Artic Ice shows marked improvement on last year

darkman2

Facts speak for themselves


http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png


If it keeps going like this it will recover to average but even so this is a pretty big improvement that should be reported on.

Deep Easterly

Interesting. I have been keeping a cautious eye on the inflow of warm air up to the Arctic during the spring and summer, and no where near as much getting up there as was the case this time last year on the Atlantic side in particular, due to the persistance of the northern block which became established (in hybrd form) in March.

Unrelated, or maybe it is, the UKMO has just issued its forecast for the winter. "Less mild than last winter but still above the 70-00 mean". "Less mild", an easy one to call after a record breaking mild winter.

I think this winter will prove a little more interesting than that here.

rc28

Deep Easterly wrote: »

Interesting. I have been keeping a cautious eye on the inflow of warm air up to the Arctic during the spring and summer, and no where near as much getting up there as was the case this time last year on the Atlantic side in particular, due to the persistance of the northern block which became established (in hybrd form) in March.

Unrelated, or maybe it is, the UKMO has just issued its forecast for the winter. "Less mild than last winter but still above the 70-00 mean". "Less mild", an easy one to call after a record breaking mild winter.

I think this winter will prove a little more interesting than that here.

Oh dear, are we already forecasting next winter:D There's still more than half of summer to go people, dont lose faith yet. With a bit of luck the sun might come out for an hour or two in august;)

Weather BOFH

There's nearly a million square km more ice this year than last in the Arctic:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg

And Antarctica sea ice is above the 79-00 mean by about half a million square km and has been above the mean since last August:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg

darkman2

We should not start counting our chickens yet but this is really good news. Funny how this gets no media attention at all:(


Anyways the trend is toward the 30 year average right now and that would leave us far far up on last year going into the winter with the ice extent.

Hal1

I wonder if Al Gore knows about this :pac:

Deep Easterly

darkman2 wrote: »

We should not start counting our chickens yet but this is really good news. Funny how this gets no media attention at all:(


Anyways the trend is toward the 30 year average right now and that would leave us far far up on last year going into the winter with the ice extent.

Does anyone know how much the actual ice sheet affects the conditions down here during the season of winter. Would it be a case of the greater the extent of the ice, the more chance we have of a good auld blasht a shnow; or would it in fact increase the positive trend of the NAO?

Always wondered.

Snowbie

It would be more of a sway to a -NAO with dryer and cooler winter peroid. Or more - than + at times. The temperate influence be never far away. Had one in the early 90s can't remember the year when 17mm of rain fell for the month of January in which 16mm was from one episode. Don't recall a snowy event though.

Plus Global Warming lol

rc28

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/the-sunspot-mys.html
"the world cooled quickly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7C.

"This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record, and it puts us back to where we were in 1930,"
In the past, they observed that the sun once went 50 years without producing sunspots. That period coincided with a little ice age on Earth that lasted from 1650 to 1700"

LFCFan

darkman2 wrote: »

Funny how this gets no media attention at all:(

There's way too much money to be made on the back of global warming so I'd doubt we'll ever hear about any 'global cooling' in the mainstream news.

StratoQ

Re: Counting chickens etc.

There is still at least two months to go before the arctic sea ice melt season finishes. The pattern of sea ice melt has been different this year to last - but we may yet see a rapid dip in sea ice extent if conditions change over the north coast of Russia.

Much of the ice north of the Russian coast is young first year sea ice and thin by nature. Temps have been low north of Russia but high north of Alaska/Canada so far this summer. There are signs east Siberia is heating up now considerably (almost 30 C near the coast). So I wouldnt be at all surprised to see a another big dip thru August. More discussed here:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

BigglesMcGee

LFCFan wrote: »

There's way too much money to be made on the back of global warming so I'd doubt we'll ever hear about any 'global cooling' in the mainstream news.

You're right. "Fresh Air tax" is huge now. Not a chance of the powers that be letting go of that one.

