Arctic Sea Ice Watch

Harps

Just a few weeks now until we should be seeing the sea ice at it's lowest for the year before the Arctic starts to freeze over again. So far, ice is again well below average though things are looking a lot more healthy than last years record low





A few links..

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/

Also of interest is than Antarctic Ice is again this year looking like being the most extensive on record

Victor Meldrew

http://longyearbyen.livecam360.com/flash/main.php

Worth a look for the weeks that come as things refreeze.

Godge

If you look at historical data, the Arctic ice is at its highest level for this time of year since 2006. Not much of a recovery given the huge drops since then but it will be interesting to see where it bottoms out this year and how quickly it recovers.

Duiske

Here's a handy tool for comparing sea ice area on a particular date to the same date in any year going back to 1979. Daily Sea Ice Maps. By the way, if looking to compare ice maximum's or minimums the dates are roughly 15th March (Max) and 15th September (Min).

Joey Fritzl

For anyone who can't sleep, BBC News 24 ran a story on this and will probably repeat itself every half hour.

rickdangerouss

Here are some links I use.

https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/air-temperature/

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/9046/20130826/watch-melting-arctic-sea-ice-approach-annual-minimum-video.htm


Hope it helps.

tylercollins

And now it's global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year

Iancar29

TYLER got there before me ha !

Will be interesting to see what proper recovery the ice now makes when it get PROPER cold up there!

Harps

<snip>
Good to see a recovery in ice but its only one year and still amongst the lowest ever recorded, much as certain sections of the media like to hype up global warming the Daily Mail like to use anything they can as definitive proof that its all a government conspiracy so I wouldn't read much into the article

I've read a few different articles on the effects sea ice can have on our weather, I think the general theme is more ice can lead to stormier autumn and early winter. Less ice leads to more snow across the Northern Hemisphere early in the season which helps deep cold to build which can lead to a stronger Siberian High by Jan/Feb.

Interesting to see how it plays out

rickdangerouss

What I see on the daily mail link, is a graph that is very near the bottom average for 1981-2010, with the deviations included in this too. I agree with Harps. One year ice increases the chances will be there next year.

Also using one year of sea ice information, to discount that last 30 years is... Trending is still down; Greenland had a big melt season, Iceland's Glaciers shrinking too.

I do not have the background or any knowledge that says Global warming is true or false or another reason. Wait and see season is ahead for me. Until then, I cannot form an Ice hard opinion on this subject.

Grimreaper666

It seems it's global cooling now. As far as i'm concerned it's all about generating taxes, I honestly believe the whole thing's a scam. I've read where the Chinese sailed through the north and south poles in the 17th century and there wasn't ice in either place. When i see politicians getting in on the bandwagon it looses all credibility for me anyway.

pauldry

The Chinese thought they were in the North Pole but it was Clew Bay!

Tae laidir

They must have also invented Flying Boats, as the South Pole is 2800 metres above Sea Level.
Perhaps it was 2 Poles, one in Mulrannny & the other in Louisburgh.

Tae laidir

The website has been updated recently to reflect Sea Ice Concentration.
Should be interesting (frightening?) to watch it shrink following the new Winter minimum.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Grimreaper666

Interesting how the Vikings used to have settlements under where there's ice now in Greenland and yet mankind had very little impact on the planet then...... Makes one wonder what the real story is......

pauldry

I spend half my day looking at this
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/

Grimreaper666

The climate is, has and will always be in a state of change.

Tabnabs

Interesting to see some figures from frequent reporting https://twitter.com/istjenesten?lang=en seems pretty average all in all.

pauldry

Ice volume is thinner but extent is hanging in there.

sideswipe

Grimreaper666 wrote: »

The climate is, has and will always be in a state of change.

No one argues that. It's the rate and extent of change that is worrying.
The Great Barrier Reef has adapted to change constantly, it sits on remnants of ancient reefs that died off because of changing water levels and climate change. The problem now is it's seeming inability to adapt to changes that are happening over decades rather than thousands of years.

up for anything

I came across this article and thought of here.

Up to half of the arctic's melt might be totally natural

Nabber

4 year revival on this thread.... nice work.

The scare mongering that goes with anthropological climate change is my issue.
I'm still not convinced that sea ice, ocean temp, rain fall, etc.. need to conform to an average, but are very much dictated by a series of events that don't adhere to patterns.

I also feel that science is replacing religion and requesting blind faith. Anyone who doesn't believe is ostracised and a scourge to society....

Grimreaper666

Nabber wrote: »

4 year revival on this thread.... nice work.

The scare mongering that goes with anthropological climate change is my issue.
I'm still not convinced that sea ice, ocean temp, rain fall, etc.. need to conform to an average, but are very much dictated by a series of events that don't adhere to patterns.

