Arctic Ice Discussion - 2010 Freeze Up

[stewfox]

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.

I am hoping a few of us will be around in 10 years time

[BornFromTheVoid]

We're just about 40,000km2 off 6m (before the usual upward revision) now and about 110,000km2 behind 05 which averaged nearly 90,000km2/day for the next 10 days, which is certainly beatable! Staying ahead of 08 may be a problem though, as this gained about 150,000km2/day from the 5th-15th!

On CT, Arctic sea ice area is beginning to move closer to average, though still over 1,300,000km2 off. Antarctic ice is still slightly above long term figures, pushing global sea ice towards just 1m below average.

Looking at the modis images, ice is still powering through the Nares strait, with a slight build up of ice occurring just below an Island along the strait near the Greenland coast. Whether it accumulates and eventually clogs things up is yet to be seen, but something to watch at least http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r03c03.2010277.terra.250m

Ice continues to flow, albeit quite slowly, through the channels in the Canadian Archipelago, though I imagine this will come to a halt soon as the ie thickens and consolidates

[stewfox]

etc

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.......

Out of interest when does 2^nd yr ice become 3^rd yr year ice and 3^rd yr become 4^th year etc. From the date of re freeze or from some other point ?.

Its states

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

Whether younger multiyear ice (two or three years old) in the Arctic Ocean will continue to age and thicken depends on two things: first, how much of that ice stays in the Arctic instead of exiting into the North Atlantic through Fram Strait; and second, whether the ice survives its transit across the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas or instead melts away

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

How do they know ‘old ice is being shipped out’. Are we referring to blocks of older ice ?.

I assume historically Fram didn’t ship much out 20yrs ago

A simple link for ‘additional reading would be fine for me’

Edited October 6, 2010 by stewfox

[oldsnowywizard]

We're just about 40,000km2 off 6m (before the usual upward revision) now and about 110,000km2 behind 05 which averaged nearly 90,000km2/day for the next 10 days, which is certainly beatable! Staying ahead of 08 may be a problem though, as this gained about 150,000km2/day from the 5th-15th!

On CT, Arctic sea ice area is beginning to move closer to average, though still over 1,300,000km2 off. Antarctic ice is still slightly above long term figures, pushing global sea ice towards just 1m below average.

Looking at the modis images, ice is still powering through the Nares strait, with a slight build up of ice occurring just below an Island along the strait near the Greenland coast. Whether it accumulates and eventually clogs things up is yet to be seen, but something to watch at least http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r03c03.2010277.terra.250m

Ice continues to flow, albeit quite slowly, through the channels in the Canadian Archipelago, though I imagine this will come to a halt soon as the ie thickens and consolidates

already hit the 6million barrier... quite an extraordinary turn around in extent... GW I think thats one of the few semi positive glass half full posts I have ever seen from you... Extent certainly helps ;-) its true its a start and when Ice grows it grows in every direction leading to thicker ice.. looking at some of the American navy posts it seems quite possible for there to be +5 meter areas of ice in a winter.. so we just hope that this winter there are more of these and they grow in protected areas not to be shipped out of the ice lanes... We can but hope.. All the cold continues to be bottled up in the right areas so far and it looks like this will continue... SSTs are coming down nicely roughly 1-2 degrees every 3/4 days.. which will of course speed up as the nights get shorted and the temps get colder...

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

I assume historically Fram didn’t ship much out 20yrs ago

A simple link for ‘additional reading would be fine for me’

I asked that question about Fram towards the back of the old thread, never got an answer. Would be good to get some understanding of what's changed

[Gray-Wolf]

I asked that question about Fram towards the back of the old thread, never got an answer. Would be good to get some understanding of what's changed

I think you need a -ve PDO setup for it really to ship out ice. The past 4 years have been quite slow really (when compared to other years through the 70's and 80's) .I imagine a La Nina might also 'pick up' the synoptics you're looking for?

Thanks O.S.W.! I'm not all "doom and Gloom" I just can't see the data any other way?

[The PIT]

I think you need a -ve PDO setup for it really to ship out ice. The past 4 years have been quite slow really (when compared to other years through the 70's and 80's) .I imagine a La Nina might also 'pick up' the synoptics you're looking for?

Thanks O.S.W.! I'm not all "doom and Gloom" I just can't see the data any other way?

GW you're more miserable than me...... LOL.

I was disappointed by how quickly the ice fell away this year despite a good start. Fingers crossed this year will be a record refreeze. Glass half full approach.

