Arctic Ice Discussion 2014: the thaw...

[stewfox]

 

This years temperatures have been close to average over the high Arctic, which is better than most recent years, hence an improvement in volume. Still, for someone so well versed in mathematics that they can disprove most of climate science and decry the use of linear trends, I think it inconsistent to make anything of a short term average thickness increase in a highly complex and noisy data set, no?

 

Temperatures in the high arctic were way above average first 100 days of the year and have been below average for the last 100 days.

 

 

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Edited September 7, 2014 by stewfox

[Geordiesnow]

I'm becoming ever more convinced that I have accidentally fallen into one the The Dr's wibbly wobbly timey whymy things and have ended up back in 2009???

 

Do folk have no memory of what happened to the ice in the two years following 07's crash? Seeing as 2012's drop was 18% larger than that would it not make sense that we would see a similar period of 'rebound' in the ice prior to it settling into a 'new' average prior to it's next major drop in extent/area/volume?

 

I think the difference here that surely the ice in 2008/09 was in better condition than it was in 2013/14 at the start of the melt season because of 2012's record breaking low so to potentially finish above 2008 in both years is not too bad... No recovery in the ice will be sudden sadly, it will be gradual, that said its far too early to shout out recovery because as you say, a melt season more favorable for melting could lead the ice heading back downwards again. 

 

It been an interesting melt season because weather conditions were not like 2013 even though temps were in general around average however when things started to look steady and decent for the Arctic in late July with decent ice retention synotopics, along came some rather horror weather charts as we headed into the first 3 weeks of August yet despite this, the ice held firm(certainly better than I thought) and extent dropped at near average pace. 

 

What helped was the lack of melt ponding but in June, weather conditons were cool and very slack so despite high pressure being in control, it was in an position where it did not move the ice around too much and conditions were perfect in the sence there was a lack of export. 

 

The current and upcoming weather conditions is not what i really want too see at the moment, i think there could be some more melting to come and whilst temperatures look reasonably cold, the wind direction is not favorable at all for any spreading and for new ice to grow so could we be on course for a late minimum? Looks rather stormy(even for September standards) so it will be interesting how this will impact on the sea ice. 

[Geoffwood]

Hi BFTV. Thanks for the reply.

"It's simply showing a trend, not making a prediction. It helps people visualise the decline in volume. There really is to no need to get so uppity about it."

"It helps people visualise the decline...."

That's exactly the point I am making. Can people not see the actual trending without the linear trend added? The inclusion of said linear trend upon a cyclic function IS misleading. People are given an impression that it is significant and as some people are doing here, extrapolating the decline to the last degree.

Without inclusion of 'rate of change of the linear trend' and/or a maturity diagram of the trend's development over time, the site developers are lining themselves up for failure to predict the recovery of Arctic sea ice or even include that possibility.

Guess the science 'is' settled.

[Kiwi]

Looks like the arctic "freeze" is gaining momentum.

 

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russia-starts-building-military-bases-in-the-arctic/506650.html

Edited September 9, 2014 by Kiwi

[knocker]

I'm not exactly sure what point you are attempting to make but I assume you are disagreeing with the accepted position on solar radiation and the global energy budget. This being the case it would perhaps be easier if you stated specifically where you disagree with Trenberth.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Tracking_Earths_Energy.html

 

http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387h/PAPERS/kiehl.pdf

Edited September 10, 2014 by knocker

[oldsnowywizard]

That further impresses me about the current conditions... I'm also amazed at the difference between 2012 and 2013...One more repeat and the ice extent levels would be back up to late 90s levels... response to 357 ..sorry

Ps loving the high tech chat on here but can we link this a little more to the Arctic ice :-)

Edited September 10, 2014 by oldsnowywizard

[4wd]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29131757

Interesting that in 1845 wooden ships made it to an area which is still mostly ice this year.
 

[Interitus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29131757

Interesting that in 1845 wooden ships made it to an area which is still mostly ice this year.

 

 

Clearly not much ice to prevent towing the sonars back and forth.

For more about the project the Canadian Geographical Society have a dedicated section on their site - http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/franklin-expedition/

[PeteG]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29131757

Interesting that in 1845 wooden ships made it to an area which is still mostly ice this year.

