Arctic Ice 2009

[jethro]

Here's Polyakov's work, haven't got time to go through it all now but I think the Russian stuff is buried in there too (fingers crossed because I can't remember where I found it before).

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF15/1582.html

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

http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/people/indiv/iarc_...photo=ipolyakov

I know there's a lot there to digest but please read it; it really isn't as simple as "we've warmed the world by increasing CO2 and now the ice is melting".

[Iceberg]

I don't think anybody is saying it is as simple as that.

What people are saying is that the arctic has warmed incredibly over the last 20 years and over the last 10 years in particular by anywhere between 2-3C.

IF Polyakov is right then some of this is down to ocean current changes etc, however this would NOT account for what is or has happened.

GW could well be right in saying that AGW might have increased the Arctic melt by 20-30% more than otherwise would be the case. This 20-30% is likely/could be the different between normal ice loss and total ice loss as the Arctic is a very finely balanced system as 2007 clearly showed.

2007 and to some extent 2008 and maybe 2009 might well be the proving years that show this, they might not though, but it underlines why these years are important.

As to whether it has happened in the past, yes undoubtedly during interstadials etc but the world was a very different place back then and we don't really know what the impact will be.

We come back to the same precautionary principle as that used with AGW. Are we worried about the possibility of the consequences ?.

[jethro]

People do say the Arctic has warmed 2-3c, we're all told that Polar amplification of climate change can, will, is, happening. We're told it's a signal of climate change, that warming and as a consequence ice melt will happen first/be the worst symptom of climate change.

I ask how factual is that? It was an assumption which was made back in the early days of climate science.

Polyakov's work suggests no such Polar amplification.

"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. "

This paper was published in 2002, you could argue that ice loss since that date makes a mockery of his conclusion but in terms of actual amount of ice and the short (relatively speaking) time span since the paper, I have to ask, has much changed?

Periods of decline in ice loss, similar to today did not only happen in interstadial times, they happened in the 20th century too.

Being worried about the consequences of our actions, being good citizens, living a low impact lifestyle is a moral judgement, not scientific. I'm not mocking, I try my best to do the least possible harm to the environment but it's totally irrelevant to this discussion upon whether or not we're causing the Arctic to melt.

GW may well be right in his assumptions but where is the science to support it? I mean real, solid peer reviewed stuff, not hyped articles. My stance is we may have contributed a small amount to the warming and by extension, loss of Arctic ice; I've presented peer reviewed papers from a world expert, accepted by the IPCC to support that stance.

[Devonian]

...

This paper was published in 2002, you could argue that ice loss since that date makes a mockery of his conclusion but in terms of actual amount of ice and the short (relatively speaking) time span since the paper, I have to ask, has much changed?

...

A radical change to the age make-up of Arctic ice and two years (2007/08) when ice minimums were more than a million sq km less than other years (or, 20-30% less)?

I call that significant, I can't think how else it could be described?

Edited June 19, 2009 by Devonian

[jethro]

But that's an opinion, a perfectly valid one but just an opinion none the less.

We assume this was caused by our contribution, we assume this wouldn't have happened without our input, we assume it will have disastrous consequences, we assume we're approaching/have reached a point of no return.

Where is the solid peer reviewed stuff to support all those assumptions? We sceptics endlessly have to accept the pro AGW demands for peer reviewed support of our scepticism (quite right too by the way) I'm merely asking the same rules apply here. There's sooooo much hype about Arctic ice, let's by-pass gibberish and speculation and work from accepted science; how else do we get an accurate idea eh?

[Devonian]

How can fact be an opinion? The facts are there for all of us to see. Since 2002 the age make-up of Arctic ice has changed radically and we have seen two years with ice minimum more than a million sq Km below that of 2002.

That's not opinion, it's fact.

Now, I agree, how I describe that as 'significant' is my choice, my opinion if you like - but I put a question mark after that for precisely that reason.

[jethro]

But where is your peer reviewed evidence to support the idea that this is outside the bounds of natural variation (to a significant degree 20-30%)?