[Gray-Wolf]

GW you're more miserable than me...... LOL.

I was disappointed by how quickly the ice fell away this year despite a good start. Fingers crossed this year will be a record refreeze. Glass half full approach.

Pit , you and I deal with similar things at opposite ends of the age bracket so we're allowed to 'displace' our malcontent nature's (I'm sure the Guy's understand!)

If you look back I was full of "it won't last", "it's all outside the basin" posts this spring whilst all and sundry ( apart from the usual suspects) appeared to be 'happy clappy' about a thin skim of ice beyond the Arctic (rolled out thin sweet as opposed to two rolled together in a ball?).

As ever 'Weather' played it's part in this years melt but , yet again, the 'normal Fram service' (when present) shipped out all of the older ice leaving us back where we were (but with less 'old ice') and killing off the last of the 5yr plus ice (apart from that 3,000yr old chunk of 'Ward Hunt'!!!).

How do we preserve the halocline when ice is so 'weird'/thin' as to allow swells to pass , unhindered, beneath it?

How can we grow good , thick , keeled, perennial with warm water 3m below the surface and extra snowfall pressing the ice down into it???

Edited October 6, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[barrel1234]

How can we grow good , thick , keeled, perennial with warm water 3m below the surface and extra snowfall pressing the ice down into it???

Well from records the arctic would have been ice-free *or very colse* a certain number of thousand years ago (60-100k years if I stand correct??), and the ice came back....... so why couldnt the ice build up once again now?

I might be off with my dates but you get my general point

also my instincts tell me that there is probably a negative feedback somewhere with melting ice, possibly melting ice- more cold less saline water and quicker re-freezes. Im sure i could dig up research on this but just seems like common sense to me.

Edited October 6, 2010 by barrel1234

[Gray-Wolf]

Well from records the arctic would have been ice-free *or very close* a certain number of thousand years ago (60-100k years if I stand correct??), and the ice came back....... so why couldn't the ice build up once again now?

I might be off with my dates but you get my general point

also my instincts tell me that there is probably a negative feedback somewhere with melting ice, possibly melting ice- more cold less saline water and quicker re-freezes. I'm sure i could dig up research on this but just seems like common sense to me.

I fully agree Barrel and were it not for what happened 23,000yrs ago we'd not have ice in the basin over summer. This is what I'm on about? Our current climate would quite happily live with a 'seasonal pack' were it not for the 'hangover ' from the last glaciation. The ice cover (albedo impact) and Halocline enabled us to 'hold onto' the last vestiges of the last glaciation. now we are seeing those 'vestiges' go (ice sheets like the one on Devonshire Island ,permafrost,Ice shelfs [like ward Hunt...all that's left of the full shelf that ran the length of Ellesmere Island in 1900], perennial ice [none older than 5yrs in the Basin now,....apart from that 1/4 of ward Hunt that fell off this Aug which is upwards of 3,000yrs old])

This unusual 'warming' ,over the past 150yrs, has proved enough of a push to 'end' the last glaciation proper and leave us with an ice free summer Arctic and a move towards very little permafrost (with the humongous release of methane/CO2 this involves) with no more ice shelfs in the Arctic and no ice sheets in the Canadian Archipelago.

Sadly the odd 'warming' we are seeing will be amplified by the loss of all that permafrost (and all those GHG's it'll/is already release/releasing) and the introduction of that mass of dark water (80% absorption) instead of that mass of sea ice (90%+ reflection).........

EDIT: Discovery (sat TV) has this to say;

http://news.discover...#mkcpgn=rssnws1

EDIT:

O.M.G. even the Mails is on one about Polar Bears!!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1318173/Lucy-ODonnell-photos-polar-bear-jumping-drifting-Arctic-ice.html

Edited October 6, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[barrel1234]

Thank you for the reply GW, I can see where you are coming from on the issue and many of your posts are very informative, in fact i would go as far to say that I have learnt rather a lot from your posts over the last couple of years or so. However on personal balance with the evidence that I read I am still finding myself leaning more over to the skeptics side of arctic ice depletion as I think that the arctic has more potential for growth than many people think.

The next few years is going to be extremely exciting, this site gives fantasic debate and access to new or relevant information. Some of us will be right and some of us will be wrong but we are fantastically placed with some of our regular data sources to see what happens. So everyone keep up the good work and keep us all up to date on whats going on out there!