LFCFan

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

You're right. "Fresh Air tax" is huge now. Not a chance of the powers that be letting go of that one.

I'm talking about the billions that is being spent on research all over the world. All the grant money that is out there for scientists etc. If the planet starts 'recovering' and the topic is no longer top of the agenda, a lot of that money will dry up.

DOCARCH

Interesting article here on the possible connection between wild fires in the US/North America and its effect on the Arctic - could this help explain the apparant reversal of trends?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=alYnovfZgjk0&refer=us

Was in the IT yesterday.

StratoQ

Maybe time to amend the thread title.

Arctic sea ice extent has dropped considerably in past 2 weeks.

The NW passage is now open and it looks like this year's min extent could well come close to last year's record min.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

nacho libre

darkman2 wrote: »

Facts speak for themselves


http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png


If it keeps going like this it will recover to average but even so this is a pretty big improvement that should be reported on.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7585645.stm

StratoQ

And still no change to the thread title!

Hello. Any moderator out there!

I think it's important that we should not be sending out messages that Arctic is on the mend when clearly it isnt. Global warming is everyone's responsibility.

OK. Rant over.

Danno

Global Warming my backside, meanwhile the Antarctic shows record ice. Funny how this is not in the main news at 9 headlines!

Linkey: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extent

StratoQ

Antarctic sea ice trend is more or less flatlining.

I am at a loss as to how you dont think Arctic ice loss is not related to the obvious and undisputed warming the planet has undergone in the past couple of decades (and esp. in the northern latitudes)

There seems to be an all too common standpoint about that you're not "trendy" these days unless you are a global warming skeptic.

Danno

StratoQ, It is my opinion that this global warming or climate change - which ever slant you choose to call it is a load of bull. In the 1970s it was "Global Cooling" and how at that time the planet was going into an iceage.
As for the common standpoint, I would feel the opposite is true.

The seas are warmer over the last few years allright, that is no doubt. That is why the arctic sea has less ice. However, this has happened MANY times in the past. There was the Mideavil Warming Period before the mini ice age - guess what, no C02 from us humans then! This warming period allowed the Danes to colonise Greenland, even sustainable agriculture was possible then!

This global warming/climate change bull is an excuse to raise taxes, and keep the Western World/Africa balance the way it is.

The real driver of our planets climate is the sun's spots. There is an absence of major spots at the moment, guess what, it's getting cooler!

Deep Easterly

Not quite reaching the low levels of 2007 yet.

StratoQ, while ice extent may be lower than the 79-00 average (which is not much of a time encompasing average in my opinion), are sea levels rising globally in relation to this sea ice loss? I don't have any links available on my faves to show this. Would be interesting to compare sea level rises with this gradual sea ice anomaly.

arctictree

I don't think Arctic sea ice loss affects sea level. AFAIK its because the ice is floating anyway so its water displacement is already in effect.

Ice loss in Antarctica or Greenland is a different matter...

A

conceited

http://www.dailytech.com/Arctic+Sees+Massive+Gain+in+Ice+Coverage/article12851.htm

Danno

Meanwhile... in KENYA! :eek:... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7596134.stm

Supercell

Last year people blamed the unusual wind currents for the lack of ice, looks like this year will be very close if not exceeding last years losses.
The trend is undeniable. Just look at Paddies temperature devaition charts in the montly forecast threads, its the exception to have a month equal or below average and completely the norm to be above these days.

gone soon

conceited wrote: »

http://www.dailytech.com/Arctic+Sees+Massive+Gain+in+Ice+Coverage/article12851.htm

Long time viewer of this board, but this post forced me to sign up and respond….

I suppose I can’t blame conceited for believing what he/she reads, but I wish people would do a bit of digging before they make up their minds.

