Arctic Ice 2009/2010

[Gray-Wolf]

instead of looking for fults why not be happy with what we got.

Well obviously because I'm not 'happy with what we got' !

I would suggest it unrealistic to be content with the situation in the Arctic and the small gain in final extent compared to the two lowest figures in our sat. record is no real measure of improvement.

Surely a positive anom above the 30yr running average would be a cause for optimism? Sadly we trail well below this line (well outside natural variation).

I know you do not wish to accept my pov but the readers (lurkers) should not be mislead as to the state of the northern cryosphere no matter how positive you wish to feel about the facts.

The mass loss figures are still not in and I feel that it is within this data that we will be able to judge the continued state of Arctic decline.

As we know the late July/Aug figure for ice extent where exaggerated by the slow \spread of the remaining pack and the slow start of rebuild , as shown in the extent figures, may merely reflect the 'filling in' of the gaps where ice extent was included but lay below 50% ice cover (which means this slow builds could continue for a while now).

Had the opposite occurred, and ice had been compacted over July/Aug we would have seen both the second lowest figure on record and a similar 'rate' of rebuild to the past two years (as ice reformed from the edges of the compacted pack and was not filling in the spaces between the floes) as it is the optical illusion at seasons end is now being balanced out by the reality of ice build.

Will it drop below the 07' figure before 'normal' growth is 'seen' to commence?

[laserguy]

Artic to be free of summer ice in 10 yrs,

http://news.bbc.co.u...ech/8307272.stm

I guess that's after the gain of the last two years then.

On the other hand.....

http://wattsupwithth...ted/#more-11702

Anthony Watts in scintillating form on this one!

[Methuselah]

And, therein lies one reason why I'd never trust Watts...He's so biased, he makes biased look biased.

[laserguy]

And, therein lies one reason why I'd never trust Watts...He's so biased, he makes biased look biased.

Ah,we're all biased one way or the other Pete,no matter how much we argue to the contrary! The thing with Watts is that he's invariably right. Do I sound biased?! Too right I am. The more 'stuff' I hear in defence(?) of AGW,the more pity I feel for the proponents,and all the more repulsion at the absolute transparency of their motives which have nothing to do with climate at all. Their nakedness is shameful. Er,um,yes,sorry,Arctic ice... do carry on!

[Methuselah]

Ah,we're all biased one way or the other Pete,no matter how much we argue to the contrary! The thing with Watts is that he's invariably right. Do I sound biased?! Too right I am. The more 'stuff' I hear in defence(?) of AGW,the more pity I feel for the proponents,and all the more repulsion at the absolute transparency of their motives which have nothing to do with climate at all. Their nakedness is shameful. Er,um,yes,sorry,Arctic ice... do carry on!

And, I'd love to see more Arctic ice, too!

[laserguy]

And, I'd love to see more Arctic ice, too!

Be patient Pete,itsa coming!

[Devonian]

On the other hand.....

http://wattsupwithth...ted/#more-11702

Anthony Watts in scintillating form on this one!

The usual mixture of innuendo, ad hom and right wing politics. I guess it's what you want to hear?

[Gray-Wolf]

Sorry L.G. took a while for me to muster a look at your link as I thought it may be something of importance but seeing as it was only watts poking at someone who could be bothered I'm sorry I waited (plus had to go to Doc's as my H1N1 decided to invite a bacterial guest and I needed some anti-erotics to fight it!!).

How can we judge what is good and bad data? Some posters have decided they cannot trust top notch scientific tools that can give us a good feel for 80% of the polar ice thickness over the past 5 years (and it's changes of course) and would prefer some Joe with a drill taking sample thickness of the ice.Seems you're damned if you do and damned if you don't (as both methods show how troubled the pack has become).

I'd be telling porkies if I said I could show you a person who is 'glad' that the planet is facing the problems it is. Because we accept the science does not mean we welcome what it tells us. To hear some speak you'd imagine that folk would be sad to find the planet was not in peril but safe and well......how does that work????

