Arctic Ice 2009

[Higher Ground]

Other measures of global warming can be mis-construed but not the dwindling ice pack and the rapid melt from Greenland.

That's if the question is whether global warming has been occurring.

It's a different matter if the question is how fast the underlying global warming is occurring. Then not taking into account cyclical processes such as AMO/PDO etc may be taken as mis-construing, when projecting from recent unusually low Arctic summer ice extents and upswing in Greenland melt to an imminent ice-free Arctic Ocean etc.

Note here in Figs 1 and 3 the peak in late 2006 in warmth of Atlantic water flowing into Arctic ocean through Fram Strait:

http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satell...the-fram-strait

It's not surprising that this was followed by Arctic summers 2007 and 2008. But what happens next?

Note my links in previous post re: Arctic cooling back to 2002 levels. If this persists, then it's plausible we will see this reflected to some degree (with a lag) in summer ice extent, Greenland melt etc. I'm not suggesting a massive recovery, but I'm countering the impression that the Arctic is in some kind of fast runaway process when actually it's more complicated with cyclical variations over a longer-term trend.

Chris

[jethro]

We won't know until the end of the summer whether it's been a bad year for melt, or not. Anything other than official figures of extent/thickness is mere postulation. Even those figures shouldn't have too much read into them; we have variable summer weather here too. This June may be warmer/colder than the previous one, or indeed differ from the long term average but it's still only weather and not an indication of climate change - man-made or otherwise.

Looking at warm plumes arriving two weeks previously than last year is absurd, have we just experienced an identical two weeks of weather, as we did this time last year and every year prior to that?

[Iceberg]

Doctormog,

Morning, I was purely pointing out the forecast for a strong plume of warm/hor air to feed it's way into the hudson, at a semi-reliable timeframe, the 30C came from the same GFS model as the 15C.

Below are a couple of screen shots from your links, which clearly shows that temps are going to be considerably up on those experienced so far this year (temps of 28C are shown on these foecasts, but whether the temp is 28 or 30, it's going to be 6-10C above what is normal for that time of year and this will obviously have an effect on the ice.

I agree that the arctic has by large been average to cool so far this melt season, which makes the situation worse and not better IMO, IF the plumes continue as forecast then this will not be a good season for ice retention. The set up of the arctic Jet is very different to last year and is allow some extremely warmer pockets of air to filter northwards.

The evidence is for all to see, falling arctic ice volumns far worse than anything predicted a few years ago, if I am wrong I will happily hold me hands up and say I am wrong, however last year of the 6 predictions I made 5 were correct and last year was not a good year for the ice.

I have yet to see any evidence that points to this season being anything other than another bad season for the ice.

[jethro]

But where is the evidence that any of that is as a direct result of AGW?

[Iceberg]

We won't know until the end of the summer whether it's been a bad year for melt, or not. Anything other than official figures of extent/thickness is mere postulation. Even those figures shouldn't have too much read into them; we have variable summer weather here too. This June may be warmer/colder than the previous one, or indeed differ from the long term average but it's still only weather and not an indication of climate change - man-made or otherwise.

Looking at warm plumes arriving two weeks previously than last year is absurd, have we just experienced an identical two weeks of weather, as we did this time last year and every year prior to that?

Jethro this is a thread to discuss what is happening to the arctic ice so warm plumes are vital, weather is vital.

There seems to be a few people that want to just wait and see what the summer brings, fine there is nothing wrong in that, however if others want to dicuss and postulate why the ice is melting then let them.

(it's the equavalent of saying lets not have a thread to discuss the upcoming winter in autumn, lets wait and see what happens instead).

Feel free to laugh at their postulations when the final figures are in, but not many people laughed last year or the year before that, or tbh the other 10 years that I have been monitoring and postulating about arctic ice on forums in the UK.

I've never said it's all a direct result of AGW.

