|
Post by icefisher on Jan 11, 2013 6:40:44 GMT
icefisher, Sorry that you misunderstood me. When I wrote about the Arctic Sea Ice melting, I was talking about the ice melting over time. Obviously the ice increases in the winter, we get that. Tstat who is "we"? Did somebody appoint you as a spokesperson? Fact is Tstat the ice melts over time every summer for about 6 months and the melt season does not appear to be increasing. There does not seem to be any scientific support for the idea (models under development not being scientific support) that ice is melting at an increasing rate. So we have gone over your question already Tstat. We don't know if its the case that more ice is melting each year or if its the case that there is less snow in the Arctic reducing the ability of the ice to protect itself from the sun. And the so-called global warming from CO2 appears even more remote as the Antarctic is not displaying the same characteristic. One might think if it were heat entering the arctic as you like to advocate that the melt season would show signs of lengthening. I think the issue is we need to fill some knowledge gaps before coming to any conclusions. Yes there is less ice in the arctic, whether its from more melting or less ice forming or less precipitation or cloud changes isn't understood yet.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jan 11, 2013 6:58:12 GMT
icefisher, Sorry that you misunderstood me. When I wrote about the Arctic Sea Ice melting, I was talking about the ice melting over time. Obviously the ice increases in the winter, we get that. Tstat who is "we"? Did somebody appoint you as a spokesperson? Fact is Tstat the ice melts over time every summer for about 6 months and the melt season does not appear to be increasing. There does not seem to be any scientific support for the idea (models under development not being scientific support) that ice is melting at an increasing rate. So we have gone over your question already Tstat. We don't know if its the case that more ice is melting each year or if its the case that there is less snow in the Arctic reducing the ability of the ice to protect itself from the sun. And the so-called global warming from CO2 appears even more remote as the Antarctic is not displaying the same characteristic. One might think if it were heat entering the arctic as you like to advocate that the melt season would show signs of lengthening. I think the issue is we need to fill some knowledge gaps before coming to any conclusions. Yes there is less ice in the arctic, whether its from more melting or less ice forming or less precipitation or cloud changes isn't understood yet. icefisher, Do you agree that that Arctic Sea ice is melting? or not?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 11, 2013 11:31:12 GMT
Tstat who is "we"? Did somebody appoint you as a spokesperson? Fact is Tstat the ice melts over time every summer for about 6 months and the melt season does not appear to be increasing. There does not seem to be any scientific support for the idea (models under development not being scientific support) that ice is melting at an increasing rate. So we have gone over your question already Tstat. We don't know if its the case that more ice is melting each year or if its the case that there is less snow in the Arctic reducing the ability of the ice to protect itself from the sun. And the so-called global warming from CO2 appears even more remote as the Antarctic is not displaying the same characteristic. One might think if it were heat entering the arctic as you like to advocate that the melt season would show signs of lengthening. I think the issue is we need to fill some knowledge gaps before coming to any conclusions. Yes there is less ice in the arctic, whether its from more melting or less ice forming or less precipitation or cloud changes isn't understood yet. icefisher, Do you agree that that Arctic Sea ice is melting? or not? He has got that You have not got that he is talking about the rate of melting Do you get it now?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 11, 2013 15:19:59 GMT
Let's, once again, put the Arctic in perspective.
1. Most reports are a very short time frame. 2. Satellite data is a NEW way of measuring Arctic Ice 3. The era of satellite data is not long enough to produce any meaningful results, based on itself. 4. There ARE ice data records that Canada has, and uses. From these records, it is WELL known that the Arctic has a cycle. Is it caused by the PDO/AMO? I don't know and would be most interested in finding out. 5. Does Russia have a very large sea port in Siberia? Yes, it does. Does it use it for 6-8 months of the year? Yes it does.
