It’s that time of year when I start to bore everyone shitless with my regurgitation of Arctic Ice related statistics.

http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/arctic_AMSR2_visual.png

The dark areas are thin ice. There is a continuing storm that is forcing warm air over that area north of the Barents, and that whole area to the right of the pole in this image is going to open up like a tin of beans.

This topic does not bore me. I tend to read more about Antarctica. So an update about the artic region is timely from my perspective.

monkey skipper said:

This topic does not bore me. I tend to read more about Antarctica. So an update about the artic region is timely from my perspective.

ARTIC?!?

I guess if it’s good enough for Nature…

I had always thought about Arctic sea ice loss in terms of albedo, and in being a symptom of AGW..

But there’s more…

Under Arctic ice, scientists discover massive phytoplankton bloom, the foundation of the food chain

Scientists have discovered an immense bloom of healthy phytoplankton teeming in the semi-darkness beneath a layer of sea ice in the Chukchi Sea, suggesting that portions of the Arctic Ocean north of Alaska may be 10 times more productive than anyone may have guessed.

This surprising diatomic riot — hidden from satellite monitoring under ice two to four feet thick — totally outclassed the spring bloom observed in nearby sea exposed directly to the sun.

“Depth-integrated phytoplankton biomass beneath the ice was extremely high, about four-fold greater than in open water,”…

The startling findings, made last July during a cruise of the NASA-sponsored ICESCAPE research project, overturn biological expectations about what might be driving the frigid ecosystem that surrounds the disintegrating ice pack every spring…

The Arctic marine world relies on the spring bloom — where warming water and 24-hour solar radiation jolts the ocean’s microscopic life into an explosion of growth that jumpstarts the food web for the year. Scientists have always assumed that this seasonal event would be visible out in the open. Not much action would occur under the ice…

http://gizmodo.com/the-north-pole-is-now-a-lake-907239981

Look at that shit cracking open at around 150 E, 88 N.

Seems this will be a fairly ho-hum melt season, in line with recent years other than last year’s record breaking effort.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/08/a-month-of-two-halves-and-no-hole/

That was serendipitous.

Here’s some more BBC Science and Environment news, it’s scary.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

From the link.

“Former US Vice President Al Gore cited Professor Maslowski’s analysis on Monday in his acceptance speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo.”

LOL.

We know it’s not disappearing as fast as that fellow predicted, PWM. But you must have noticed it is actually disappearing.

Here’s some more BBC Science and Environment news, it’s scary.

—

One thing that is really scary is that the BBC Science journalism appears to be about on a par with that of the ABC. The headline and the article form quite a chimera, with the head not at all matching the body. There’s nowhere in the article that it is even hinted that the scientists are suggesting that the Arctic will be ice free by 2013.

Bubblecar said:

We know it’s not disappearing as fast as that fellow predicted, PWM. But you must have noticed it is actually disappearing.

Absolutely, but that does not mean these alarmist should not be brought to book, their judgment day has arrived.

Here’s what he actually says in relation to 2013.

——

“In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040.”

The US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) collects the observational data on the extent of Arctic sea ice, delivering regular status bulletins. Its research scientist Dr Mark Serreze was asked to give one of the main lectures here at this year’s AGU Fall Meeting.

Discussing the possibility for an open Arctic ocean in summer months, he told the meeting: “A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that’s what our models were telling us. But as we’ve seen, the models aren’t fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate.

“My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of.”

—-

Noaa report says Arctic sea ice is disappearing at unprecedented pace

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration climate study puts 2012 among the 10 warmest years on record

…..The biggest changes in the climate in 2012 were in the Arctic and in Greenland, said the report, which is an annual exercise by a team of American and British scientists. The Arctic warmed at about twice the rate of lower latitudes, the report found. By June 2012, snow cover had fallen to its lowest levels since the record began. By September 2012, sea-ice cover had retreated to its lowest levels since the beginning of satellite records, falling to 1.32 million square miles.

That was, the report noted, a whopping 18% lower than the previous low, set in 2007, and a staggering 54% lower than the mark for 1980.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/06/noaa-report-arctic-ice-climate-change

dv said:

Here’s what he actually says in relation to 2013.

——

“In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040.”

The US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) collects the observational data on the extent of Arctic sea ice, delivering regular status bulletins. Its research scientist Dr Mark Serreze was asked to give one of the main lectures here at this year’s AGU Fall Meeting.

