and Greenland and how they have varied significantly in relatively recent times.

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/MattCron...0-30vs95-05.pdf

Conclusion:

[18] iv) The Greenland warming of the 1995–2005 period is similar to the warming of 1920–1930, although

the rate of temperature increase was by about 50% higher during the 1920–1930 warming period.

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu:8080/~igo...mplif/index.php

Conclusion:

In summary, if we accept that long-term SAT trends are a reasonable measure of climate change, then we conclude that the data do not support the hypothesized polar amplification of global warming.

Also:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Rind.pdf

CONCLUDING REMARKS. As noted in the introduction, over the past 25 yr we have not been able to quantitatively improve our understanding of low- and high-latitude (or even global) climate sensitivity.

That does not mean we have not learned many things; we are more knowledgeable about why models are getting different responses in various locations, and, as the preceding discussion has shown, we are in a position to better understand the consequences of not knowing these sensitivities. However, at this point the uncertainties in latitudinal temperature gradient changes affect the confidence we can have in many of our projections of atmospheric dynamic and hydrologic responses to global warming.

[stewfox]

http://www.iceagenow.com/Meteorologist_rej...20clap-trap.htm

I post this again, as the warmers seemed to have overlooked it.

At this rate, 2005 will soon be caught.

Yes its a pity its not been picked up , as you say at the current rate 2005 and 2006 looks like been over taken in next few weeks

Interesting to see if the extend of sea ice is greater then 2003 by season end

Time will tell

[Iceberg]

I can't for the life of me see what there is major to pick up on.

That we have less ice currently than any year except for last year. That we are 2million less than the average currently and that we have been for the last few 5 weeks ?.

Are you saying that we are expecting a maximum ice extent this year ?, or even a near maximum ?.

[stewfox]

I can't for the life of me see what there is major to pick up on.

That we have less ice currently than any year except for last year. That we are 2million less than the average currently and that we have been for the last few 5 weeks ?.

Are you saying that we are expecting a maximum ice extent this year ?, or even a near maximum ?.

The recovery is amazing and the cira 1m ice deficient cf 2005 in early sept 2008 now looks like about £200k deficit (the red and light green line)

At this rate 2005 will be the first year to be over taken by the rapid re freeze in the next 2 weeks

I dont know how the red line will finally pan out but amazing recovery

[Iceberg]

Sorry not trying to labour a point but....

The recovery is pretty much in line with what normally happens in October hence why the anomaly is 2 million down and has stayed 2 million down throughout Autumn.

If the rates of increase continue etc then it might be noteworthy but at the moment nothing has really happened which doesn't happen every year.

Unlike the Spring where valid comments where made saying that we were heading towards another record breaking year(which we only just missed, As viewable above).

I don't believe anybody is saying that we are heading towards even a normal Arctic Winter ice wise ?.

[Mondy]

Sorry not trying to labour a point but....

The recovery is pretty much in line with what normally happens in October hence why the anomaly is 2 million down and has stayed 2 million down throughout Autumn.

If the rates of increase continue etc then it might be noteworthy but at the moment nothing has really happened which doesn't happen every year.

Unlike the Spring where valid comments where made saying that we were heading towards another record breaking year(which we only just missed, As viewable above).

I don't believe anybody is saying that we are heading towards even a normal Arctic Winter ice wise ?.

Perhaps you'd like to take a look at these charts:

Then once you've scrutinised them, head over to here and join the conversation - your input may be welcome from an alarmists POV.

Edited October 7, 2008 by Delta X-Ray

[stewfox]

Sorry not trying to labour a point but....

The recovery is pretty much in line with what normally happens in October hence why the anomaly is 2 million down and has stayed 2 million down throughout Autumn.

If the rates of increase continue etc then it might be noteworthy but at the moment nothing has really happened which doesn't happen every year.

Unlike the Spring where valid comments where made saying that we were heading towards another record breaking year(which we only just missed, As viewable above).

I don't believe anybody is saying that we are heading towards even a normal Arctic Winter ice wise ?.

