Get Your Bets Down on the 2008 Arctic Ice Melt
N_Fiddledog @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 11:03 pm
In the interest of fairness, I should update you guys.
In the last 10 days something happened. A sudden increased melt.
$1:
Sea ice decline accelerates, Amundsen's Northwest Passage opens
The pace of sea ice loss sharply quickened in the past ten days, triggered by a series of strong storms that broke up thin ice in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Amundsen's historic Northwest Passage is opening up; the wider and deeper route through Parry Channel is currently still clogged with ice.
Overview of conditions
Arctic sea ice extent on August 10 was 6.54 million square kilometers (2.52 million square miles), a decline of 1 million square kilometers (390,000 square miles) since the beginning of the month. Extent is now within 780,000 square kilometers (300,000 square miles) of last year's value on the same date and is 1.50 million square kilometers (580,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.
Conditions in context
Ice extent has begun to decline sharply. The decline rate surged to -113,000 square kilometers per day on August 7 and as of August 10 was -103,000 square kilometers per day. This compares to the long-term average decline of -76,000 square kilometers per day for this time of year. Normally, the peak decline rate is in early July.
Many of the areas now seeing a rapid retreat saw an early melt onset (see July 2, 2008); this helped set the stage for rapid retreat (July 17 and April 7). However, the more fundamental issue is that these regions started the melt season covered with thin first-year ice, which is especially vulnerable to melting out completely. Thin ice is also vulnerable to breakup by winds; the last ten days have seen a windy, stormy pattern that has accelerated the ice loss.
Storms trigger increased melt
A series of storms north of Alaska and Siberia in late July and early August have helped break up the thin ice and have brought warm southerly winds into the region.
Subsequently, a pattern has developed with high pressure over the Beaufort Sea and low pressure over the Laptev and East Siberian Seas (Figure 3). In accord with Buys Ballot's Law, this pattern has brought southerly winds to the region, enhancing melt, breaking up ice, and pushing the ice edge northward.
Opening of Amundsen's Northwest Passage
The Northwest Passage that Roald Amundsen navigated with great difficulty starting in 1903 is opening for the second year in a row, as shown in the AMSR-E sea ice product from the University of Bremen (Figure 4).
The most recent operational analysis from the Canadian Ice Service and the U.S. National Ice Center on August 8 showed a small section of Amundsen’s historic path still blocked by a 50-kilometer (31-mile) stretch of sea ice, although that should melt within the next few days.
Amundsen’s route requires sailing through treacherous narrow and shallow channels, making it impractical for deep-draft commercial ships. The more important northern route, through the wide and deep Parry Channel, is still ice-clogged. The northern route opened in mid-August last year; it may still open up before the end of this year's melt season.
The pace of sea ice loss sharply quickened in the past ten days, triggered by a series of strong storms that broke up thin ice in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Amundsen's historic Northwest Passage is opening up; the wider and deeper route through Parry Channel is currently still clogged with ice.
Overview of conditions
Arctic sea ice extent on August 10 was 6.54 million square kilometers (2.52 million square miles), a decline of 1 million square kilometers (390,000 square miles) since the beginning of the month. Extent is now within 780,000 square kilometers (300,000 square miles) of last year's value on the same date and is 1.50 million square kilometers (580,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.
Conditions in context
Ice extent has begun to decline sharply. The decline rate surged to -113,000 square kilometers per day on August 7 and as of August 10 was -103,000 square kilometers per day. This compares to the long-term average decline of -76,000 square kilometers per day for this time of year. Normally, the peak decline rate is in early July.
Many of the areas now seeing a rapid retreat saw an early melt onset (see July 2, 2008); this helped set the stage for rapid retreat (July 17 and April 7). However, the more fundamental issue is that these regions started the melt season covered with thin first-year ice, which is especially vulnerable to melting out completely. Thin ice is also vulnerable to breakup by winds; the last ten days have seen a windy, stormy pattern that has accelerated the ice loss.
Storms trigger increased melt
A series of storms north of Alaska and Siberia in late July and early August have helped break up the thin ice and have brought warm southerly winds into the region.
Subsequently, a pattern has developed with high pressure over the Beaufort Sea and low pressure over the Laptev and East Siberian Seas (Figure 3). In accord with Buys Ballot's Law, this pattern has brought southerly winds to the region, enhancing melt, breaking up ice, and pushing the ice edge northward.