I believe the ships were trapped in the ice and we don't know how far they were carried before they finally sank. They presumably only made it to that area because of the ice cover.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Looks like CT area will drop below 2013 by Friday (based on Wipneus' calculations on the sea ice forum), possibly below 2009 during the weekend if it sees any further losses.

 

The 1 day NSIDC extent is within 100k of both the 2013 and 2009 minima, and the 5 day mean is within 115k of both.

 

IJIS/JAXA extent has us already below the 2009 minimum and nearly 200k off the 2013 minimum.

 

Overall, looks like there'll be very little between 2009, 2013 and this year.

[Geoffwood]

oldsnowywizard. My apologies for the direction of my posts. People's ideas about the evolutionary trend of the Arctic sea ice is biased by a confused idea that trace gases set and maintain and can force surface temperatures. My aim is to set out from basics or include from basics a physically accountable argument against the radiative 'greenhouse effect'. This is done for no other reason than at the surface 'no radiative' enhancement is evident.

I welcome any input, positive or negative. We can agree or choose to disagree on basics. Without going down to basics we have no chance of agreeing.

Without an enhanced 'greenhouse effect' the recovery of Arctic sea ice is an exciting, but dangerous option.

Regards.

[Radiating Dendrite]

I am trying to work out what a turkey has got to do with the arctic ice?

 

Looking odds on now that we will be very near the 2009 / 13 final figures. This winter will be interesting to see if we can get a little bit more ice than previous years. Next year could see us edging back to early naughties figures given the growing multiyear ice of the last couple of years since 2012.

[stewfox]

Thats myself unfollowing this thread due to the wondering off topic and boring personel snipes.

 

That's why we have report buttons 

 

Anyway back to the arctic ice  5,000,248kms on IJIS 15%

 

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

 

Lets hope that's the bottom

 

With volume up multi year ice up it does show the ice can recover in short periods of time

Edited September 11, 2014 by stewfox

[BornFromTheVoid]

That's why we have report buttons 

 

Anyway back to the arctic ice  5,000,248kms on IJIS 15%

 

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

 

Lets hope that's the bottom

 

With volume up multi year ice up it does show the ice can recover in short periods of time

 

Well, any year that isn't as low as 2012 is going to have more multi-year ice. Saying that, after being near record lows in volume in spring (which wiped out the "recovery" from 2013), the current volume is doing quite well.

 

How we see the term "recovery" matters too. If your idea of a recovery is anything better than 2012, then I guess you could consider this year a recovery. For myself, it's just the normal up and down superimposed on a long term downward trend that weather variability causes. I would consider a volume measure at summers end higher than any of the pre-2007 years to be the first step in a recovery, and reaching 90s values to be a possible recovery in progress.

[stewfox]

Well, any year that isn't as low as 2012 is going to have more multi-year ice. Saying that, after being near record lows in volume in spring (which wiped out the "recovery" from 2013), the current volume is doing quite well.

 

How we see the term "recovery" matters too. If your idea of a recovery is anything better than 2012, then I guess you could consider this year a recovery. For myself, it's just the normal up and down superimposed on a long term downward trend that weather variability causes. I would consider a volume measure at summers end higher than any of the pre-2007 years to be the first step in a recovery, and reaching 90s values to be a possible recovery in progress.

 

I did say recover not recovery and clearly the arctic is in a bad way cf 1980s 1990s. 

 

Two or three cold winter and cool summers and we would be back to figures last seen in the 1980s

 

I not suggesting that will happen but talk of a death spiral is still premature when the old bird can still get out of bed.  

[Nights King]

I did say recover not recovery and clearly the arctic is in a bad way cf 1980s 1990s. 

 

Two or three cold winter and cool summers and we would be back to figures last seen in the 1980s

 

I not suggesting that will happen but talk of a death spiral is still premature when the old bird can still get out of bed.  

 

 

 

  Talk of turkeys and old birds is just cracking me up in this thread perhaps its time to stop choking that chicken and move on  

 

I'd like to believe you Geoff but even a sceptic like myself I cannot see any full recovery of the arctic any time soon with its weak state it's in.

[Gray-Wolf]

Wise words Mullender83!

 

Any recovery has not only to regain the volumes we used to see pre 80's but as it does so it has to survive weather years that will be far less kind, for ice retention, than the past two? 

 

The years post 07' saw two record losses ( 2010 for volume and 2012 for everything) over 'average weather years. What would a 2007 perfect melt storm have done in those years??? 