[4wd]

From the Mail article:

The photos also offer a rare glimpse into how friendly the giant animals are.

Inquisitive as to the possibility of photographer-flavoured dinner more like!

It is mischievous how the report implies the photos show unusual melting ice, by juxtaposing with the same data we see mentioned here every day.

Very spectacular shots nonetheless.

[Gray-Wolf]

Thank you for the reply GW, I can see where you are coming from on the issue and many of your posts are very informative, in fact i would go as far to say that I have learnt rather a lot from your posts over the last couple of years or so. However on personal balance with the evidence that I read I am still finding myself leaning more over to the skeptics side of arctic ice depletion as I think that the arctic has more potential for growth than many people think.

The next few years is going to be extremely exciting, this site gives fantastic debate and access to new or relevant information. Some of us will be right and some of us will be wrong but we are fantastically placed with some of our regular data sources to see what happens. So everyone keep up the good work and keep us all up to date on whats going on out there!

Thank you for your kindness Barrel. I have no axe to grind, I just call it as I see it. I do take issue if I feel that info is being skewed or wrongly interpreted (and understand when folk I am doing the same which is why I may appear 'long winded' in my explanations?).

I still cannot find it, in my understanding of things, to see any 'recovery' of the Arctic ice (in the span of a human life time)b because of the damage that has occurred ,thus far, to the very things that enabled us to have the Arctic we used to have.

I cannot escape from the fact that I am one of the older posters on this site and that many folk will only have had an interest in the Arctic for 10yrs (or less) and so will be basing any opinion on their individual experience of what is 'normal ' and what is not (in terms of the Arctic) within the Arctic. By the 1970's we had lost over 50% of the ice in the Arctic and this recent 'loss' in visible extent is all they base their views of 'recovery' on. Sadly I do not see things this way. All of that 'hidden loss' needs to be 'recovered' as well for us to be on the right path for an Arctic recovery.

The loss of ice 'volume' from the 50's through 80's was only noticeable from 'below' so we only have the Sub data to view it from but , obviously, it occurred.

We may well have a winter 'recovery' of ice extents (for some years to come) but it will all end the same way with the next 'perfect storm' leading to a sub 1 million pack ....i.e. a seasonal pack.

I do wish that someone would disabuse me of this 'understanding ' as it means so many other things once the pack is gone and the permafrost is impacted further by the temps this would release up there (loss of sea ice impacts up to 1,500km inland).

[Guest mycroft]

I think you need a -ve PDO setup for it really to ship out ice. The past 4 years have been quite slow really (when compared to other years through the 70's and 80's) .I imagine a La Nina might also 'pick up' the synoptics you're looking for?

Thanks O.S.W.! I'm not all "doom and Gloom" I just can't see the data any other way?

Hang on!according to you one minute the ice ice extent in the 70's and 80's was all ok ie; "large extent"

next minute you are coming up with "past 4 years were slow in shipping ice out", and you need a negative PDO to get

large amount of ice shipped out! Do have any evidence to show a -ve PDO displaces a large amount of pack ice out of the Arctic.

you seem to be using years at willy nilly to back up you side of the debate, you can't have it both ways

either the 70's 80's were good years or they were not.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Very small gain yesterday, just under 14,000km2. While this is way below averge, it has happenned in October in previous years;

07 gained just 50,000km2 between the 9th and 12th (inc. 1 day with a loss), 06 gained just 50,000km2 also between the 5th and the 8th. Finally, 2003 gained just 27,000km2 between the 6th and the 9th, including a 1 day loss.

The slow gains seem to be down to a loss of ice on the Kara/Barents side as mild air and southerly or south weaterly winds arrive here. Gains at the opposite end of the ice pack appear to have slowed a little, though the update later on may tell us more...

[Gray-Wolf]

Hang on!according to you one minute the ice ice extent in the 70's and 80's was all OK ie; "large extent"

next minute you are coming up with "past 4 years were slow in shipping ice out", and you need a negative PDO to get

large amount of ice shipped out! Do have any evidence to show a -ve PDO displaces a large amount of pack ice out of the Arctic.

you seem to be using years at Willey nilly to back up you side of the debate, you can't have it both ways

either the 70's 80's were good years or they were not.

Excuse me my My but just how much of the Arctic did we lose between the 70's and 90's? how much of that was the massive 'old perennial' (four storey office block stuff.......Y'know, the kinda stuff to stuff up Nares and Fram?)?