Based only on the graph

Around Sept 7^th we had 4.8 million sq kms of ice for 2008 (see red line) , with people still suggesting on this forum might beat the 2007 year (see dark yellow line)

At that time it was about 1million sq kms short of the 2005 figure (Light green)

By early October the 2008 figure (red line) has gone to 5.8km2 up 1million square km

The 2005 figure has increase cira 400,000 square kilometres in that time

So its already clawed back 600,000km2 on 2005 and all the years above

Wether this continues who knows but still remarkable

Were in early October and ice is almost back to where it was in 2005

Reminds me of the flim Jaws where he shows him a picture of a shark and the guy sees 'seeweed'. I guess we see what we want to

[jethro]

No one interested in the historical and cyclical changes in the Arctic?

No comments?

How can many on here be so convinced that what we see happening today is unique and due to AGW, when the data records clearly show this not to be so? We're not talking eons ago, when the continents were configured differently but within our grandparent's lifetimes of the 1920's & 30's. Did the ice vanish after that period? Why the certainty that it will today, if it didn't back then?

[Gray-Wolf]

Sorry no-one else has input from your efforts Jethro. I read through them and raised an eyebrow then I 'googled' Greenland melting and got so many pages of articles, spanning the last 15yrs, of concerns about rates of melt, impacts of melt, underestimation of melt and of course the 50 billion barrels of oil beneath "that pesky skin of ice".

I conclude that things are very different today than the 20's/30's (when we had introduced quite a whack of CO2 into the atmosphere-though one of the papers denies this) and sadly the papers do not go beyond 2005 (meaning they were in 'construction' when we had that 'fantastic' [for then] ice loss both in the Arctic and over Greenland's uplands).

Since the 1850's we (Europe/US) have acted like a permanent eruption coating the ice dome in sooty deposits. As snow melts it effectively 'concentrates' the deposits into a dark surface layer enabling it to absorb 4 times the suns energy a 'pure snow'. This is not a natural phenomena and so the melt promoted is not 'cyclical' in any way and impacts greatly on the stability of both the Dome and the glaciers it feeds.

If we have induced 'temperature rises' then we have given Greenland a double whammy!

All this said we had better hope that the phase 1 heating (up to 1940) was 'cyclical' and not man made as if it were then the curtain from the dimmed period is still lifting and we can expect much more of the same (with cyclical variations of course ).

[stewfox]

No one interested in the historical and cyclical changes in the Arctic?

No comments?

How can many on here be so convinced that what we see happening today is unique and due to AGW, when the data records clearly show this not to be so? We're not talking eons ago, when the continents were configured differently but within our grandparent's lifetimes of the 1920's & 30's. Did the ice vanish after that period? Why the certainty that it will today, if it didn't back then?

You have a number of cruise ships lining up to cross the artic each summer, not in their interest to hear about reversals, in fact I bet there tipping hot water out of the ships as we speak !

ps must be getting old the 30s was in my parents life time

[Roger J Smith]

Much to ponder in those three papers, Jethro, I find the second one particularly interesting with the variations in ice north of Eurasia. It might take some time for me to find any pattern that I could relate to existing theory in my own research. The more obvious cause and effect for the variations shown would have to be natural forcing, with some role for AGW towards the end of the series perhaps.

By the way, the western Canadian arctic is about to be hit by very strong SW veering to NW winds, milder air had made some progress north earlier this week but is now being lifted off the surface and so sub-freezing temperatures are returning rapidly with these strong winds. There should be some heavy snow laid down on some coastal regions near open water in the Beaufort Sea and south to east of Victoria Island.

All the signs are in place for a very cold winter in western regions of North America extending well into the central third as well, but as expected the first phase of this is likely to be a warm October and possibly November in the central plains and part of the prairies. Then this warmth will be flushed to the east by swelling arctic highs that seem favoured to locate over the Mackenzie valley. I think this will be a pattern likely to induce rapid freeze-up of Hudson Bay and extended ice-free conditions east of Baffin Island, setting up a strong vortex near Iqualuit to northern Ungava (Hudson Strait region in other words). Draw your own conclusions as to ice forecasts for these regions. The main item of interest will then be how Greenland interacts with this set-up, could be cut off with its own high trying to ridge east to northern Scandinavia.