Discussing the possibility for an open Arctic ocean in summer months, he told the meeting: “A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that’s what our models were telling us. But as we’ve seen, the models aren’t fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate.

“My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of.”

—-

There you are then.

What I think we will see some year soon is a summer where the North Pole, specifically, is ice-free.

There appears to be a large pack of ice to the north of Greenland that isn’t going anywhere so I dunno whether we will see the Arctic waters “ice free” in our life times.

Still, it’s all good for the shipping companies.

People will be queueing up for North Polar adventure holidays, while there’s still something to see there.

People will be queueing up for North Polar adventure holidays, while there’s still something to see there.

—-

Surely there will be even more to see once that inconvenient ice is gone.

“Here’s what he actually says in relation to 2013.”

That’s all well and good, but what did some random guy on the internet say that Anthony Watts said that Al Gore said that he said, hey?

dv said:

Here’s some more BBC Science and Environment news, it’s scary.

—

One thing that is really scary is that the BBC Science journalism appears to be about on a par with that of the ABC. The headline and the article form quite a chimera, with the head not at all matching the body. There’s nowhere in the article that it is even hinted that the scientists are suggesting that the Arctic will be ice free by 2013.

You are wrong.

“Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
“So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”

“Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,”

I didn’t take “Removal of ice” to mean the absence of ice, I took it to mean the ice loss projection for 2013.

I’ll check out the actual source paper.

Except they don’t actually name the paper, do they … why would they do that? It’s not as though they are journalists or something.

Wieslaw Maslowski from the US Postgraduate Naval School.
—

My genuine apologies, PWM, I am in fact wrong. You were quite right.

Or at least I was wrong … once you realise you are wrong you are not wrong any more …

Wieslaw Maslowski from the US Postgraduate Naval School did present a talk saying the Arctic waters could be “free of ice” by 2013. Unfortunately I can’t find the actual paper but he repeated the comments more explicitly in other interviews.

This is way in advance of the NSIDC models or NOAA models. I think it would be fair to say that, even at the time he said that, his modelling represented an outlier among scientific opinion.

dv said:

Wieslaw Maslowski from the US Postgraduate Naval School.
—

My genuine apologies, PWM, I am in fact wrong. You were quite right.

Or at least I was wrong … once you realise you are wrong you are not wrong any more …

Wieslaw Maslowski from the US Postgraduate Naval School did present a talk saying the Arctic waters could be “free of ice” by 2013. Unfortunately I can’t find the actual paper but he repeated the comments more explicitly in other interviews.

This is way in advance of the NSIDC models or NOAA models. I think it would be fair to say that, even at the time he said that, his modelling represented an outlier among scientific opinion.

Quite so, we can never be too vigilant in bringing these chaps to book, these chaps who scare children to sell a book or get a Nobel.

>Or at least I was wrong … once you realise you are wrong you are not wrong any more …

Not necessarily. You could realise that you were wrong but nonetheless continue being wrong, just to annoy people.

Compare it to the following by NOAA, which was written after the extremely low-ice summer of 2012.

Key phrases are “nearly ice-free summers” and “sooner than many thought — before 2050 and possibly within the next decade or two.”

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013//20130412_arcticseaice.html

Not necessarily. You could realise that you were wrong but nonetheless continue being wrong, just to annoy people.
—-

Ah, the Zarkov approach.

Quite so, we can never be too vigilant in bringing these chaps to book, these chaps who scare children to sell a book or get a Nobel.
—-

I am not going to knock your criticism of An Inconvenient Truth, which did contain a lot of hyperbole and outrageously extreme examples.

Then there are those who get 5 years between new lows to tell the world that the ice is not melting, every year that there is no new minimum is a boon to them.
When you point out to them that melting is not linear they just handwave, a lot.
So they will always have for or five or more years of “I told you so” to your one.

You’re pleasingly balanced and fair today, PWM.

If the Greenland ice sheet did melt quickly, here’s what Greenland would look like.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Topographic_map_of_Greenland_bedrock.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Topographic_map_of_Greenland_bedrock.jpg

the lake in the centre is that due to the weight of ice?

dv said:

If the Greenland ice sheet did melt quickly, here’s what Greenland would look like.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Topographic_map_of_Greenland_bedrock.jpg

Looks like some decent farming land there.

the lake in the centre is that due to the weight of ice?