[Gray-Wolf]

C'mon now Jethro! Serreze says we have been measuring A.A. for 7 years (in sept 08') and you cite a paper from 02' (how long to compile and peer review before publishing?) that say's there is no evidence of A.A.???

Folk like badboy would welcome input of current understanding of the changes in the arctic and much has happened since 00' including the record losses of 07'/08' (which took science by surprise.....I wonder what Polyakov made of that??) and the recent losses of shelves that were remnants from the last major glaciation (strange they never melted out before eh?) plus the record melt from the North coast of Greenland (last year) which gazzumped the record losses from the East coast the year before (not to mention the opening of the deep water channel NW Passage and the northern passage) all well after Polyakov gave us his reassurances (pinch of salt required now that hindsight gives a clearer view??).

The past 7 years in the Arctic has shown us unprecedented changes beyond the experience of modern man (the same with the Antarctic shelf losses of which some date back over 100,000yrs, or so the sedimentary records would suggest).

I would love to have something happy to say but try as I might I can only internalise the info and draw my own conclusions (and they are my own and liable to change should the underlying data push me in a different direction).

I've now seen 3 years of record ice losses, collapse in ice thickness, flush out of perennial, collapse of ice shelfs (some in the Antarctic mid-winter), giant mid-winter leaders opening in the high arctic, recent hikes in the Methane levels over the arctic, Drowning polar bears ,starving Walrus's, stranded Narwhals, astonished Inuits, Siberian Methane Blow-outs. None of this goes against predictions (as I understand them) but all are many years earlier than the models predict. To me (and maybe me alone) this would suggest that the models are spot on but that we are missing some important pieces of the picture and not that the picture is wrong.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Methuselah]

But where is your peer reviewed evidence to support the idea that this is outside the bounds of natural variation (to a significant degree 20-30%)?

Hi Jethro,

Could it be that we all tend to use the adjective 'significant' without any qualifier (?) Is it statistically, hugely, slightly, marginally - or whatever 'significant'?

If so; then I'm as guilty as the next person!

[Devonian]

But where is your peer reviewed evidence to support the idea that this is outside the bounds of natural variation (to a significant degree 20-30%)?

Jethro, I repsonded to your paper of 2002 and the view things haven't changed much since then. I think they have, I think the facts show that.

Now, it's a different question to ask whether a 20-30% fall in summer minimum over half a decade (in a longer time period when sea ice has been declining) can happen naturally. The question is: can a change to Arctic climate, sea currents some other factor of the magnitude that has happened recently happen naturally? I think it's unlikely but nothing is impossible I suppose.

[jethro]

Jethro, I repsonded to your paper of 2002 and the view things haven't changed much since then. I think they have, I think the facts show that.

Now, it's a different question to ask whether a 20-30% fall in summer minimum over half a decade (in a longer time period when sea ice has been declining) can happen naturally. The question is: can a change to Arctic climate, sea currents some other factor of the magnitude that has happened recently happen naturally? I think it's unlikely but nothing is impossible I suppose.

But has the reason changed? I'm not disputing ice levels. merely asking for evidence that AGW is primarily responsible.

I'm not being funny here but given the focus upon the Arctic in recent years, given all the publicity and funds available you'd have thought they would be recent peer reviewed papers which dispute Polyakov and give reasons why. I haven't seen any. Why not?

[Gray-Wolf]

Jethro, I repsonded to your paper of 2002 and the view things haven't changed much since then. I think they have, I think the facts show that.

Now, it's a different question to ask whether a 20-30% fall in summer minimum over half a decade (in a longer time period when sea ice has been declining) can happen naturally. The question is: can a change to Arctic climate, sea currents some other factor of the magnitude that has happened recently happen naturally? I think it's unlikely but nothing is impossible I suppose.

Hi Dev!

We would (IMHO) be foolish to remove man's input. I'm sure many here see the natural systems as 'finely balanced' and so any additional load drives them away from this balance.