Watching the arctic closely may help us to make better long-range forecasts further south. Mine are listed here on my new website (despite the .com, no commercial application at present).

http://futureweatherinc.com

Edited October 8, 2008 by Roger J Smith

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

The main item of interest will then be how Greenland interacts with this set-up, could be cut off with its own high trying to ridge east to northern Scandinavia.

Watching the arctic closely may help us to make better long-range forecasts further south. Mine are listed here on my new website (despite the .com, no commercial application at present).

http://futureweatherinc.com

WAA upt he western flank Of Greenland? Formation of 'real' GHP?

BFTP

[Gray-Wolf]

Satellite Data Reveals Extreme Summer Snowmelt In Northern Greenland

ScienceDaily (Oct. 8, 2008) —

The northern part of the Greenland ice sheet experienced extreme snowmelt during the summer of 2008, with large portions of the area subject to record melting days, according to Dr. Marco Tedesco, Assistant Professor of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at The City College of New York (CCNY), and colleagues.

Their conclusion is based on an analysis of microwave brightness temperature recorded by the Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) onboard the F13 satellite.

"Having such extreme melting so far north, where it is usually colder than the southern regions is extremely interesting," Professor Tedesco said. "In 2007, the record occurred in southern Greenland, mostly at high elevation areas where in 2008 extreme snowmelt occurred along the northern coast."

Melting in northern Greenland lasted up to 18 days longer than previous maximum values. The melting index, i.e. the number of melting days times the area subject to melting) was three times greater than the 1979–2007 average, with 1.545•106 square kilometers x days.

"The results obtained from SSM/I are consistent with the outputs of the MAR (Modèl Atmosphérique Régional) regional climate model, which indicated runoff 88 percent higher than the 1979 – 2007 mean and close to the 2007 value," Professor Tedesco noted. In addition, analysis of ground measurements from World Meteorological Organization automatic weather stations located close to where the record snowmelt was observed indicate surface/air maximum temperatures up to 3° Celsius above average.

The snowmelt and temperature anomalies occurred near Ellesmere Island, where several ice shelf break-ups were observed this summer. The region where the record melting days were recorded includes the Petermann glacier, which lost 29 square kilometers in July.

Professor Tedesco and his colleagues are currently analyzing possible causes for the high snowmelt in northern Greenland. High surface temperatures are, so far, the most evident factor. However other factors, such as solar radiation, could play a role, as well, he noted.

"The consistency of satellite, model and ground-based results provides a basis for a more robust analysis and synthesis tool," Professor Tedesco added. Next June, he and his colleagues plan to conduct field work in northern Greenland.

The findings were reported in the October 6 edition of "EOS," a weekly newspaper published by the American Geophysical Union.

Edited October 8, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[Mondy]

Looking fantastic already (early October).

Looking forward to the growth punching through 2002-7 levels and keeping growing (you can quote me on that should it not)

[stewfox]

Looking fantastic already (early October).

Looking forward to the growth punching through 2002-7 levels and keeping growing (you can quote me on that should it not)

I would expect a quick re freeze if some of the high artic first year ice went but I can’t explain the red line

What’s going on?

I know it doesn’t sit comfortably with some but even so …..

What’s your take on it Delta ??

[Nick L]

That surely has to be an error! It is recovering incredibly fast! Let's hope it can continue.

[Mondy]

I would expect a quick re freeze if some of the high artic first year ice went but I can't explain the red line

What's going on?

I know it doesn't sit comfortably with some but even so …..

What's your take on it Delta ??

My take is pretty straight-forward. It's very cold up there, overall infact. Plus, the winds are different this year, so no hammering the ice naturally, which occured last year. It had nothing to do with CO2, agw, ghg etc..the winds what done it!

Below is proof of the above graph (ice extent) Wow!