Fear not, the governing bodies of this little planet of ours seem to be 'talking the talk' ( and giving out Nobel peace prizes for doing just that),as far as the changes we need to see happening to offset the worst case scenario of the last IPCC report , but definitely not walking the walk, with current emissions running far in advance of the 'Worse case scenario' figures we were given back in 07'.

If there is nothing to this AGW thingy then no worries, if there is then world govt.s are screwing you by making you think they are taking AGW seriously and screwing us all by doing the opposite of what the good doctors ordered (whilst pretending to take the meds.....)

Anyhoo's,

.........How is our PDO neg looking for this winter? is it promising to bring us another winter like the last 2 or has it decided to take a little breather whilst Mr Nino' does it's thing?

The slow rebuild of ice (after such a welcomed increase over the 07'/08' mins) has quite taken the wind from my recovery sails.

We were 3rd lowest (for the time of year)but now we're only second lowest ? and with C.T.'s 'tale of the tapes' and Northern anomaly plots both still 'nose diving like a sperm whale after squid' (as someone quipped on another site I visit) what am I to think???.

Never mind, I'll pop over to never ,never land where all is well with the world and nothing man can do ever does any harm......

EDIT: buggerit! wrong site

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-10/usgs-ant101409.php

more doom and gloom to be published in Nov.....

Edited October 15, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[MR EXTREMES]

intresting that i read on the bbc news website that arctic will be free of ice in as little as 10 or 20 years.

but ive also read the same type of post from the met office and im not say ice is way below what it has been,

but then a new post by the met office which in my opion is once again a little step back.

http://www.metoffice...r20091015b.html

Edited October 15, 2009 by badboy657

[J10]

The issues around the Catlin surveys make the data flawed. This doesn't mean that GW isn't happening just that this evidence should in my view be discarded. AGW/GW is serious and important enough to be considered correctly and objectively without the need for spin.

[J10]

Well obviously because I'm not 'happy with what we got' !

Will it drop below the 07' figure before 'normal' growth is 'seen' to commence?

The current surplus above 2007 is 1.145m above 2007, and there are no signs of 2007 making any inroads into this, so the chances of this happening are negligible.

We are currently 333,698 below recent averages and 1,672,831 below the nominal 1979-2007 average, with recovery rates around both short and long term averages over the past week.

However over the past month or so, recovery rates are below both short and long term averages and this year is 30th out of 31st in the rankings from 1979.

[Methuselah]

intresting that i read on the bbc news website that arctic will be free of ice in as little as 10 or 20 years.

but ive also read the same type of post from the met office and im not say ice is way below what it has been,

but then a new post by the met office which in my opion is once again a little step back.

http://www.metoffice...r20091015b.html

Calm down mate, all is not lost...Not everyone who thinks that AGW is real necessarily thinks that all the Arctic ice will vanish within ten years...

I don't???

[The PIT]

intresting that i read on the bbc news website that arctic will be free of ice in as little as 10 or 20 years.

but ive also read the same type of post from the met office and im not say ice is way below what it has been,

but then a new post by the met office which in my opion is once again a little step back.

http://www.metoffice...r20091015b.html

Yup a sudden back track. However have another hot year and Artic ice will be gone again in ten years. A lot of the predictions are just alarmist to get more research money in. Now if we do start cooling we'd get people saying ice age coming in ten years for the same reasons.

The met office article seems to be more senisable.

[Methuselah]

Yup a sudden back track. However have another hot year and Artic ice will be gone again in ten years. A lot of the predictions are just alarmist to get more research money in. Now if we do start cooling we'd get people saying ice age coming in ten years for the same reasons.

The met office article seems to be more senisable.

Well said, PIT...I couldn't have put it better, myself!

[J10]

Well said, PIT...I couldn't have put it better, myself!

Indeed that is a much more sensible article.