[doctormog]

Doctormog,

Morning, I was purely pointing out the forecast for a strong plume of warm/hor air to feed it's way into the hudson, at a semi-reliable timeframe, the 30C came from the same GFS model as the 15C.

Below are a couple of screen shots from your links, which clearly shows that temps are going to be considerably up on those experienced so far this year (temps of 28C are shown on these foecasts, but whether the temp is 28 or 30, it's going to be 6-10C above what is normal for that time of year and this will obviously have an effect on the ice.

I agree that the arctic has by large been average to cool so far this melt season, which makes the situation worse and not better IMO, IF the plumes continue as forecast then this will not be a good season for ice retention. The set up of the arctic Jet is very different to last year and is allow some extremely warmer pockets of air to filter northwards.

The evidence is for all to see, falling arctic ice volumns far worse than anything predicted a few years ago, if I am wrong I will happily hold me hands up and say I am wrong, however last year of the 6 predictions I made 5 were correct and last year was not a good year for the ice.

I have yet to see any evidence that points to this season being anything other than another bad season for the ice.

Not sure if the screen shots posted OK?

As for a "bad season" do you have specific threshold criteria to meet that description? As a bad year could be anything from below the long term climatic average melt to worse than 2007. I'd expect the former but probably not the latter.

As ever time will tell. I'm not a big one for making predictions but as I've mentioned a couple of times the outlook from the North American Sea Ice Center doesn't suggest that they expect an especially "bad" season, although probably "worse" than the long term climatic mean. Any thoughts on that forecast (or why you might be correct and they might be incorrect)?

Simply put in 2 questions, do you agree with their outlook and what defines a "bad season" for you? :unsure:

[Thundery wintry showers]

Exactly, this is a thread to discuss the Arctic ice- including educated speculation as to what might happen, as well as what is happening. It is a poor line of argument to insist that one is certain about what will happen over the coming months, but there's nothing wrong with speculating about what might happen, while recognising that it is speculative. Otherwise we will lose an important aspect of the discussion.

I was quite optimistic about ice retention until about a month ago, hopeful of a second successive year of slight recovery, but at the moment the omens look pretty bad and I am concerned that we could see another low similar to 2007. The anomalously significant breaking up of the internal ice, the high pressure settling over the pole and the warm plumes do not inspire confidence.

Hust because someone happens to think that the ice looks like having a major melt this summer, it does not mean that he or she blames it on AGW. The evidence continues to suggest to me that the main reasons for the melt are tied in with natural cycles, with a bit of added AGW influence on top. It is probable that if there was no AGW we would still be getting significant melting of the polar ice cap but perhaps not quite as rapid.

[Iceberg]

Not sure if the screen shots posted OK?

As for a "bad season" do you have specific threshold criteria to meet that description? As a bad year could be anything from below the long term climatic average melt to worse than 2007. I'd expect the former but probably not the latter.

As ever time will tell. I'm not a big one for making predictions but as I've mentioned a couple of times the outlook from the North American Sea Ice Center doesn't suggest that they expect an especially "bad" season, although probably "worse" than the long term climatic mean. Any thoughts on that forecast (or why you might be correct and they might be incorrect)?

Simply put in 2 questions, do you agree with their outlook and what defines a "bad season" for you? :unsure:

2008 was the second lowest on record by a long way, on the spring watch Arctic thread I put specific values as to what would be a good and bad year. I think you need to look at the drivers as well, much as you do with global temperature.

If you've got a strong La Nina, low solar etc then a top 10 year is bad IMO.

If you've got a strong El Nino and everything that goes with it than a to Top 10 year might not be so bad.

Personally if things pan out like I think then a bad year would be anything below 2008.

I think the forecast was pretty good and I don't presume to suggest I know more than they do, however what I've seen indicates to me that this will be another bad year.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'd agree that it feels quite Alien to me to be on a weather site and be bemoaned if we wish to forecast! Up on the models thread folk are asked to back up there forecasts with the model evidence and so it should be here. To think that there are still folk out there unwilling to accept the implication of what we are seeing is mind boggling (to me) Esp. seeing as we are on a site dealing with weather and climate.