Continue pushing in that one direction and things will tend to collapse (we aint giving nature one tidgey shove now are we? more like a concerted and growing push).

We are fretting about ice loss whilst measuring green snow in Siberia (from the particulates dropped from the lignite power stations in China). No point in decrying our past influences when our present influences continue to accellerate in a similar direction/impact. A nonsense (IMHO).

[Devonian]

But has the reason changed? I'm not disputing ice levels. merely asking for evidence that AGW is primarily responsible.

Oh, but that is another different question. Is AGW primarily responsible? I've not mentioned AGW and I'm not sure it has played the primary role. Primary or just significant I don't know, but played a role - almost certainly I think.

I'm not being funny here but given the focus upon the Arctic in recent years, given all the publicity and funds available you'd have thought they would be recent peer reviewed papers which dispute Polyakov and give reasons why. I haven't seen any. Why not?

I think they/it exists, see for example NSIDC output, but we're just not focussed on them/it.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Devonian

[jethro]

C'mon now Jethro! Serreze says we have been measuring A.A. for 7 years (in sept 08') and you cite a paper from 02' (how long to compile and peer review before publishing?) that say's there is no evidence of A.A.???

Folk like badboy would welcome input of current understanding of the changes in the arctic and much has happened since 00' including the record losses of 07'/08' (which took science by surprise.....I wonder what Polyakov made of that??) and the recent losses of shelves that were remnants from the last major glaciation (strange they never melted out before eh?) plus the record melt from the North coast of Greenland (last year) which gazzumped the record losses from the East coast the year before (not to mention the opening of the deep water channel NW Passage and the northern passage) all well after Polyakov gave us his reassurances (pinch of salt required now that hindsight gives a clearer view??).

The past 7 years in the Arctic has shown us unprecedented changes beyond the experience of modern man (the same with the Antarctic shelf losses of which some date back over 100,000yrs, or so the sedimentary records would suggest).

I would love to have something happy to say but try as I might I can only internalise the info and draw my own conclusions (and they are my own and liable to change should the underlying data push me in a different direction).

I've now seen 3 years of record ice losses, collapse in ice thickness, flush out of perennial, collapse of ice shelfs (some in the Antarctic mid-winter), giant mid-winter leaders opening in the high arctic, recent hikes in the Methane levels over the arctic, Drowning polar bears ,starving Walrus's, stranded Narwhals, astonished Inuits, Siberian Methane Blow-outs. None of this goes against predictions (as I understand them) but all are many years earlier than the models predict. To me (and maybe me alone) this would suggest that the models are spot on but that we are missing some important pieces of the picture and not that the picture is wrong.

Can you find a more up to date one which disputes Polyakov and gives the reasons/data to support their findings? I can't.

If we are to wait for that peer reviewed study and in the meantime accept the wild speculation as fact/evidence of AGW then the same allowances must be made for sceptics opinions. Presumably I could post endless articles associated with the last few winters in both the USA and Japan as evidence that the world is cooling. How about crop losses due to late frosts? Or what about the foot of snow we got down here this year? All of this can be described as anecdotal but it's relevant whilst we await the peer reviewed study, is it not?

[Gray-Wolf]

But has the reason changed? I'm not disputing ice levels. merely asking for evidence that AGW is primarily responsible.

Who's saying "primarily responsible"? The natural systems have had their impacts on ice levels but , the evidence would suggest that they have not had a concerted melt outside a Milankovich driver (or so the sea floor sediments would suggest).

As I am fond of saying it is our impacts on top of natural variability.

07' shows what happens to a weakened pack when nature conspires along with man to melt out the pack......and this is supposed to be a regular occurrence across the pole yet we have no records from the locals or science of any such occurrence in the 19th century barring a short term melt in the 40's.

Can you find a more up to date one which disputes Polyakov and gives the reasons/data to support their findings? I can't.