NSIDC, apparently who DailyTech used for information to write this report/blog state that 2008 is the second lowest Arctic ice levels on record. True, the ice sheet is larger than 2007, but to headline that the Arctic has seen “massive gains” is extremely disingenuous

The ease with which even accurate data can be twisted to pursue an agenda is frightening. The use of spurious data goes without saying. Telling the difference, for the average consumer bombarded with information and disinformation, is frustrating.

All I can say is, dig deeper.

rc28

+1 on the above post
Also, the article made it seem like the melt seasn is over, it isn't yet;
http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=49286&st=34&start=34
There is sensationalism/inaccuracy on both sides of the AGW debate.

StratoQ

Danno wrote: »

StratoQ, It is my opinion that this global warming or climate change - which ever slant you choose to call it is a load of bull. In the 1970s it was "Global Cooling" and how at that time the planet was going into an iceage.
As for the common standpoint, I would feel the opposite is true.

Of course Danno, you're entitled to your own view point. We are living at (for me anyway) a fascinating time of changing weather and climate. Nobody can say they have all the answers. IMO the evidence says that we are in a global warming period. Causation is another matter.

The next few years I think will tell a lot and in that respect why not have an "Arctic Sea Ice" "North Pole" sticky thread? It's one no doubt people are going to come back to as the ice waxes and wanes.

A neutral thread title such as that I think would be better all round.

Danno

Agreed StratoQ. I think a "Climate Change" sticky would be good. BTW, my stance against GW is nothing personal!

junkyard

I thought things were even hotting up here for a while! It must be global warming, I mean climate change .

conceited

gone soon wrote: »

Long time viewer of this board, but this post forced me to sign up and respond….

I'M GOING TO FINE YOU ONE CARBON CREDIT, PAY FOR IT AT THE POST OFFICE.:
Or send a postal order to al gores company.
Global warming my arse.In the 1300's it was alot warmer than it is today.It's the earths natural cycle.
As was said Eric the Red's descendant's colonized Greenland in the 1300's i suppose that was because of them there cars....:eek:

Supercell

Erm..search hockey stick..revisted..
1300's were not warmer.. [hint- go read newscientist]

Eric landed on the coast and it was green there, it still is...
Jesus, what will it take for the warming denialists to wake up and smell the coffee?

AlmightyCushion

Supercell wrote: »

Jesus, what will it take for the warming denialists to wake up and smell the coffee?

Global warming to allow the production of coffee beans in Ireland.

Deep Easterly

Supercell wrote: »

Erm..search hockey stick..revisted..
what will it take for the warming denialists to wake up and smell the coffee?

When there is coffee to be smelt

Polar icecaps only a rare, freak event in the climate history of the globe. They have come, they have gone, and longer gone, than come.

"ah yes, but it's the speed of change that is occuring that is alarming" that climate change cash in scammers activists decry again and again, and that is when I yawn, a big yawn, a yawn to die for, which is then followed by a smug, satisfied smile.:pac:

M.T. Cranium

Hello, haven't wandered into this one yet.

I think we are near the end of a warming episode in terms of the arctic ice depletion, it may already be getting slightly colder on land although by no means have we seen a real reversal to "old time" winter cold even in northern Canada, but there have been signs of a more normal regime in recent winters. The sea ice will likely be a bit slower to respond and although 2007 won't likely catch 2008's record ice melt, there are some parts of the arctic seeing more melt this season than last (mostly around the Kara Sea). And where it lags behind, it is still more melt than in the average season of even recent "global warming" years.

What I suspect may happen is that we will go into a colder phase but there is still a lot of warmth stored up in the oceans and this could make it a rather muted cold spell that could at some point in five to ten years reverse back to the slight warming each season that marked the late 1990s.

When or if that happens, the arctic ocean ice pack could come under major assault for a few seasons and we may reach that speculated-about removal of ice at least in late summer. If this happens at all, it will probably be around 2020 to 2025.