Folk are quite willing to look at ENSO or PDO and make LRF's on the basis of there 'state' but not so if it happens to be Arctic Amplification (PDO is in it's infancy being only twenty odd years as a recognised driver....god bless the salmon eh?....so why not the A.A. now that we have a good number of Autumns where it has presented?) Low summer ice and the implications on rainfall/snowfall is another area that now, seeing as we have such low ice levels these days ,can be forecast.

Methane concentrations over the Arctic would appear to go hand in hand with ice loss with the recent spikes from ice free coastlines (seeing as the warmth penetrates up to 1800km inland) and this too would seem to nark some folk (esp. those who want it to have happened on a long term cycle as the evidence from these novel spikes appears to be absent from our paleo records as a long cycle regular event).

I am still awaiting the evidence to show that we are not entering a new phase of climate for the planet (certainly since the collapse of the Laurentide ice sheet) and are not just in some post ice age long term cycle (not that I wouldn't welcome such evidence with open arms of course ) but so far all I can see is the recent (past 150yrs) shift towards an ice free summer arctic/melted out permafrost/thinner Greenland ice sheet/loss of glaciers/loss of ice shelves and our seasonal 'watch' on here does nothing but reinforce those notions.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[stewfox]

2008 was the second lowest on record by a long way

2nd lowest in last 7 years or last 10,000 years ?

Real months of interest will be July and August

There is not much divergence pre 1st July

[pottyprof]

Have removed and edited several posts on here. Please keep on topic.

Ta Muchly. <_<

[Gray-Wolf]

It is probable that if there was no AGW we would still be getting significant melting of the polar ice cap but perhaps not quite as rapid.

This seems to be the point where folk differ. The recent onslaught of melt upon melt has not allowed the 'normal' regional rebuild of ice allowing us to go beyond natural recovery points and into the land of no return.

We may only have added a small amount but ,as we all say, it's the straw that breaks the Camel's back and we ,IMHO, are the Camel in this instance. :lol:

[Thundery wintry showers]

However, that statement can only be opinion and not fact, since we have no way of knowing whether such 'normal' rebuild of ice would have also been suppressed due to the rate of warming even if there hadn't been any AGW. For to know that, we have to fully understand the mechanisms in the Arctic and know how much of a contribution AGW is making.

I don't deny that the ice melting is a major problem and that AGW is probably a contributory factor, but it has to be remembered that the Arctic ice has melted before, with the Earth's temperatures much higher, and it didn't cause a warming/melting loop beyond a tipping point that was impossible to recover. Otherwise there would be no ice in the Arctic today.

And in this case it is difficult to see AGW being likely to create an extra tipping point that didn't exist before, given that even the mainstream climate scientists generally agree that natural factors outweigh AGW as far as the main reasons for the melt are concerned.

[MR EXTREMES]

tws indeed your post makes alot of sence,

i watched a tv program on ice last night on the eden channel,

and i must admit i was gobsmacked greenland ice decline has been pretty dramatic and it would seem around the arctic cycle its been just as bad.

so there is a sence of worry and warming very much a factor,

but it would seem since the making of this a increase has happened and correct me if im wrong but this is likely to be because of the recent la nina?

but with a el nino building the impact could be bad again.

and as each melt happens the less ice is left for the next year and so on,

what i was hoping for was that the recent build in 08/09 might continue for some years ahead,

and to me its unclear why we had such a cold winter and why the arctic was colder,

when ice recovery happens in the arctic it seems to get less research than when it melts.

what happen with 08/09 recovery is one factor in knowing whether this was a one off event or a prolonged spell of arctic ice build,

it would be nice to know some different idears other than record melting.

if a good refreeze were to continue in 09/10 and so on then i dont think there be any reason to worry to much for now anyway.

but at the moment information is sketchy to say the least.

apart from its clear there has been some pretty dramatic melts over the years.