Opening of Amundsen's Northwest Passage
The Northwest Passage that Roald Amundsen navigated with great difficulty starting in 1903 is opening for the second year in a row, as shown in the AMSR-E sea ice product from the University of Bremen (Figure 4).
The most recent operational analysis from the Canadian Ice Service and the U.S. National Ice Center on August 8 showed a small section of Amundsen’s historic path still blocked by a 50-kilometer (31-mile) stretch of sea ice, although that should melt within the next few days.
Amundsen’s route requires sailing through treacherous narrow and shallow channels, making it impractical for deep-draft commercial ships. The more important northern route, through the wide and deep Parry Channel, is still ice-clogged. The northern route opened in mid-August last year; it may still open up before the end of this year's melt season.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Here's some links to graphs, and pics to clarify it.
Graph illustrating sudden 10 day melt increase.
Satellite ice comparison: 11/08/07 against 11/08/08.
Comparison Graph: Sea ice extent for each year from 2002 to present
Graph: Current Norhern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area
It's not over yet though. Here's how much ice is left to go before 2008 matches the satellite record 2007 melt..
Satellite ice comparison: 15/09/08 against 11/08/08.
hurley_108 @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 7:14 am
Awesome graphs, N_Fiddledog. Thanks for the links. Whether this year is as bad as last year or not, they're interesting to look at.
ziggy @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:27 pm
Well I'm not quite that far up,just at the nortwest tip of hudsons bay and inland ten miles.There is still some ice across the lake and I did see a few icebergs on the flight up.Last year where I am now the snow and ice melts in late july. So according to all the camps up here(40) it's been the same as last year.The Innuit I have talked to so far say no difference the last 5 years.
N_Fiddledog @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 1:35 pm
ziggy ziggy:
Well I'm not quite that far up,just at the nortwest tip of hudsons bay and inland ten miles.There is still some ice across the lake and I did see a few icebergs on the flight up.Last year where I am now the snow and ice melts in late july. So according to all the camps up here(40) it's been the same as last year.The Innuit I have talked to so far say no difference the last 5 years.
And yet, I watched the satellite pics every day. There was a noticeable lag in the time it took the ice to melt in the South western side of Hudson's bay. In fact the larger chunk of Hudson's bay was frozen longer than the previous year. Check the pic on the previous page here, or you can go to the satellite pic site from the link above, and check old dates.
Nevertheless it does appear to be all gone now. It's worth pointing out, I think, that it wasn't heat responsible for this 10 day surge of lost ice. It was a freak storm and wind system blowing broken ice south. That happened the last few years as well, but the south blowing wind system was more consistent, and over a larger area, especially last year.
ziggy @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 1:53 pm
Ya for sure,any water from rain will be a major factor,thats how it melts anyways up here is the meltwater because it cant go into the ground.
Talked quite a bit about the whole fearmonger thing today with the geologist and he just laughed.He's been in the Arctic for 30 years so I listen when he talks.
The Innuit also said the last 5 years here have been about the same.
The 9/11 foilers of old are now the climate fear mongers of today.
Soon no one will listen to them anymore and life will go on as it has for millions of years.
Zipperfish @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:01 pm
The geologists were the last ones to jump on board the global warming thing. Most of the ones I know are pretty sceptical, as opposed to the physicists (atmospheric scientists) who tend to buy into AGW more. I've also noted that geologists tend to be right of centre, and physicists left of centre (based on the small sample size of people I know). Peculiar.
hurley_108 @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:07 pm
ziggy ziggy:
Ya for sure,any water from rain will be a major factor,thats how it melts anyways upend of july most of its gone here is the meltwater because it cant go into the ground.
Talked quite a bit about the whole fearmonger thing today with the geologist and he just laughed.He's been in the Arctic for 30 years so I listen when he talks.
The Innuit also said the last 5 years here have been about the same.
The 9/11 foilers of old are now the climate fear mongers of today.
Soon no one will listen to them anymore and life will go on as it has for millions of years.
Talked quite a bit about the whole fearmonger thing today with the geologist and he just laughed.He's been in the Arctic for 30 years so I listen when he talks.
The Innuit also said the last 5 years here have been about the same.
The 9/11 foilers of old are now the climate fear mongers of today.
Soon no one will listen to them anymore and life will go on as it has for millions of years.
You're usually really down to Earth, Zig, trusting what you see and what others tell you they've seen with their own eyes. I merely caustion, then, against using timescales like millions of years loosely. Civilization as we know it is barely 10000-15000 years old. Homo sapiens ventured out of Africa 200000 years ago. The genus homo is two million years old. Yes, "life" will go on, but humanity as we know it has been just a blink of the eye on a scale of millions of years.