If we are to wait for that peer reviewed study and in the meantime accept the wild speculation as fact/evidence of AGW then the same allowances must be made for sceptics opinions. Presumably I could post endless articles associated with the last few winters in both the USA and Japan as evidence that the world is cooling. How about crop losses due to late frosts? Or what about the foot of snow we got down here this year? All of this can be described as anecdotal but it's relevant whilst we await the peer reviewed study, is it not?

We all know we had cool winters across areas of the northern hemisphere, this IS natural variability, but we continued with the ice loss and ,in reality it accellerated with record low ice volumes recorded over an average summer which followed a cool winter.

I'd like a reasonable explaination for that if we are not at the prey of a novel driver (A.A.) above and beyond our recognised 'natural drivers'

[jethro]

Can you please post links to papers which cover up to date time periods of Arctic ice together with an in-depth comparison of historical levels? I genuinely haven't seen anything which refers to past levels too, to the depth that Polyakov uses them. All I ever see are articles which give a sweeping statement about "since records began" which is kind of meaningless for all the reasons I gave earlier.

Sorry GW but I've linked to papers to support my stance, please provide links to support yours.

And you are constantly saying we are responsible for the rapid melt. I think you possibly were the one to put a 20-30% extra due to us (?). Sceptics have to provide peer review, please do us the courtesy of playing by the same rules.

[Methuselah]

I can see no reason to doubt that AGW exists - we ARE adding C02 (together with other assorted 'nasties') to the atmosphere! But, the question is: to what degree is this significant?

All I can state (with certainty, I think?), is that AGW's component lies somewhere between 0.000...1 and 99.999r %.

Anything more than that - I cannot know...But, in agreement with GW, I suspect that AGW could be the 'straw that broke the camel's back'?

What a minefield!

[Gray-Wolf]

Population. We decide to cut infant mortality rate in the 3rd world and what happened? A little tweak to a natural (however horrid we find it) system and the whole thing is out of kilter.

When you look at how easy it is to throw nature off her balance how dare we discount it in this area?

EDIT: D'ya know what? My partners just been over to see why I'm becoming so animated at the screen and She's right, I just don't need it.

I'm sorry for the folk who would have had another input to their world view from what I see as the 'facts' but I just can't do this. I find myself in a bad place with no way out (I do wish I could see it all another way but no matter how much 'alternative' stuff I bury myself in I find my way back to the mainstream and my own experience/knowledge).

Better I focus on things I can have an influence on that sour myself away watching (what I feel is) the inevitable occur. I'm still gonna watch the melt season and will still have my take on things but I cannot argue for my beliefs (which try as I might end up the same) only to have them discarded or labelled that which they are not. Sorry Guys but I need a breather.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

To put a spin on this again. The ice loss could be described as significant BUT is it of significance?

BFTP

[Devonian]

To put a spin on this again. The ice loss could be described as significant BUT is it of significance?

BFTP

Ahh good question.

Yes, and probably?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Just had a quick read of some of Polyakov's assertions. He may well have a point- after all the Arctic has major fluctuations between cold and warm phases, there was a very warm phase around 1930-1960, a cold phase after that, and we could now be moving back into another warm phase, which would imply that the recent warming is not necessarily consistent with the AGW amplification theory.

However, after a relatively slow warming in the 1990s, the Arctic has undergone major changes since, as it happens, around 2002. Temperatures have shot up (instrumental record temp anomalies show this, and there have been increased findings of half-baked northerlies in the UK caused by an Arctic 10-15C above normal), and shortly afterwards the ice started melting rapidly.

Terminal Moraine referred to an article a while ago, also from 2002 (I can't remember who wrote it) which suggested that UK winters had got milder and less snowy primarily because of a decline in the frequency of the coldest airmasses reaching us, and that those cold air sources had not warmed significantly over the period. Since 2002, again, that appears to have ceased to be the case.

I don't know of any peer-reviewed papers that specifically attack Polyakov's assertions, but the recent instrumental records (after he released his papers) may cast some doubt on some of the lines of argument used. The main question being, after the recent acceleration of Arctic warming and melting, is it still within "natural bounds"?