[jethro]

Badboy, I too saw that program last night, it was interesting but certainly very one sided and limited in the information they chose to broadcast.

The time period referred to when discussing "record ice losses" is rather misleading, it sounds as though it's an incredibly long time span, that we've monitored ice for decades, maybe even centuries and we've never seen such little ice. In fact the records begin in 1979, the time span referred to is no more than 30 years.

I know we're all supposed to work in 30 year spans when discussing averages for climate, but records for high/low temperatures, rain fall, snow depth etc do have centuries of information against which to check, so when they are broken it means something significant.

In the '60's and '70's cold temperatures and ice growth was so prolific that the idea of another impending ice age was mooted by some scientists. Records beginning in 1979 start from a time with an unusually high point for Arctic ice, this in it's self skews the record if we're looking to establish an average.

If we had such detailed records from the earlier years of the 20th century, the '20's and '30's, today's ice levels would not appear so decimated. We know from various ships logs and explorers records that that period also saw a sharp decline in Arctic ice.

There are cycles in the natural world which periodically cause a completely natural decline in Arctic ice, with or without our input, ice would have declined from the high point at the end of the 1970's.

At the very most we may have enhanced that melt a little.

For a more informed, balanced, peer reviewed scientific view without the hype type "Polyakov" into Google. He's a world renowned scientist, approved and used by the IPCC who has done detailed studies of ocean currents and their impact within the Arctic circle. I think his last paper is a few years old now but none the less, the information about cycles of ocean currents is still valid.

[Devonian]

However, that statement can only be opinion and not fact, since we have no way of knowing whether such 'normal' rebuild of ice would have also been suppressed due to the rate of warming even if there hadn't been any AGW. For to know that, we have to fully understand the mechanisms in the Arctic and know how much of a contribution AGW is making.

I don't deny that the ice melting is a major problem and that AGW is probably a contributory factor, but it has to be remembered that the Arctic ice has melted before, with the Earth's temperatures much higher, and it didn't cause a warming/melting loop beyond a tipping point that was impossible to recover. Otherwise there would be no ice in the Arctic today. :o

Isn't this a question of time scales? Yes, it seems that with a globe set up in a similar way to today Arctic sea ice has been absent before, but, isn't it the case that if it goes it goes for a considerable (beyond human time scales) time?

And in this case it is difficult to see AGW being likely to create an extra tipping point that didn't exist before, given that even the mainstream climate scientists generally agree that natural factors outweigh AGW as far as the main reasons for the melt are concerned.

Is it? I don't see how a several degree anthro global warming (if it happens) wouldn't be significant to the poles as well?

Edited June 19, 2009 by Devonian

[Solar Cycles]

Badboy, I too saw that program last night, it was interesting but certainly very one sided and limited in the information they chose to broadcast.

The time period referred to when discussing "record ice losses" is rather misleading, it sounds as though it's an incredibly long time span, that we've monitored ice for decades, maybe even centuries and we've never seen such little ice. In fact the records begin in 1979, the time span referred to is no more than 30 years.

I know we're all supposed to work in 30 year spans when discussing averages for climate, but records for high/low temperatures, rain fall, snow depth etc do have centuries of information against which to check, so when they are broken it means something significant.

In the '60's and '70's cold temperatures and ice growth was so prolific that the idea of another impending ice age was mooted by some scientists. Records beginning in 1979 start from a time with an unusually high point for Arctic ice, this in it's self skews the record if we're looking to establish an average.

If we had such detailed records from the earlier years of the 20th century, the '20's and '30's, today's ice levels would not appear so decimated. We know from various ships logs and explorers records that that period also saw a sharp decline in Arctic ice.