You'd think ,from your outburst, that we have seen no changes since 79'???

The perils of Fram outflow have been known (and studied) since the 70's so how come you are so unaware of the 'patterns' folk have recognised? Are we ,perchance, wearing our ignorance of the subject a little close to the thread????

Google " ice loss through Fram" and just check the 'scholarly articles' , please!

As it is we have been shipping ice through Fram both winter and summer since the late 90's (no records of such behaviour over the rest of the 170yr record's from Svalbard?) and through Nares over winter (a very narrow channel) since 07'?

Where have you been or are you being a little too "Nelson" (I see no ice loss/thinning/reduction in ice age) for the common good?

[Guest mycroft]

Excuse me my My but just how much of the Arctic did we lose between the 70's and 90's? how much of that was the massive 'old perennial' (four storey office block stuff.......Y'know, the kinda stuff to stuff up Nares and Fram?)?

You'd think ,from your outburst, that we have seen no changes since 79'???

The perils of Fram outflow have been known (and studied) since the 70's so how come you are so unaware of the 'patterns' folk have recognised? Are we ,perchance, wearing our ignorance of the subject a little close to the thread????

Google " ice loss through Fram" and just check the 'scholarly articles' , please!

As it is we have been shipping ice through Fram both winter and summer since the late 90's (no records of such behaviour over the rest of the 170yr record's from Svalbard?) and through Nares over winter (a very narrow channel) since 07'?

Where have you been or are you being a little too "Nelson" (I see no ice loss/thinning/reduction in ice age) for the common good?

No outburst,just an observation. The difference from the 70-90' is patently obvious.

it's just some of your post you flip from the 60s 70s 80s as they were either bad or good depending on the point you are trying to make!

very well aware of ice loss from Fram etc, so no nothing really wearing...only alarmism

Plus i still like to know about your comment on -ve PDO synoptics for ice loss from the Arctic and why a La Nina will enhance this??

As for ingnorance?? well we should all consider ourselves ingnorant when it comes to Mother Nature.Only human arrogance is bigger,

[Guest mycroft]

Well from records the arctic would have been ice-free *or very colse* a certain number of thousand years ago (60-100k years if I stand correct??), and the ice came back....... so why couldnt the ice build up once again now?

I might be off with my dates but you get my general point

also my instincts tell me that there is probably a negative feedback somewhere with melting ice, possibly melting ice- more cold less saline water and quicker re-freezes. Im sure i could dig up research on this but just seems like common sense to me.

Yes there probably is,a ice free-ish summer, sunlight would warm the ocean slightly and as the Arctic autumn came the sun would lower and the ocean would give off that heat as steam/water vapour,this might continue through the winter.What outcome weather wise?

What would happen to that heat/water vapour,would it form clousds? would it stay as fog/mist,the temp inbalance would surely create very deep pressure systems.If clouds are formed there would be snow and lots of it!

In general what would the weather pattern be if we ever get to an ice free summer.Suggestions welcome

Edited October 7, 2010 by mycroft

[BornFromTheVoid]

Another slow day at the office it seems, ice extent grows by just 26,000km2 yesterday to just under 6,060,000km2 , after just 34,000km2 the day before. If we don't start getting some big gains soon we could find ourselves behind 2009 (6,238,750km2 by the 10th) and below 2008 (6,200,313kn2 by the 8th), and back once again to second lowest on record.

Going by the IJIS concentration images, it seems that we got some moderate gains on the Bering side of the pack, good gains in the Canadian Archipelago, but once more lost ice around the Barents and Kara sea.

Another thing to look out for while the ice is still quite mobile, is the risk of a dipole setting up again soon as the AO and NAO turn negative. The GFS 0z ensemble mean shows northerly orientated winds blowing through Fram once again in about 2 days time for around 2 or 3 days before moving away east. I guess this will be an opportunity to see how mobile the pack is. Thoough it is unlikely to result in any extent losses as the ice grows elsewhere.

[stewfox]

Another slow day at the office it seems, ice extent grows by just 26,000km2 yesterday to just under 6,060,000km2 , after just 34,000km2 the day before. If we don't start getting some big gains soon we could find ourselves behind 2009 (6,238,750km2 by the 10th) and below 2008 (6,200,313kn2 by the 8th), and back once again to second lowest on record.

