Arctic Ice Discussion - 2010 Freeze Up

[BornFromTheVoid]

I could think of three reasons...

1. Its frickin cold up there

2. Perhaps a lot of the summer melt was just shallow melt pools which contain fresh water

which as we know freezes at 0c and being shallow would of course freeze quicker anyway.

3.The synoptics have been locking the cold in over the Arctic and not allowing warmer intrusions

into the Arctic since the 2nd and permanent freeze started.

probably much more complicated than this though, ie temps, wind, circulation, radiation cooling

salinity and differing sea temperature layers.

Someone posted a good link some where in the polar ice thread as to how Arctic ice is formed

I had a quick search but can not find it.

Perhaps you're right, but a few things that don't seem right...

For part 1, yes it is cold, as one would expect. But it's also anomalously "mild" across the majority of the Arctic, by several degrees, yet we've been seeing a very rapid refreeze, so I don't think the cold air can be to blame.

As for you're second point, most of the ice that was left at the end of the melt season was quite concentrated so the freezing of melt ponds wouldn't have added much, especially seen as those areas would have probably been over the 15% threshold already.

You're final point seems quite right, though the uppers don't seem anything special compared to recent years such as 06,07 and 08. http://www.wetterzentrale.de/topkarten/fsavnnh.html

The Arctic is a tricky beast!

We lost a lot of multi-year ice (5+ years, much thicker and fresher than 1st/2nd year ice) in the Beaufort this year. Maybe that meltwater freshened the near-surface layer? That would make it easier to freeze up again. Are there salinity charts available anywhere?

If this is the cause, look for next summer's first-year ice to be fresher and more resilient than "normal" first-year ice - although whether that means anything in the context of conditions that can melt 5+ year ice is another matter.

That would make a lot of sense. Perhaps the halocline layer can get help being restored by melting sea ice and promote fresh sea ice growth?

It seem many areas around the Arctic have had above average rainfall too, which may help with freshwater flow from rivers into the Arctic ocean. =&im[1]=&id[1]=&iy[2]=&im[2]=&id[2]=&iy[3]=&im[3]=&id[3]=&iy[4]=&im[4]=&id[4]=&iy[5]=&im[5]=&id[5]=&iy[6]=&im[6]=&id[6]=&iy[7]=&im[7]=&id[7]=&iy[8]=&im[8]=&id[8]=&iy[9]=&im[9]=&id[9]=&iy[10]=&im[10]=&id[10]=&iy[11]=&im[11]=&id[11]=&iy[12]=&im[12]=&id[12]=&iy[13]=&im[13]=&id[13]=&iy[14]=&im[14]=&id[14]=&iy[15]=&im[15]=&id[15]=&iy[16]=&im[16]=&id[16]=&iy[17]=&im[17]=&id[17]=&iy[18]=&im[18]=&id[18]=&iy[19]=&im[19]=&id[19]=&iy[20]=&im[20]=&id[20]=&monr1=6&dayr1=1&monr2=10&dayr2=1&iyr[1]=2010&filenamein=&plotlabel=&lag=0&labelc=Color&labels=Shaded&type=2&scale=&label=0&cint=0.5&lowr=-8&highr=8&istate=0&proj=Northern+Hemisphere&xlat1=&xlat2=&xlon1=&xlon2=&custproj=Cylindrical+Equidistant&level1=1000mb&level2=10mb&Submit=Create+Plot"]rainfall anomaly

[songster]

There is far more multi-year ice in the Arctic than there was even last year. As for the M.Y. ice

in the Beaufort area that went in 2007 i think.

Wrong on both counts I'm afraid.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

A lot of old ice got circulated from the Canadian Archipelago into the Beaufort last winter, and it all melted out this summer. Multi-year ice is at an all-time low. The proportion of "more than 1 year" ice has been approximately constant since 2007, however there's a continual and ongoing shift from "old perennial" to younger 1-3 year ice. Over the next couple of years we'll see if this can be retained and mature the way it used to - but given the age of the stuff that melted out in the Beaufort this year, the omens are not good.

That would make a lot of sense. Perhaps the halocline layer can get help being restored by melting sea ice and promote fresh sea ice growth?

I don't see how that can work. At best, if all the freshened water re-freezes, we would reclaim what was lost this year - but as an evenly spread sheet across the whole area, rather than compact, aged ice floes. My understanding is that a "real" halocline layer is built by rejection of brine and the consequent sinking of denser salty water, not simply melting of freshwater ice into the upper layers.