I also feel that science is replacing religion and requesting blind faith. Anyone who doesn't believe is ostracised and a scourge to society....

Very true! There are so many stories contradicting each other now it's hard to know who to believe. The one thing I do believe is that these studies are paid for by governments and they can never be trusted about anything!

Tae laidir

Another interesting website - showing Surface Temperatures at 80 degrees North.
Average temperature now breaching Freezing Point.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Billcarson

For those who doubt man made climate change I say if mans activity could effect the ozone layer,does that not show that man indeed can have some kind of effect on the atmosphere??? Only now 30 yrs after the cfc ban is the ozone layer starting to recover.

Akrasia

Grimreaper666 wrote: »

Very true! There are so many stories contradicting each other now it's hard to know who to believe. The one thing I do believe is that these studies are paid for by governments and they can never be trusted about anything!

The stories that contradict global warming are denialist propaganda paid for by a few billionaires who are trying to milk the most profits out of their polluting industries without any regard for the long term global implications.

You say you don't trust Scientists because there is some government funding, but somehow you do believe studies that are funded by Exxon of Koch industries as if they don't have any commercial interest in opposing regulations of emissions.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/12/01/exxonmobil_koch_family_have_powered_climate_change_denial_for_decades.html

Also, your claim that governments have all been driving global warming research to exaggerate the risks is completely contradicted by the fact that international treaties to prevent global warming have been extremely hard to negotiate because governments have historically been reluctant to admit that there is a problem, and even more reluctant to agree to solutions.

pauldry

Ive studied Arctic Sea Ice for 10 years

That stuff is rubble this year

The extent is somehow hanging on

I look at Nasa Worldview and see all the images

Maybe nasa are putting false images out to scaremonger

Maybe sea ice can recover in the coming years but this year its broken everywhere and that is worrying

pedigree 6

Billcarson wrote: »

For those who doubt man made climate change I say if mans activity could effect the ozone layer,does that not show that man indeed can have some kind of effect on the atmosphere??? Only now 30 yrs after the cfc ban is the ozone layer starting to recover.

I don't think there's no doubt about man made climate change. But the main reservations people have about treaties is where the fine money goes, who gets it and what it's spent on. Then at the end of the day these treaties are voluntary to that particular country if they will enforce them or not.

The thing that muddies the waters of this whole palava (climate change,treaties, fines, etc) is where the money goes, that climate has always been changing since the start of the planet, unfair regulations across different countries and some are hindered by regulations while others get off Scot free, that natural climate change is barely understood yet and we are only starting to learn about the Sun's influence and increased or decreased amounts of comic rays influence on our atmosphere.
Even increased cosmic rays seemingly have an effect on the ozone layer.
Still a lot to learn.

Oneiric 3

pedigree 6 wrote: »

Still a lot to learn.

A hell of a lot to learn.

There can be no doubt that the globe has been warming over the course of the last few decades, but causes remain quite uncertain. Only last year, this paper was published, claiming that it is cleaner air, correlating with a huge reduction in industrial aerosols over eastern Europe over the last 30 years or so, that is having a direct effect on Arctic temperatures, and by consequence, Arctic sea ice extent:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v9/n4/full/ngeo2673.html


Also worth a read is this article by Bjorn Lomborg, which shows just how hollow the aims of the so called 'Paris Agreement' are: Political grandstanding, and really not much else.

http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

A hell of a lot to learn.

There can be no doubt that the globe has been warming over the course of the last few decades, but causes remain quite uncertain. Only last year, this paper was published, claiming that it is cleaner air, correlating with a huge reduction in industrial aerosols over eastern Europe over the last 30 years or so, that is having a direct effect on Arctic temperatures, and by consequence, Arctic sea ice extent:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v9/n4/full/ngeo2673.html


Also worth a read is this article by Bjorn Lomborg, which shows just how hollow the aims of the so called 'Paris Agreement' are: Political grandstanding, and really not much else.

http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises

The causes aren't uncertain. Global Dimming has been known about for decades and we know that it has been masking global warming. It means that global warming caused by the greenhouse effect should be worse than it is, but our particulate emissions are blocking some sunlight and slowing the warming.

There are some geo-engineering proposals to reverse global warming that involve deliberately releasing particles into the upper atmosphere to block some sunlight but we'd rather it not come to that

Yourself isit

What about the idea of seeding the sea with iron.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

The causes aren't uncertain. Global Dimming has been known about for decades and we know that it has been masking global warming. It means that global warming caused by the greenhouse effect should be worse than it is, but our particulate emissions are blocking some sunlight and slowing the warming.