[noggin]

But why, oh why, oh why, do the BBC insist on using stuff like the Caitlin expedition "findings" when the data is flawed? Even I, a bear of only a medium amount of brain, have read enough to know that the "findings" cannot be relied upon, that there were many instrument problems and so on. As for the footage of Mr Haddow jumping into the water with his immersion suit on.......well, it was a very amateurish effort to convince us of impending doom.

I also felt that it was ironic that Mr Shukman had talked in the one breath of the terrible, terrible Arctic conditions that the expedition had to endure, of the perishing cold and the frostbite, and in the next breath said that all the ice could be gone in the next ten years!

Tut, tut.

But why, oh why, oh why, do the BBC insist on using stuff like the Caitlin expedition "findings" when the data is flawed? Even I, a bear of only a medium amount of brain, have read enough to know that the "findings" cannot be relied upon, that there were many instrument problems and so on. As for the footage of Mr Haddow jumping into the water with his immersion suit on.......well, it was a very amateurish effort to convince us of impending doom.

I also felt that it was ironic that Mr Shukman had talked in the one breath of the terrible, terrible Arctic conditions that the expedition had to endure, of the perishing cold and the frostbite, and in the next breath said that all the ice could be gone in the next ten years!

Tut, tut.

[Methuselah]

My guess, Noggin, is that journos are only after a story...And, they don't like to let the facts get in the way?

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Facts like 2nd year ice made up 21% of ice cover this year compared to 8% last year.

Anyway, the spin won't stop if anything it will worsen.

BFTP

[laserguy]

Facts like 2nd year ice made up 21% of ice cover this year compared to 8% last year.

Anyway, the spin won't stop if anything it will worsen.

BFTP

http://fourwinds10.c...hp?q=1255539831

[MR EXTREMES]

Facts like 2nd year ice made up 21% of ice cover this year compared to 8% last year.

Anyway, the spin won't stop if anything it will worsen.

BFTP

indeed lets hope the ice continues to recover wow that would be awsome.

but i think the worst thing about this is that with data it can be messed about with to suit.

[Duncan McAlister]

Looks like cold air will become more 'bottled up' in the Arctic over the next few days leading to lower 850s there. One would expect recovery to be quite rapid once this occurs.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Duncan McAlister

[Snow Leopard]

Just posted this link on the Antarctic thread but probably more relevant here.

Shows that Arctic ice loss has happened in the past as well, its just not so well recorded.

In 1922 an expedition by the Norwegian Department of Commerce reported large scale ice loss all the way up to 81.5 degrees north. See how far north on a map, just for interest. Anyway this is from the NOAA archive no less. 1922 Arctic Expedition- Please also read the comment from Capt Martin Ingebrigtsen, very interesting as well.

[osmposm]

To avoid messing up Carinthian's non-contentious Ice Thread, in case anyone (like me!) wants to comment, I'm copying these two posts over here:

Here we go again...Arctic to be ice-free by 10 years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8307272.stm

Absolute jokers.

Biased reporting at its best. Anyone see this article in the Telegraph which was pretty much buried at the time.

Climate Change Chicanery

Um, two million Telegraph readers a day...41 million website visits a month, currently doubling every year.....that's some burial, Snow Leop!

Ossie

[The PIT]

Err ummm err has the ice all melted yet. Wake me up when it does.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091014144729.htm

I know we're split on the role of human produced CO2 and the planets climate but we do not seem too concerned with the planets 'natural' carbon cycle and how our tinkering is messing with that. Not only are the Southern oceans carbon sinks failing but it would appear that the polar region can account for up to 25% of our carbon uptake from the atmosphere. We all know of the peril melting permafrost poses but if we couple this with the planets growing inability to perform it's normal CO2 absorption duties we can throw away our current prediction for how high atmospheric CO2 levels may become.

We know I've mentioned before that past warmings have been followed ,close behind' by CO2 increases which appear to then accelerate the warming. Are we now starting to see how these big CO2 spikes have come about in the past?