[Methuselah]

To put a spin on this again. The ice loss could be described as significant BUT is it of significance?

BFTP

I just checked my Chambers Dictionary: significance = the quality of being significant. B****r!

[jethro]

Just had a quick read of some of Polyakov's assertions. He may well have a point- after all the Arctic has major fluctuations between cold and warm phases, there was a very warm phase around 1930-1960, a cold phase after that, and we could now be moving back into another warm phase, which would imply that the recent warming is not necessarily consistent with the AGW amplification theory.

However, after a relatively slow warming in the 1990s, the Arctic has undergone major changes since, as it happens, around 2002. Temperatures have shot up (instrumental record temp anomalies show this, and there have been increased findings of half-baked northerlies in the UK caused by an Arctic 10-15C above normal), and shortly afterwards the ice started melting rapidly.

Terminal Moraine referred to an article a while ago, also from 2002 (I can't remember who wrote it) which suggested that UK winters had got milder and less snowy primarily because of a decline in the frequency of the coldest airmasses reaching us, and that those cold air sources had not warmed significantly over the period. Since 2002, again, that appears to have ceased to be the case.

I don't know of any peer-reviewed papers that specifically attack Polyakov's assertions, but the recent instrumental records (after he released his papers) may cast some doubt on some of the lines of argument used. The main question being, after the recent acceleration of Arctic warming and melting, is it still within "natural bounds"?

Thank you TWS, a reasoned response.

Just to confuse the issue further, the station data which was used to compile Polyakov's work is not the same station data used to compile modern stats. A great number of the Russian stations no longer record data or data is no longer collected - in short the number of stations which would record cold conditions has declined in comparison to stations in more accessible places, closer to human habitations and thus warmer conditions. Whether or not this has had an impact upon the recorded stats, skewing them to a bias of warming I cannot comment, there are arguments raging both ways for that.

As far as half baked Northerlies for the UK goes, I posted a link over in the GWO thread yesterday which may be of some relevance there. Evidence is emerging that Solar intensity plays a role in moving the jet stream, the model thread often refers to this being further North in the winter than it used to be back in the 70's and 80's, perhaps the recent larger Solar cycles have played a part in this movement.

GW, I'm sorry you feel that way, I'm not attacking you just wanting a level playing field for us all, I'm asked to provide peer reviewed stuff, I see no reason why it's unreasonable to request the same.

[Gray-Wolf]

GW, I'm sorry you feel that way, I'm not attacking you just wanting a level playing field for us all, I'm asked to provide peer reviewed stuff, I see no reason why it's unreasonable to request the same.

No Jethro, it's not about folk or opinions (other than mine that is ) it's about how I see things. No matter how I try I can see nothing positive about the situation in the Arctic and ,to me, so many negatives which appear to be happening before times.

Having no answers, for me or anyone else, leaves me feeling quite helpless and full of despair and I've no wish to spend very long in that place. In the short term, Esp. over summer, there are so many positives to fill my world with that it seems stupid to become embroiled in something (to me) so dire and frightening.

We each see things in our own novel way and ,maybe, search out that which reinforces our views. Being 'poorly motivated' it is far too easy for me only to see the mainstream view and the direction this would have us in. Kudos to those who are more persistent in their personal endeavours. B)

[jethro]

We each see things in our own novel way and ,maybe, search out that which reinforces our views. Being 'poorly motivated' it is far too easy for me only to see the mainstream view and the direction this would have us in. Kudos to those who are more persistent in their personal endeavours.

The inference being that it took me ages to cherry pick something to back up my views?

Wrong. Polyakov is a an accepted scientist who's work is IPCC approved - doesn't get much more accepted, main-stream, non-cherry picked than that.

Are you saying it is expecting too much to ask you to support your views with peer reviewed papers? I'd have thought your deeply held worries would have been more than enough motivation to look and learn all the science there is available.