There are some geo-engineering proposals to reverse global warming that involve deliberately releasing particles into the upper atmosphere to block some sunlight but we'd rather it not come to that

There is a lot of uncertainty regarding how much anthropogenic forces contribute to the present warming.

While no doubt 'global dimming' masked a certain about of warming, what needs to be asked is: how much warming did it mask? Surely, cleaner, less polluted air in itself will allow more solar radiation to reach the earth's surface, thus contribute to a significant percentage of the warming we are now seeing?

As for 'geo-engineering proposals' to release particles into the atmosphere to curb 'global warming', who actually decides this? Who is to give the 'authority' to these people to use our atmosphere as something to be experimented with without actually considering the wider implications of potential consequence? What are they hoping to achieve exactly? A return to some sort of 'climate optimum' that does not, and never has, existed? Perhaps a return to a climate scenario that was in place before the advent of the industrial revolution?

Gaoth Laidir

Prof Ray Bates released a paper last year that claims that the climate sensitivity is only half of what has been previously accepted by the "majority of scientists". Read it and make up your own mind. If it's true then it means a whole lot of reevaluating of what we think we know.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015EA000154/full

Danno

IMO the C02 is not the problem, water vapour is. The human race has been cutting down rainforests for many decades now and all that moisture is now in the system as opposed to being stored up in vast swathes of trees and vegetation. We all know that water vapour holds way more heat and all this water vapour is now caught up in the circulation system that ends up in polar regions. This milder moist air is responsible for increased heat in the poles and leading to ice melt. We need to review our land usage and restore rainforests, tackle our UHI's and then we'll see a reversal of Global Warming.

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

IMO the C02 is not the problem, water vapour is. The human race has been cutting down rainforests for many decades now and all that moisture is now in the system as opposed to being stored up in vast swathes of trees and vegetation. We all know that water vapour holds way more heat and all this water vapour is now caught up in the circulation system that ends up in polar regions. This milder moist air is responsible for increased heat in the poles and leading to ice melt. We need to review our land usage and restore rainforests, tackle our UHI's and then we'll see a reversal of Global Warming.

With all due respect 'IMO' is a phrase that has no place in a scientific discussion

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

There is a lot of uncertainty regarding how much anthropogenic forces contribute to the present warming.

While no doubt 'global dimming' masked a certain about of warming, what needs to be asked is: how much warming did it mask? Surely, cleaner, less polluted air in itself will allow more solar radiation to reach the earth's surface, thus contribute to a significant percentage of the warming we are now seeing?

As for 'geo-engineering proposals' to release particles into the atmosphere to curb 'global warming', who actually decides this? Who is to give the 'authority' to these people to use our atmosphere as something to be experimented with without actually considering the wider implications of potential consequence? What are they hoping to achieve exactly? A return to some sort of 'climate optimum' that does not, and never has, existed? Perhaps a return to a climate scenario that was in place before the advent of the industrial revolution?

Before the industrial revolution earth was on average about a degree c cooler than today. Global dimming is bad news because it hid the greenhouse effect and delayed our response to reduce carbon emissions.

Regarding geo engineering, if it gets to the stage where it is needed, your concerns will be petty compared to the devastation of global warming

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

With all due respect 'IMO' is a phrase that has no place in a scientific discussion

With all due respect when science can figure out how a simple bee can fly then I'll bow down to your authority. Otherwise, feel free to discuss how you disagree with what I posted.

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

Before the industrial revolution earth was on average about a degree c cooler than today.

How did the vikings settle Greenland?

Rikand

Danno wrote: »

How did the vikings settle Greenland?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-greenland-vikings-vanished-180962119/

^^ that's a long read, but kinda interesting

From 900-1300 there was a global warm period and the vikings could settle everywhere. Then a volcano erupted causing the earth to cool and more frequent storms to appear akin to the "Nor'easters" that hit northern US these days. The ice expanded and the Vikings either died with it or got the **** out of there

caff

Danno wrote: »

With all due respect when science can figure out how a simple bee can fly then I'll bow down to your authority. Otherwise, feel free to discuss how you disagree with what I posted.

They can explain it http://www.snopes.com/science/bumblebees.asp

pedigree 6

Rikand wrote: »

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-greenland-vikings-vanished-180962119/

^^ that's a long read, but kinda interesting

From 900-1300 there was a global warm period and the vikings could settle everywhere. Then a volcano erupted causing the earth to cool and more frequent storms to appear akin to the "Nor'easters" that hit northern US these days. The ice expanded and the Vikings either died with it or got the **** out of there

I just find all this stuff so interesting.:)

Basically there was this warm period then, warmer than now in fact and then there was a once in a 7000 thousand year volcano eruption that put so much ash and dust in the stratosphere that it cooled the earth and brought about little ice ages.
Cool.:D

Yourself isit

Danno wrote: »

With all due respect when science can figure out how a simple bee can fly then I'll bow down to your authority. Otherwise, feel free to discuss how you disagree with what I posted.