I'm not trying to sound alarmist. Either global warming is real and we're causing it, or in another 10000 or 20000 years we'll have another ice age. Either way, you're right, life will go on as it has for millions of years, with or without us.
ziggy @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:08 pm
Geologists can also read the earth better then most and that could be why they accept the fact that the climate changes as they see it in the sediments.
The evidence is right there in the ground.They can even tell you what layers are from what volcanic eruptions and when.
hurley_108 @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:10 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
The geologists were the last ones to jump on board the global warming thing. Most of the ones I know are pretty sceptical, as opposed to the physicists (atmospheric scientists) who tend to buy into AGW more. I've also noted that geologists tend to be right of centre, and physicists left of centre (based on the small sample size of people I know). Peculiar.
Geologists are slow to change, just like their subject matter, and are therefore conservative by nature. Physicists are correspondingly quick and nimble, and therefore more progressive. Makes sense to me.
N_Fiddledog @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 4:19 pm
hurley_108 hurley_108:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
The geologists were the last ones to jump on board the global warming thing. Most of the ones I know are pretty sceptical, as opposed to the physicists (atmospheric scientists) who tend to buy into AGW more. I've also noted that geologists tend to be right of centre, and physicists left of centre (based on the small sample size of people I know). Peculiar.
Geologists are slow to change, just like their subject matter, and are therefore conservative by nature. Physicists are correspondingly quick and nimble, and therefore more progressive. Makes sense to me.
Which physicists would those be?
Pysicists like Dr. Serge Calam who says...
$1:
The claimed unanimity of the scientific community about the human culpability for global warming is questioned. Up today there exists no scientific proof of human culpability.
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/ar ... 02839.html
or
Geophysicist David Demming who says...
$1:
Global warming is a fraud and a hysterical scare tactic.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/ju ... on-energy/
How about physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, "one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part: 'It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.' "
or, Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre one of the builders of the anthropogenic global warming movement. He switched sides, and now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the "prophets of doom of global warming" of being motivated by money.
Will you accept astrophysicists like Dr. Nir Shaviv who now says, """Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media."
Hell even the editor of the APS newsletter, Physics and Society, wrote recently...
$1:
There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion
.http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletter ... editor.cfm
So yeah, Ok, let's listen to physicists too, but let's listen to all of them.
Zipperfish @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 4:30 pm
hurley_108 hurley_108:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
The geologists were the last ones to jump on board the global warming thing. Most of the ones I know are pretty sceptical, as opposed to the physicists (atmospheric scientists) who tend to buy into AGW more. I've also noted that geologists tend to be right of centre, and physicists left of centre (based on the small sample size of people I know). Peculiar.
Geologists are slow to change, just like their subject matter, and are therefore conservative by nature. Physicists are correspondingly quick and nimble, and therefore more progressive. Makes sense to me.
Yeah, I figured something along the same lines.
Zipperfish @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 4:34 pm
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Which physicists would those be? ...
[/quote]
There's sceptics and there's sceptics. The sceptics who say that there is no warming trend or that global warming stopped in 1998, or some such thing are crackpots, in my opinion. Then there are those who concede that things are warming up, but they are unconvinced as to the degree of mankind's culpability or the bounds of uncertainty. These guys are worth listening to, I think.
N_Fiddledog @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 5:09 pm
Whatever. There are skeptic physicists. Saying there's not, would be a flat out lie. Not that you would ever say that, of course. 
Zipperfish @ Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:40 am
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Whatever. There are skeptic physicists. Saying there's not, would be a flat out lie. Not that you would ever say that, of course.
So what--there are sceptical physicists. Do you have apoint other than the one at the top of your head? There's a lot of sceptical physicists who are proponents of AGW. Being a proponent of AGW and being sceptical are not mutually exclusive realms.
faile @ Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:52 am
ziggy ziggy:
The 9/11 foilers of old are now the climate fear mongers of today.
Soon no one will listen to them anymore and life will go on as it has for millions of years.
Soon no one will listen to them anymore and life will go on as it has for millions of years.
The 9/11 foilers of old are still 9/11 foilers. It's all partisan. Libertarian nutjobs are still 9/11 foilers, left wing nutjobs are climate fear mongers, and right wing nutjobs think they can solve the world's problems by bombing foreign countries.