My mid November we see a marked consistency for the last decade anyway re IJIS figures. The spread is very narrow i.e. 16^th November

9,915,156 ...2002

9,703,281 ... 2003

9,914,063 ... 2004

9,608,281... 2005

9,377,656... 2006

9,332,500... 2007

9,795,000 ...2008

9,394,219 ... 2009

How we get there is of less concern for me, however if we are not within this spread it would be interesting.

[songster]

Interesting things looking at ice maps from the Canadian Ice service. Compare the 20th Sept and 27th Sept maps.

http://ice-glaces.ec...920_WIS56CT.gif (20th, concentration)

http://ice-glaces.ec...920_WIS56SD.gif (20th, age)

http://ice-glaces.ec...927_WIS56CT.gif (27th, concentration)

http://ice-glaces.ec...927_WIS56SD.gif (27th, age)

****************

The ice is clearly growing back as expected, as we pass the equinox. However, the growing ice – which is by definition new ice – is getting incorrectly flagged as old ice by the Canadian maps. Look especially at the areas labelled yellow “PP†on the concentration map for the 20th. This is ~50% concentration old ice. On the concentration map for the 27th, these areas are now labelled red “GG†and “HH†and shown as 90-100% old ice.

An extra 40-50% of old ice cannot just appear out of nowhere! This is a beautifully direct illustration of Dr Barber’s “rotten iceâ€. You have a region containing a low percentage of multi-year ice rubble, glued together by newly-forming first-year ice. It appears superficially to be multi-year ice, but it doesn’t have the thickness or integrity of true multi-year ice.

EDIT: Actually, I'm maligning the Canadian maps there - if you look at the "egg codes" in more detail, it does in fact tell you (for example) that the "HH" area is 40% old ice in big floes, 10% thick 1st year ice in small floes and 40% thin 1st year ice that hasn't formed floes yet. The overview map is still somewhat misleading because the plurality (40%) of old ice means the whole area gets coloured as old ice on the age map. It's still a graphical illustration of how little old ice is left, being all broken up and mashed together with weaker younger ice. If you look at the comparable chart from September 2004, most of the area shows up as 70-80% old ice in giant floes.

Edited October 8, 2010 by songster

[BornFromTheVoid]

My mid November we see a marked consistency for the last decade anyway re IJIS figures. The spread is very narrow i.e. 16^th November

9,915,156 ...2002

9,703,281 ... 2003

9,914,063 ... 2004

9,608,281... 2005

9,377,656... 2006

9,332,500... 2007

9,795,000 ...2008

9,394,219 ... 2009

How we get there is of less concern for me, however if we are not within this spread it would be interesting.

We have a similar thing occur around the end of May aswell. I think for the November figures, it marks the point at which the majority of the extent gains start coming from ice outside of the Arctic basin/ocean, and vice versa for the bunching up in May.

Anyway, IJIS has updated once more to give us a more respectable gain of 60,000km2. We still need to gain over 100k to stay ahead of 08 by tomorrow though.

Temperatures are continuing well above average across the Arctic. =&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=10&dayr1=1&monr2=10&dayr2=5&iyr[1]=2010&filenamein=&plotlabel=&lag=0&labelc=Color&labels=Shaded&type=2&scale=&label=0&cint=1&lowr=-10&highr=10&istate=0&proj=Northern+Hemisphere&xlat1=65&xlat2=90&xlon1=&xlon2=&custproj=Northern+Hemisphere+Polar+Stereographic&level1=1000mb&level2=10mb&Submit=Create+Plot"]NH Temp

Over the coming week the upper cold really spreads and intensifies though, I'd expect some very large ice gains in the next 4-10 days within the Arctic basin, especially on the Russian side.

[MR EXTREMES]

clearly looking much better than 2007.

looking pretty good although look at the white patches more in 2007 although the arctic ice seems in better shape.

Edited October 8, 2010 by badboy657

[barrel1234]

clearly looking much better than 2007.

looking pretty good although look at the white patches more in 2007 although the arctic ice seems in better shape.

Very interesting, thanks for posting that, we are well down on the eastern side of Greenland, Im guessing that must be down to mainly local temperatures, we are experiencing somewhat of an indian summer here would it be the same southerlies keeping that part from freezing at present?

[MR EXTREMES]

Very interesting, thanks for posting that, we are well down on the eastern side of Greenland, Im guessing that must be down to mainly local temperatures, we are experiencing somewhat of an indian summer here would it be the same southerlies keeping that part from freezing at present?

agreed very much infact it dont look very white compaired to 2007 although ice is better.