[Gray-Wolf]

I have to agree with you songster. Sadly the 'route to Fram', and the circulation placing the ice on this route, focuses on the area that traditionally 'grew' the old perennial and where the last vestiges of this ice type reside. The failure of the ice bridges has meant a year round transport of ice out of the basin. This loss of 'bridging' will be further enhanced with the loss of the land-fast ice on the NE tip of Greenland this summer (as we also saw in the C.A.?). I'm not sure but this has 'widened' the strait a little and made taking the corner into the strait (for the ice inching along the coast) a lot easier.

I'd also agree a thin skim of 'fresh water' is not 200m of Halocline and any early re-freeze of such a layer merely insulates the water below leading to poor ice thickness (as the ice is pushed down into this warmer water as it thickens/is overburdened with snow). If we are seeing such a phenomena then it will mean repeats of this years May/June melt rates.

EDIT:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101004151700.htm

The above is a timely reminder of just how much more 'fresh water' makes it into the Ocean in this 'melting time'

Edited October 5, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[stewfox]

Wrong on both counts I'm afraid.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

A lot of old ice got circulated from the Canadian Archipelago into the Beaufort last winter, and it all melted out this summer. Multi-year ice is at an all-time low. The proportion of "more than 1 year" ice has been approximately constant since 2007, however there's a continual and ongoing shift from "old perennial" to younger 1-3 year ice. Over the next couple of years we'll see if this can be retained and mature the way it used to - but given the age of the stuff that melted out in the Beaufort this year, the omens are not good.

I don't see how that can work. At best, if all the freshened water re-freezes, we would reclaim what was lost this year - but as an evenly spread sheet across the whole area, rather than compact, aged ice floes. My understanding is that a "real" halocline layer is built by rejection of brine and the consequent sinking of denser salty water, not simply melting of freshwater ice into the upper layers.

Actually 1 year ice percentage wise has fallen by about 10% last few years and there is more multi year ice then 2 years ago , particulary 3 and 4 yrs old ice (5 + yr ice has fallen from what is now a very low base).

It doesnt compare to 10 yrs ago of course and the lack of 5yr ice is a concern but def better then 2 yrs ago.

See previous thread and links

Yep, your guesses looking best at the moment. I presumed after an initial jump in extent that the warm SSTAs would slow down growth for a week or so, looks like I'm gonna be wrong though.

I might be a day out

Interesting views re causes of rapid re freeze

Edited October 5, 2010 by stewfox

[BornFromTheVoid]

I don't see how that can work. At best, if all the freshened water re-freezes, we would reclaim what was lost this year - but as an evenly spread sheet across the whole area, rather than compact, aged ice floes. My understanding is that a "real" halocline layer is built by rejection of brine and the consequent sinking of denser salty water, not simply melting of freshwater ice into the upper layers.

Well, I only mentioned that it would help, not fix the whole thing! We also have the increased river runoff helping to create a thicker (relatively) freshwater layer. We'll still have the saltier water sinking after the refreeze anyway. Tis just my opinion anyway.

We're now moving ahead of 2009 in extent and approaching 2005, though 05 may be difficult to catch as it had some quick growth through October.

As for the large chunk of sea ice moving through Nares, you were bang on GW! Split in half!

[cooling climate]

Wrong on both counts I'm afraid.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

A lot of old ice got circulated from the Canadian Archipelago into the Beaufort last winter, and it all melted out this summer. Multi-year ice is at an all-time low. The proportion of "more than 1 year" ice has been approximately constant since 2007, however there's a continual and ongoing shift from "old perennial" to younger 1-3 year ice. Over the next couple of years we'll see if this can be retained and mature the way it used to - but given the age of the stuff that melted out in the Beaufort this year, the omens are not good.

I don't see how that can work. At best, if all the freshened water re-freezes, we would reclaim what was lost this year - but as an evenly spread sheet across the whole area, rather than compact, aged ice floes. My understanding is that a "real" halocline layer is built by rejection of brine and the consequent sinking of denser salty water, not simply melting of freshwater ice into the upper layers.

Um sorry your wrong I'm afraid. Multi-year ice is up on last year and this time next year it

will have increased again.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Um sorry your wrong I'm afraid. Multi-year ice is up on last year and this time next year it

will have increased again.