Vortex lift

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

With all due respect when science can figure out how a simple bee can fly then I'll bow down to your authority. Otherwise, feel free to discuss how you disagree with what I posted.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/longstanding-puzzle-of-ho/

riffmongous

Danno wrote: »

With all due respect when science can figure out how a simple bee can fly then I'll bow down to your authority. Otherwise, feel free to discuss how you disagree with what I posted.

Wow!

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

Regarding geo engineering, if it gets to the stage where it is needed, your concerns will be petty compared to the devastation of global warming

You didn't address any of my points. But I think if we are going put things on a pettiness scale, then the issue of climate change is going to become pretty high up there on it as the mood of global politics continues to take on an increasingly darker and more malevolent tone in the years to come.

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

You didn't address any of my points. But I think if we are going put things on a pettiness scale, then the issue of climate change is going to become pretty high up there on it as the mood of global politics continues to take on an increasingly darker and more malevolent tone in the years to come.

Global warming is probably the single biggest threat to human survival.

Nuclear weapons could wipe us out faster, but they hopefully will never be used again. Inaction on global warming is already putting us into doomsday scenarios in the medium term with extreme weather events becoming more and more common and permanent changes to weather patterns as the ice melts on our poles and glaciers

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Global warming is probably the single biggest threat to human survival.

Nuclear weapons could wipe us out faster, but they hopefully will never be used again. Inaction on global warming is already putting us into doomsday scenarios in the medium term with extreme weather events becoming more and more common and permanent changes to weather patterns as the ice melts on our poles and glaciers

Sensationalism at its worst. There's no evidence that any weather event is linked to increased ghg. We're not seeing the doomsday scenarios we should be seeing now. After the 2005 hurricane season we were told to expect more of the same. We've got the opposite. After the 2007 record low sea ice we were told the Arctic could be ice-free by 2020. Nonsense. Now we learn that climate sensitivity is only half of what was believed initially (Bates 2016).

Comparing climate change to nuclear weapons is about as extreme as I have ever heard.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Sensationalism at its worst. There's no evidence that any weather event is linked to increased ghg. We're not seeing the doomsday scenarios we should be seeing now. After the 2005 hurricane season we were told to expect more of the same. We've got the opposite. After the 2007 record low sea ice we were told the Arctic could be ice-free by 2020. Nonsense. Now we learn that climate sensitivity is only half of what was believed initially (Bates 2016).

Comparing climate change to nuclear weapons is about as extreme as I have ever heard.

You're so wrong its not even funny.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170327083120.htm

As per nuclear weapons. The extra energy trapped by the greenhouse effect dwarfs nuclear weapons

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OpBnCY7wwaw

Akrasia

I'm so fed up with global warming deniers. You're no better than moon landing deniers but at least that's harmless

Oneiric 3

I suppose there is one thing that global warming and nuclear bombs have in common, and that is that both are the result of pioneering scientific endeavour... :rolleyes:

@Akrasia. My post had nothing to with nuclear weapons or the threat of nuclear war. Global politics is changing, slowly but surely, and with that, so will global perception. The rise of the Right; the undignified, shameless self destruction of the Left; the increasing detachment and elitism of the Centre... it's all politics. And scream as you may, Climate science needs politics more than politics needs climate science.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

You're so wrong its not even funny.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170327083120.htm

As per nuclear weapons. The extra energy trapped by the greenhouse effect dwarfs nuclear weapons

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OpBnCY7wwaw

Let me ask you this (and you can answer it after you deal with the hurricane, Arctic sea ice and climate sensitivity points I made in my previous post): if what Mann says is true and increased ghg are causing this shift in the jet stream, do you not think that it's been happening right since 1850? Back then the northwest passage was also navigable. CO2 levels were much lower than today yet the warming started then at a similar rate to today's. So if warming is causing all these catastrophic events then they would have started happening 100 years ago and not just since the '70s. Did Mann go back that far? Can you point to any drought in Africa, flood in Bangladesh, heatwave in Europe, tornado outbreak in the US, etc. and claim that they are part of this "greatest threat to mankind"? Let's see your proof.

Also, what's with this term "climate denier"? Is it someone who denies climate exists? Or someone who denies climate change exists? Which is it? Everyone knows that climate changes so it's a ridiculous term used by people like you to try to label someone with a different opinion. It's like the misuse of the word "carbon" when in fact "carbon dioxide" is what is meant. Carbon is a harmless element so at least get the terms right.