—-

Yes.

(if the ice did melt, that depression would resile over thousands of years … which is why I specified “quickly”)

Of course, if we reduce out carbon dioxide emissions to zero, or close to it, the temperature will stablise, even reduce slightly and the polar ice will maintain it’s existing cover for the forseeable future.

(if the ice did melt, that depression would resile over thousands of years … which is why I specified “quickly”)

well that could be geologically quickly or compared to human lifespans quickly.

;-)

Peak Warming Man said:

Quite so, we can never be too vigilant in bringing these chaps to book, these chaps who scare children to sell a book or get a Nobel.

never realised there was a Nobel Prize for Scaring Children

well that could be geologically quickly or compared to human lifespans quickly.
—-

(Shrugs)

In any case, no one apart from Al Gore seriously thinks that the Greenland Ice Sheet is going to melt any time soon so it is largely an academic exercise.

There might actually be green land underneath Greenland, giving the place a well-needed tourism boost.

Greenland’s agricultural outlook has improved due to climate change.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/26/us-greenland-climate-agriculture-idUSBRE92P0EX20130326

Welcome to climate change in Greenland, where locals say longer and warmer summers mean the country can grow the kind of crops unheard of years ago.

“Things are just growing quicker,” said Kim Ernst, the Danish chef of Roklubben restaurant, nestled by a frozen lake near a former Cold War-era U.S. military base.

“Every year we try new things,” said Ernst, who even managed to grow a handful of strawberries that he served to some surprised Scandinavian royals. “I first came here in 1999 and no-one would have dreamed of doing this. But now the summer days seem warmer, and longer.”

if all that ice were to melt then how much of Greenland would be lost to rising sea levels?

http://bprc.osu.edu/wiki/Greenland_Factsheet

Greenland ice sheet is some 3 × 10^6 km^3 in volume, so melting should cause something like 7 m sea rise (assuming it all went to the ocean rather than the atmosphere or biosphere or somewhere else). Looking at the topography of Greenland, this should not take too much of a bite out of it.

morrie said:

Of course, if we reduce out carbon dioxide emissions to zero, or close to it, the temperature will stablise, even reduce slightly and the polar ice will maintain it’s existing cover for the forseeable future.

I suspect that you don’t really believe that.

Might I ask what your point is?

dv said:

http://bprc.osu.edu/wiki/Greenland_Factsheet

Greenland ice sheet is some 3 × 10^6 km^3 in volume, so melting should cause something like 7 m sea rise (assuming it all went to the ocean rather than the atmosphere or biosphere or somewhere else). Looking at the topography of Greenland, this should not take too much of a bite out of it.

Also the reduced ice load would result in Greenland rising up, so it might gain land area, rather than lose it.

Also the reduced ice load would result in Greenland rising up, so it might gain land area,
—-

Over thousands of years …

Bubblecar said:

>Or at least I was wrong … once you realise you are wrong you are not wrong any more …

Not necessarily. You could realise that you were wrong but nonetheless continue being wrong, just to annoy people.

Or it could be you are still wrong, but in a different respect.

Or that you are wrong in thinking you were wrong, so you are wrong now, but were not wrong then.

AFAICT from the transcript (no I’ve never sat all the way through it) IT does not actually claim that Greenland will melt soon but it is somewhat implied. Much like Tony Abbott, the carefully prepared written answers are accurate but they are presented somewhat misleadingly.

As far as the scientific opinion went, last I checked Hansen was increasingly talking up the possibility of ice sheet collapse this century but most scientists thought the ice sheets would last this century with no one really prepared to predict next century.

dv said:

Quite so, we can never be too vigilant in bringing these chaps to book, these chaps who scare children to sell a book or get a Nobel.
—-

I am not going to knock your criticism of An Inconvenient Truth, which did contain a lot of hyperbole and outrageously extreme examples.

Maybe I should read it, just so I can have something to agree with PWM about.

The Rev Dodgson said:

morrie said:

Of course, if we reduce out carbon dioxide emissions to zero, or close to it, the temperature will stablise, even reduce slightly and the polar ice will maintain it’s existing cover for the forseeable future.

I suspect that you don’t really believe that.

Might I ask what your point is?