- DATE - EXTENT(KM²) DAILY GROWTH(KM²)

9 18 2008 4,736,406 17,812

9 19 2008 4,745,000 8,594

9 20 2008 4,752,500 7,500

9 21 2008 4,773,750 21,250

9 22 2008 4,809,219 35,469

9 23 2008 4,873,125 63,906

9 24 2008 4,878,750 5,625

9 25 2008 4,873,750 -5,000

9 26 2008 4,945,313 71,563

9 27 2008 5,003,906 58,593

9 28 2008 5,036,406 32,500

9 29 2008 5,095,156 58,750

9 30 2008 5,220,313 125,157

10 1 2008 5,335,156 114,843

10 2 2008 5,384,688 49,532

10 3 2008 5,526,406 141,718

10 4 2008 5,635,781 109,375

10 5 2008 5,731,406 95,625

10 6 2008 5,849,219 117,813

10 7 2008 5,999,063 149,844

10 8 2008 6,209,219 210,156

Edited October 9, 2008 by Delta X-Ray

[Roger J Smith]

Most of this rapid ice growth is to the north of eastern Siberia, I note that the ice margin has advanced steadily from about 79 N mid-September to an average of 76 N today, the range is about 74 to 78 N through that sector. There has also been some advance west of Banks Island in the Beaufort Sea and new ice in some protected channels of the Canadian arctic islands. This should accelerate with -10 C air over the region now and for several more days. The relative max in ice-free conditions around 70 E has not been altered much, there is still open water to 82 N there.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80930081355.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80929093754.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...81008114518.htm

More info on Greenland.

Edited October 10, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[stewfox]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80930081355.htm

More info on Greenland.

Clutching at straws me thinks

The report clearly states that and I'll quote

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

This sharp increase was mainly caused by the extremely warm summer of 2007, when more than 350 cubic metres of ice melted in just two months

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

I melt more ice cubes then that

:lol:

[kiwistonewall]

I would expect a quick re freeze if some of the high artic first year ice went but I can't explain the red line :o

What's going on?

I know it doesn't sit comfortably with some but even so …..

What's your take on it Delta ??

Coming back fast? Maybe not, I think the surface ice melt (identified as open water) is re-freezing, so that area (already mostly ice) is now being picked up by the data processing of the radar signals.

The freeze may not be any faster than in normal years. I think there was a lot more ice this summer, but it just didn't show up on the instruments.

Some of the speed of the 2008 melt in Sept. may have been just surface melt pools which are now freezing just as fast. (or faster)

Comparing the speed of ice growth in the 1st week of October in the last three years..

2006 59911

2007 64442

2008 101741 = 1 Million Sq kms every 9.8 days at this rate.

That's 60% "faster" than the same periods last 2 years. If I'm wrong, then there is some serious cooling going on. So I think its 60,000 sq kms/day real freeze, and 40,000 sq kms of surface melt freezing over.

Though I note that other years get up to over 100,000 sq kms /day later in October. (either real freeze or surface pools re-freezing)

If you want to check out how the computers "compute" the ice area, check out the this site

(The Goddard data:

http://nsidc.org/data/docs/daac/nasateam/index.html

The AMSR-E use different algorithms for their data, since their satellite was launched about 2002. The Goddard data goes back to 1979, but I think they used two different satellites over that time.

My point in all this is that we have radar instruments reflecting of ice/snow/water/rain and converted by a computer program to ice data based on 1 pixel per 25sqKms. The computer programs make guesses. Every year the ice is different -New, First year, multi year.

So you can't accurately compare year to year, especially in summer. But in any year, the trend from day to day is useful.

Makes for fun arguments tho', whatever "side" you are on in the great debate.

[LadyPakal]

Just popping this image in. Image shows the difference - pink colour is ice difference since 18th Sept, pale green colour shows where new snow is (white is where the snow was on 18th Sept).

Graphics from: http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims_gif/DAT...snow_alaska.gif

[Chris Knight]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...81003123248.htm

But obviously not because the couldn't Chris :o

Circumnavigation of the Arctic 2008. Nobody did it! Why not? It would have made a good series for whichever TV channel/cooperative/organization if they had chosen to do it, and the likelihood that both passages would be open in September was excellent - GW predicted it :) . I doubt if there would have been any political opposition, rather the opposite, good for both trade and tourism to publicize the Arctic in all it's glory, and potential, and to show the truth of what's really happening up there.

Perhaps next year.

Edited October 10, 2008 by Chris Knight