I certainly don't consider it a certainty. For one thing, the quiet Sun phenomenon could persist and this could turn into a second Maunder for all we know about these things (which is basically nothing). Or it could be a second Dalton minimum and be combined with a major volcanic dust event, same outcome, and rapid cooling of the arctic in particular.

If those things don't intervene, the background climate should remain roughly where it has been since 1980 with perhaps a bit more anomalous warming. I am neither pro nor violently anti AGW as things stand, I look at the temperature increase as being partly natural and enhanced by the additional greenhouse gases. My estimate is that the natural part is about two-thirds of the total, but that's based on what has happened in natural warming cycles in the past. It could easily be anywhere from 50-50 to 90-10 natural, I think the IPCC has over-estimated the percentages of the warming that come from greenhouse gases directly. And the signal for it may be more in terms of higher overnight temperatures and more cloudiness. Daytime temperatures seem to have remained closer to long-term averages in those places where some warming has been reported.

So in conclusion, I think it is all a very complicated situation where the ice is certainly at risk, perhaps starting to show some signs of recovering, and where it's possible we could go in either direction in the near future. I think our human efforts to change the climate will be doomed to futility because too much of the variance is natural, so what can we really do except modify slightly the outcomes? We might be further ahead to accept there is a real risk of losing arctic ice, seeing rising sea levels, and planning for that. We are not forced to keep the rising waters in the oceans either, conceivably we could spend large amounts of money and desalinate large amounts of it, then irrigate desert regions. This might allow us to control rising sea levels and increase inhabitable regions substantially to feed and house an exploding third world population. I would see Mauretania and the southern part of the former Spanish Sahara as excellent locations for large-scale conversion of sea water to fresh water, as there are large expanses of land there with no population whatsoever, very close to sea level, so that engineering could produce basins for the sea water -- if these were deep enough the overall global sea level would fall and if we could channel the water out into irrigation then it would fall further. Of course if it rained more, this might spread back into the oceans, but in that climate, most of the surface moisture would go into the crops produced and the soil reserves, and not reach the oceans again.

junkyard

Supercell wrote: »

Jesus, what will it take for the warming denialists to wake up and smell the coffee?

It might be happening all right but as others have said it's naturally occuring and most likely will balance out at the end of the day but to tax us out of it for everything is a joke and that's my main arguement because as we all know, once taxes are in there there to stay.

djpbarry

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

My estimate is that the natural part is about two-thirds of the total, but that's based on what has happened in natural warming cycles in the past. It could easily be anywhere from 50-50 to 90-10 natural, I think the IPCC has over-estimated the percentages of the warming that come from greenhouse gases directly.

I’d be interested in hearing how you arrived at those conclusions.

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

I think our human efforts to change the climate will be doomed to futility…
…
We are not forced to keep the rising waters in the oceans either, conceivably we could spend large amounts of money and desalinate large amounts of it, then irrigate desert regions.

So attempting to control our CO2 emissions is futile, but “terraforming” deserts is entirely feasible?

gone soon

conceited wrote: »

I'M GOING TO FINE YOU ONE CARBON CREDIT, PAY FOR IT AT THE POST OFFICE.:
Or send a postal order to al gores company.
Global warming my arse.In the 1300's it was alot warmer than it is today.It's the earths natural cycle.
As was said Eric the Red's descendant's colonized Greenland in the 1300's i suppose that was because of them there cars....:eek:

I hadn't given any opinion on the matter, just questioned the validity of your link. I have no problem with your opinion, and actually would be on your side of the debate if there was enough data out there to support it.

Found a good site recently which gave details of Finnish research into tree rings and relating them to climate, it made for interesting reading.

djpbarry

conceited wrote: »

Global warming my arse.In the 1300's it was alot warmer than it is today.

Was it indeed :rolleyes:. And I suppose you'd be happy enough to use a map dating from the 1300's to navigate the globe?

conceited wrote: »

As was said Eric the Red's descendant's colonized Greenland in the 1300's...

So?