Are all those maps, including the DMI graph, showing above average temperatures for the last month wrong? Does salinity not affect the freezing point of water?

[songster]

Um sorry your wrong I'm afraid. Multi-year ice is up on last year and this time next year it

will have increased again.

Did you read the post I linked? It has the most up to date data. Where's your evidence for your assertions?

[Gray-Wolf]

Um sorry your wrong I'm afraid. Multi-year ice is up on last year and this time next year it

will have increased again.

"At the end of the summer 2010, under 15% of the ice remaining the Arctic was more than two years old, compared to 50 to 60% during the 1980's. There is virtually none of the oldest (at least five years old) ice remaining in the Arctic (less than 60,000 square kilometres [23,000 square miles] compared to 2 million square kilometres [722,000 square miles] during the 1980's). "

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Hmmmm, I don't know how you figure this C.C.? We lost more of the of ice through Fram over winter than just transitioned into 'older ice' this fall. Saying it often and loudly doesn't make it right does it? (My 8 yr old is being disabused of this affliction presently!) nor does the "We Use Wishful Thinking...." mantra.

EDIT:

Sorry N.D.S., I appear to have been correct in my assertions about the plate of ice that entered Nares;

making great progress and falling apart. It shows you just how thin this sub 5 yr ice is. look Back through the MODIS images, pre 02, and see how those size (surface area not 'mass') chunks used to lodge and 'arch' the strait blocking it as an exit. Since 07' we have had free transit more often than partial blockage over winter and most of the 'blockages' have been remnant shelf bits (from Ellesmere island) and Glacial Bergs ,not sea ice as it's just not up to the job these days.

One day (soon?) the rest of the folk will admit to the scale of the problems with sea ice in the Arctic and not just bang on about extent.........Wearingly Utilising Worthless Terminology.....when there is a real picture to witness.

Edited October 5, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[stewfox]

Did you read the post I linked? It has the most up to date data. Where's your evidence for your assertions?

Would someone pleased post the FULL ice age profile the up to date one, I don’t have time to find it.

So we can correct songster and GW

If not I will do it tonight

Thanks

Edited October 5, 2010 by stewfox

[Guest mycroft]

Where not the Caitlin Expedition surprised to find more muti year ice than they thought they would? this last outing

no sorry my mistake,it was 2009 outing where they had to stop using radar as it failed due the cold

Edited October 5, 2010 by mycroft

[Yorkshiresnows]

Hi Folks,

Latest video diary of the arctic ice situation from Joe B:

http://www.accuweather.com/video/624373716001/monday-morning-sea-ice-report.asp

All the graphs are there to see here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/

With La Nina conditions set and the PDO negative, next year should see far more favourable conditions for arctic sea ice retention. My view is that with 2010 not reaching the low ebb of 2007 even with a similar El Nino, then this is telling.

Cheers

Y.S

[Gray-Wolf]

Where not the Caitlin Expedition surprised to find more muti year ice than they thought they would? this last outing

The opposite!!! They had rolling swells beneath the pack , base camp had rain (and so did the weather station to their west), and lots and lots of fragmentation events (one under their tent one evening?)

Stew, the image posted is the 4th Oct data released by NSIDC. How much more 'up to date' can we be and what else could your data show?

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

please read their 'end of season' report.

I'm sure NASA will not be far behind with their views on the summers melt season.

You have to admit I was pretty darn close with my "no more 7yr plus ice wasn't I (and of Prof B's 'rotten Ice' issues being solved by the total melt out of Beaufort this year!).

The other point to note are the temps of Beaufort/Chukchi sea areas. I've mentioned ,whilst talking about a continued 'rapid re-freeze', of the issues once the ice tries to grow there.

Edited October 5, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

The last 6 days have given us increases that have varied between just under 31,000 and just under 130,000

29 sep 57187

30-sep 34688

01-oct 30937

02-oct 70938

03-oct 129843

04-oct 95625

That's a heck of a variation, with the lowest and the highest seperated by just one day. Do we have any indication why the variation is so big?

[barrel1234]

I really like that guys attitude from accuweather, he makes his forecasts, sticks his neck out and he is very clear on what he is saying, very little of what he says is open to interpretation, I just thought that I would say that his no-nonsense approach is very refreshing and I will continue to take great interest in his future reports.