 

As it is we are due another 'perfect melt storm' from 2017 onward so it does not leave us much time to put on bulk to fend off such a melt season synoptic. Personally I was pleasantly surprised to see another, but different, ice retention year this season but how long can such a run hold out? Add in 'average' export onto this years season and you'll see what I mean!

 

Apart from the 'Perfect melt storm' synoptic surely we also have synoptics that are conducive to melt/export along with 'average' and 'good for retention' years?

 

As such I would ( and am!) be cautious with the 'recovery' meme as 1 good year for melt/export will place us back down into the lower ice years. Remember 2012 started with a lot of ice yet still took records for all measures. What would a 2012 type year do to a 2014 start point?

[BornFromTheVoid]

To counter some of what's been said in here...

 

There is no evidence that the sea ice values this summer are anything more than that expected variation introduced by differing summer weather, superimposed on a long term downward trend.

 

Greenhouse gas theory is as solid a theory as evolution or germ theory, has been known about for over a century and does not have a single qualified expert who rejects it.

 

Arctic sea ice trends are unlikely to be strongly related to any natural driver. It's has declined though both +ve and -ve AMO phases, PDO phases, phases with -ve and +ve AO, etc. Let's not forget

[reef]

Just a reminder that this thread is to discuss Arctic ice levels, not the finer points of turkeys or whether you think AGW is or isn't happening. All off topic posts have been removed, there are other threads for that type of discussion.

 

Thanks

[jonboy]

Can I ask reef where have the posts been removed too or have they just been deleted?

[Midlands Ice Age]

 

Just a reminder that this thread is to discuss Arctic ice levels, not the finer points of turkeys or whether you think AGW is or isn't happening. All off topic posts have been removed, there are other threads for that type of discussion.

 

Thanks

Reef,

Can I ask why post 368 a not been removed then?

[Geoffwood]

reef, are predictions of future Arctic sea ice levels and therefore peoples expectations not based upon resolving the issue of the relative strength of natural variation and man's influence. Is this not a time coming to resolve what forces climate? If the Arctic is 'the canary in the mine' then this is when and where it happens. If they are right I am proven to be wrong! I can lay off with the tech but I cannot bend to things that I don't agree with. I feel this needs a balance of at least some who believe that the natural drivers are grossly underestimated.

You may choose to delete this post, it is after all your thread, your call.

I haven't received any warnings before deletion of posts.

(Can't believe you deleted Oldsnowywizard's opinion. Surely someone can express one?)

Edited September 12, 2014 by Geoffwood

[4wd]

To counter some of what's been said in here...

 

There is no evidence that the sea ice values this summer are anything more than that expected variation introduced by differing summer weather, superimposed on a long term downward trend.

 

Greenhouse gas theory is as solid a theory as evolution or germ theory, has been known about for over a century and does not have a single qualified expert who rejects it.

 

Arctic sea ice trends are unlikely to be strongly related to any natural driver. It's has declined though both +ve and -ve AMO phases, PDO phases, phases with -ve and +ve AO, etc. Let's not forget

That graph suggests we know ice conditions through hundreds of years, and is little more than a propaganda piece..

There is indisputable evidence of wave washed beaches on the north coast of Greenland that completely falsifies it.

Greenhouse gas theory is all very well as an explanation of why earth is not 30C cooler, but that is not the same as proof that a slight increase in a minor component gas acts like a thermostat. Number one greenhouse gas by a long margin is water vapour.

It has a miraculous ability to counter balance other changes and making any effect from CO2 practically negligible,

[Geoffwood]

4wd,

"There is indisputable evidence of wave washed beaches on the north coast of Greenland that completely falsifies it."

Such is the power of natural variation.

Thank you.

To certain others;

This interglacial peaked around 6000years ago. There is no unprecedented warming. As the glaciers retreat there is evidence of hundreds if not thousands of warmer years this Holocene.

Nature can do this to the Arctic all by herself.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Geoffwood

[Geoffwood]

BFTV, are you happy that within the last century the composite sum of the negative phases of the AMO and the PDO coincided with a phase in climate science where experts feared the onset of an ice age due to growth in Arctic sea ice. That being during the late 70's. PDO negative 50's to 80's, AMO negative 60's to 90's.

After the peaks of both we get an Arctic sea ice minimum.

As this does not rely entirely upon proxy data is this not a good and reliable 'best estimate' of correlation?