Isn’t that the whole objective or reducing carbon dioxide emissions? To stop global warming?

typos. objective of

My understanding is that the point of reducing greenhouse emissions is to ameliorate rapid and potentially catastrophic climate change. Even if all GHGE stops tomorrow, the climate will of course continue to change in some ways and at some rate.

morrie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

morrie said:

Of course, if we reduce out carbon dioxide emissions to zero, or close to it, the temperature will stablise, even reduce slightly and the polar ice will maintain it’s existing cover for the forseeable future.

I suspect that you don’t really believe that.

Might I ask what your point is?

Isn’t that the whole objective or reducing carbon dioxide emissions? To stop global warming?

I don’t think that is realistic. I’d say that realistic objectives are to reduce harmful consequences of climate change, extend the time period over which sea level rise occurs, and minimise (or at least reduce) the probability of catastrophic events.

And everybody knows that any understanding shared by dv and me is almost certain to be correct.

So basically, the residents of Tuvalu are screwed then?

So basically, the residents of Tuvalu are screwed then?

—-

Let’s just say that under the Rudd plan the population density of Nauru could reach 3000 persons per square metre in the coming years.

morrie said:

Of course, if we reduce out carbon dioxide emissions to zero, or close to it, the temperature will stablise, even reduce slightly and the polar ice will maintain it’s existing cover for the forseeable future.

Sums up the general level of perception, which means we don’t need to worry and science will fix it up anyway.

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

Of course, if we reduce out carbon dioxide emissions to zero, or close to it, the temperature will stablise, even reduce slightly and the polar ice will maintain it’s existing cover for the forseeable future.

Sums up the general level of perception, which means we don’t need to worry and science will fix it up anyway.

What should we do then, apart from worry, if reducing carbon dioxide emissions isn’t going to fix it?

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

Of course, if we reduce out carbon dioxide emissions to zero, or close to it, the temperature will stablise, even reduce slightly and the polar ice will maintain it’s existing cover for the forseeable future.

Sums up the general level of perception, which means we don’t need to worry and science will fix it up anyway.

What should we do then, apart from worry, if reducing carbon dioxide emissions isn’t going to fix it?

So you choose to respond to the provocative post, rather than the considered reply’s from dv and I, which already answer your question.

Why’s that then?

The Rev Dodgson said:

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

Sums up the general level of perception, which means we don’t need to worry and science will fix it up anyway.

What should we do then, apart from worry, if reducing carbon dioxide emissions isn’t going to fix it?

I didn’t think it was provocative.

I thought your responses were perfectly reasonable.

Wow. You can’t even ask a basic question any more.

So you choose to respond to the provocative post, rather than the considered reply’s from dv and I, which already answer your question.

Why’s that then?

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

Of course, if we reduce out carbon dioxide emissions to zero, or close to it, the temperature will stablise, even reduce slightly and the polar ice will maintain it’s existing cover for the forseeable future.

Sums up the general level of perception, which means we don’t need to worry and science will fix it up anyway.

What should we do then, apart from worry, if reducing carbon dioxide emissions isn’t going to fix it?

Unfortunately we don’t have a few thousands of years to await for a reversal. We have made our bed and it is not going to be remade for some time. All we can now do is hopefully keep it to a survivable levels.

morrie said:

Wow. You can’t even ask a basic question any more.

Sure you can.

And other people can comment on the question if it seems to them (rightly or wrongly) to be loaded.

morrie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

morrie said:

What should we do then, apart from worry, if reducing carbon dioxide emissions isn’t going to fix it?

So you choose to respond to the provocative post, rather than the considered reply’s from dv and I, which already answer your question.

Why’s that then?

I didn’t think it was provocative.

I thought your responses were perfectly reasonable.

I think it is reasonable to ask a basic question such as that.

The Uni of Bremen people don’t seem to instantiate or otherwise uniquify their pics, so you just get a link to the current image.
There is a big swag of ice on the Eurasian side that is between 25 and 50% concentration.

Probably not even worth reporting as it has become the “new normal” but once again the NW passage and NE passage are clear, and the Arctic is circumnavigable.

dv said:

Probably not even worth reporting as it has become the “new normal” but once again the NW passage and NE passage are clear, and the Arctic is circumnavigable.

so whatever is happening right now is normal

Well something that’s happened a few years in a row is normal.

Finally the polynyas that have been all over the shop in the U.Bremen imagery pops up in the NSIDC chart.