[stewfox]

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

If you look at the large area of ice to the North of Greenland,you will see in March 2010 it was 2yrs old or greater

It didnt melt but now its one year old ice

There basing the ‘age of ice’ on thickness rather then the ‘age of the ice’, very clever

These figures show the recovery in older ice (under 5yrs)

http://www.ourplanettoday.com/exclusive-scientists-track-sharp-drop-in-oldest-thickest-arctic-sea-ice-2010-melt-season-ends-likely-setting-the-record-for-lowest-volume

[BornFromTheVoid]

IJIS has updated and yesterdays gain has been upped to about 95,000km2.

Meanwhile on CT, Antarctic ice area anomaly is back into positive territory, while the Arctic reamains more than 1,400,000km2 below average.

Looking at the DMI SSTAs, we can see how the ice pack is being shaped by the anomalies.

This images from the 25th Sept shows where the strongest anomalies are around the Arctic ocean.

This image for today shows that the ice has mostly grown along where the negative or lower anomalies were and have progressed very little into the positive anomalies.

Saying that, the positive anomalies are much reduced compared to this time 10 days ago

[Gray-Wolf]

If you look at the large area of ice to the North of Greenland,you will see in March 2010 it was 2yrs old or greater

It didn't melt but now its one year old ice :unsure:

There basing the ‘age of ice’ on thickness rather then the ‘age of the ice’, very clever

These figures show the recovery in older ice (under 5yrs)

http://www.ourplanet...r-lowest-volume

I think you need to re-run the season, both drift and melt;

http://www7320.nrlss...ips2/index.html

and then you'll see where that ice went (plenty did melt and the rest flowed both out of Fram and out into Beaufort, and melt). This is the worrying thing about the changes up north. We all witness them (only 4 hrs old if we use MODIS) and then we get folk denying they occurred when the 'evidence' is there and we've all just witnessed it? How can we have balance amongst such shenanigans?

Edited October 5, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[stewfox]

s

I think you need to re-run the season, both drift and melt;

http://www7320.nrlss...ips2/index.html

and then you'll see where that ice went (plenty did melt and the rest flowed both out of Fram and out into Beaufort, and melt). This is the worrying thing about the changes up north. We all witness them (only 4 hrs old if we use MODIS) and then we get folk denying they occurred when the 'evidence' is there and we've all just witnessed it? How can we have balance amongst such shenanigans?

Sometimes we are blind and just need leading.

Will that do as an apology ? I understand what you getting at now.

Edited October 6, 2010 by stewfox

[Climate Man]

Whatever your views and or camp, it has been a very interesting year so far with very slow melts, fast melts and a rapid re-freeze. Wilst I don't agree with GW generally, one has to admit that ice, age, thickness an denisty are more important than extent. However, if there is to be a repair of this type of ice, then extent is a good starting point and things are very positive currently.

[barrel1234]

Yes, it really has been an exciting year and continues the potential to keep on be so exciting well into 2011. No doubt it will keep all of us on our toes.

It will be so interesting to see where the maximum will get upto, as JoeBastar)di from accuweather has stated so many times, there was no death spiral after 2007 when many people were predicting albedo effects to really take over and deplete the ice over the next few years untill there was none left for the minimums, however this obviously has not been the case, subsequent years although low show no signs of a death spiral, and if ice extents continue to grow over the next 10 years as many scientists are now saying surely the albedo that many people have been frequently quoting as having a major effect in ice loss will turn around and make the ice growth even stronger. I say watch this space, I think there is so much evidence pointing towards growth, you can't close your eyes to a cooling PDO, It might mean in 10 years if we are all still around we will all be wearing an extra layer of clothing when we are walking around in the winters due to weather coming from an increased pool of cold air to our north.

Ok, Ice thickness and age of Ice I hear you cry! After the partial recovery from 2007 and the onset of strong la ninas forecast in the next 5-10 years and lower sun activity than what we have seen in the last 10 years there is scope for there to be a lot of 'older' ice around- ever heard of that saying -'every birthday I seem to get a year older'..... well thats just it, every year ice survives it will get a year older!. I have to admit, I was worried for the arctic back in 2007 but the potential for regrowth in the next couple of years cannt be ignored.

Edited October 6, 2010 by barrel1234

[Gray-Wolf]

Whatever your views and or camp, it has been a very interesting year so far with very slow melts, fast melts and a rapid re-freeze. Whilst I don't agree with GW generally, one has to admit that ice, age, thickness an density are more important than extent. However, if there is to be a repair of this type of ice, then extent is a good starting point and things are very positive currently.