There are cycles in the natural world which periodically cause a completely natural decline in Arctic ice, with or without our input, ice would have declined from the high point at the end of the 1970's.

At the very most we may have enhanced that melt a little.

For a more informed, balanced, peer reviewed scientific view without the hype type "Polyakov" into Google. He's a world renowned scientist, approved and used by the IPCC who has done detailed studies of ocean currents and their impact within the Arctic circle. I think his last paper is a few years old now but none the less, the information about cycles of ocean currents is still valid.

Exactly my point I was trying to make previously in the arctic thread. 30 years of records, is but a tiny blip in the grander scheme of ice loss/recovery. Off course it's worrying when you compare today to 30 years ago, but this could easily flip the other way in no time at all.

[Devonian]

Exactly my point I was trying to make previously in the arctic thread. 30 years of records, is but a tiny blip in the grander scheme of ice loss/recovery. Off course it's worrying when you compare today to 30 years ago, but this could easily flip the other way in no time at all.

But, if you are saying we have only thirty years record how do you know it's not a major change?

[Methuselah]

At the very most we may have enhanced that melt a little.

Good post, Jethro. But, isn't your statement a leap of faith? :o

[karyo]

I don't deny that the ice melting is a major problem and that AGW is probably a contributory factor, but it has to be remembered that the Arctic ice has melted before, with the Earth's temperatures much higher, and it didn't cause a warming/melting loop beyond a tipping point that was impossible to recover. Otherwise there would be no ice in the Arctic today. :o

Somebody can read pages and pages of information and conflicting views on Artic ice but the above paragraph just hits the nail on the head!

Karyo

[jethro]

Good post, Jethro. But, isn't your statement a leap of faith? :o

Morning Pete,

No it isn't (honestly), it is the conclusion reached by Polyakov in his papers.

[Solar Cycles]

But, if you are saying we have only thirty years record how do you know it's not a major change?

Fair point Dev, I don't, just as anyone who say's it is does! That's the point though Dev, we are making assumptions about something we know little about!

[jethro]

Fair point Dev, I don't, just as anyone who say's it is does! That's the point though Dev, we are making assumptions about something we know little about!

Actually we do have a fair idea of what was happening in the earlier years of the 20th century from ships logs and the info from Russia which was fairly recently de-classified.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Isn't this a question of time scales? Yes, it seems that with a globe set up in a similar way to today Arctic sea ice has been absent before, but, isn't it the case that if it goes it goes for a considerable (beyond human time scales) time?

Yes it does- which is a serious problem. However, the fact that it has happened before means that it might not be quite as disastrous as Gray-Wolf often makes out, or impossible to recover (we don't even know if it's going to become absent in the near future, though omens do not look good).

Is it? I don't see how a several degree anthro global warming (if it happens) wouldn't be significant to the poles as well?

If it did happen it probably would be significant, but Gray-Wolf's arguments are implying that this is already the case despite only a modest amount of AGW.

Will look at those papers when I get time, probably tonight or on Sunday evening. I wouldn't be surprised to see the conclusions amount to a similar leap of faith in the papers, but we will see!

[Devonian]

Fair point Dev, I don't, just as anyone who say's it is does! That's the point though Dev, we are making assumptions about something we know little about!

Huh? What assumption?

I don't think the data we have about ice is 30 years only. I think there is good data for about a century and plenty of evidence about ice extent going much further back (derived from sea floor cores for example). I think there is good reason to think ice loss atm is unusually large. Not assumption, good reason.

Yes it does- which is a serious problem. However, the fact that it has happened before means that it might not be quite as disastrous as Gray-Wolf often makes out, or impossible to recover (we don't even know if it's going to become absent in the near future, though omens do not look good).

If it did happen it probably would be significant, but Gray-Wolf's arguments are implying that this is already the case despite only a modest amount of AGW.

Oh, yes, atm ice loss is only, I guess, of unusual magnitude not complete.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Devonian