I fully agree! We need a 'thick layer' of permanent ice just to stop the halocline taking the hammering it has been taking over the past 12 years or so. Extent is an obvious part of that. What is worrying is that the 'spring adventurers' found the pack already allowing swells to pass beneath it and reports from the Canadian Ice breaker fleet report having to be more careful as now they have to contend with swells whilst breaking the ice ,a thing that they have not needed to do before.

Anyhoos, a large extent is a start and then holding onto a large extent (i.e. 1970'2/80's type extents?) through summer to keep a portion of ice cover over 1/2 of the basin would also help settle things down. Sub Data shows us the the last 50 years of the 1900's saw the depth of the perennial halved so we know the kind of speed we are looking at for a 'recovery' to where the Arctic used to be.

I just don't see that we have that much cooling in front of us and 20yrs rebuild could be lost to 1 'perfect storm ' summer. If I had to bet I'd say that ice levels will continue on their downward trend and will be 'finished off' by a 'perfect storm' some time over the next 10yrs (or less?). I think I'd get better odds betting on a sustained recovery though!

Edited October 6, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[The PIT]

I just don't see that we have that much cooling in front of us and 20yrs rebuild could be lost to 1 'perfect storm ' summer. If I had to bet I'd say that ice levels will continue on their downward trend and will be 'finished off' by a 'perfect storm' some time over the next 10yrs (or less?). I think I'd get better odds betting on a sustained recovery though!

That long GW!!!!!

I bet you a virtual barrel of cider it's still ice there 2020. Presuming we're still posting here of course.

Edited October 6, 2010 by The PIT

[Yorkshiresnows]

<br />Yes, it really has been an exciting year and continues the potential to keep on be so exciting well into 2011.   No doubt it will keep all of us on our toes.<br /><br />     It will be so interesting to see where the maximum will get upto, as JoeBastar)di from accuweather has stated so many times, there was no death spiral after 2007 when many people were predicting albedo effects to really take over and deplete the ice over the next few years untill there was none left for the minimums, however this obviously has not been the case, subsequent years although low show no signs of a death spiral, and if ice extents continue to grow over the next 10 years as many scientists are now saying surely the albedo that many people have been frequently quoting as having a major effect in ice loss will turn around and make the ice growth even stronger.   I say watch this space, I think there is so much evidence pointing towards growth, you can't close your eyes to a cooling PDO,  It might mean in 10 years if we are all still around we will all be wearing an extra layer of clothing when we are walking around in the winters due to weather coming from an increased pool of  cold air to our north.    <br /><br />   Ok, Ice thickness and age of Ice I hear you cry!   After the partial recovery from 2007 and the onset of strong la ninas forecast in the next 5-10 years and lower sun activity than what we have seen in the last 10 years there is scope for there to be a lot of 'older' ice around- ever heard of that saying -'every birthday I seem to get a year older'..... well thats just it, every year ice survives it will get a year older!.   I have to admit, I was worried for the arctic back in 2007 but the potential for regrowth in the next couple of years cannt be ignored.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Nice post. Very much agree.

Y.S

[Gray-Wolf]

OK, Ice thickness and age of Ice I hear you cry! After the partial recovery from 2007 and the onset of strong la Nina's forecast in the next 5-10 years and lower sun activity than what we have seen in the last 10 years there is scope for there to be a lot of 'older' ice around- ever heard of that saying -'every birthday I seem to get a year older'..... well thats just it, every year ice survives it will get a year older!. I have to admit, I was worried for the arctic back in 2007 but the potential for regrowth in the next couple of years can't be ignored.

Please read my reply to stew a few posts back and spend a bit of time looking at the way the Beaufort Gyre/trans polar drift works. This years continuation of the degradation of the pack;

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

highlights why we are ending up with a younger and younger 'perennial pack'. Climate changes are also leading to a 'different type' of ice (basal melt and higher precipitation above) with different qualities to the 'old ice'. Again we need do only apples with apples.......

EDIT: I know of this 'experiment' where a sweetie was rolled out flat and round and two more (of the same sweet) were rolled into a ball. A two year old was given the choice of either and they consistently chose the 'big' flat one...........any of that going on here??? (apparently by 4yrs they can suss which is 'more' and not 'biggest'/more extent.....)

Edited October 6, 2010 by Gray-Wolf