We just have to get over this short term variation item. It becomes burdensome. There is ample proof that the Arctic Ice has been declining for well over a century. The current decline is a continuation of a very long term trend. There is so much paleo data, actual measured data recently that shows this, that to continue to argue that the recent rate is "unprecedented" is foolish, very foolish.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 12, 2013 0:08:28 GMT
The Earth has been warming out of the Little Ice Age for over 200 years. So as the Earth is warming one would expect the polar caps to reduce in size this is not exactly difficult to comprehend. The Little Ice Age was preceded by the Medieval Warm Period. During that time Vikings settled on Greenland and had arable farms for 200 years. Some of those farms are only just being found under the ice and permafrost. Therefore, Greenland was warmer for a couple of hundred years than it is now.
London - did not flood during the Medieval Warm Period despite this extra warmth, nor did Amsterdam which was founded as a fishing village at the height of the Medieval Warm Period. So sea levels were not extreme.
I find it hard to panic over the summer ice extent. Its like watching the sea rise towards high tide and panic that the Earth is going to flood because you have only watched the waves for about 5 minutes. Learn some history Thermostat.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 12, 2013 18:48:08 GMT
The Earth has been warming out of the Little Ice Age for over 200 years. So as the Earth is warming one would expect the polar caps to reduce in size this is not exactly difficult to comprehend. The Little Ice Age was preceded by the Medieval Warm Period. During that time Vikings settled on Greenland and had arable farms for 200 years. Some of those farms are only just being found under the ice and permafrost. Therefore, Greenland was warmer for a couple of hundred years than it is now. London - did not flood during the Medieval Warm Period despite this extra warmth, nor did Amsterdam which was founded as a fishing village at the height of the Medieval Warm Period. So sea levels were not extreme. I find it hard to panic over the summer ice extent. Its like watching the sea rise towards high tide and panic that the Earth is going to flood because you have only watched the waves for about 5 minutes. Learn some history Thermostat. I think we need to be carefully aware that there has been a long term decline in ice and it seems related to the LIA recovery. That seems to be supported by multiple sources. For example Dr Akasofu's proxies or the Central England Temperature record or the Viking setttlements. The Vikings were apparently driven out of Greenland 500 years ago as the LIA was growing. No doubt they left or died before their homes were in-glaciated so the recent uncovering supports a fairly wide range for a reversal of the glaciers. And glaciation might take a long time to reverse when it starts to warm for the same reasons for the dynamic I am going to describe below. On top of that very clearly we have an ocean oscillations affecting the ice that accelerates loss for multiple decades then turns around and probably makes for a several decades of increasing ice, but perhaps not replacing all that was lost in the multi-decadal loss phase. And of course Tstat wants us to know there is a manmade element to this as well. Most scientists agree on that, the big question is how much does each element account for what has been observed. Tstat will not address these matters and instead wants to rely on emotion "Oh My Gawd! The Ice Is Melting!" I am suspecting a dynamic in the Arctic whereby ice is open in the Arctic during nearly the entire cooling phase of the cold PDO and closed during most of the warming stage as well. How might that work? I will offer a possible mechanism. First you have ocean warming from the positive PDO but ice in the Arctic is not immediately affected. Models of Arctic ice that go back before the careful monitoring are going to be affected by the proxies they choose and if they do not capture the real physics they are going to be wrong. What if the warm PDO is also pumping a bunch of moisture into the arctic causing a lot of snowfall protecting the ice? Then when the PDO turns to a cold phase less moisture is going to the arctic, but the climate is at its peak warmth so you get a rapid melt and a lot of interannual variation because of clear dark skies in the winter. Well its suspected that the PDO began its cooling phase around 1993 or about the same time ice loss began to accelerate. The above fits what we have been observing as amateurs here, but its possible perhaps somebody can show the cloud/precipitation figures for the Arctic do not coincide. So what other support exists for this dynamic. Well I have been wondering about why Larsen got through the NW passage right at the climate warmth peak in 1944, why submarines were surfacing at the north pole in the late 1950's and early 60's; and why Amundsen got through the passage in 1903/5 about 6 or 8 years before the global temperature low point in 1911. One explanation could be the affect that the ocean oscillations have on clouds and precipitation in the Arctic. In heating and air conditioning its almost impossible to rapidly warm a room without using a forced air system. There is no forced air system on this planet and it has to warm radiatively. A room can take hours, the planet and the oceans might take centuries. All my life I have realized I live adjacent to the world's largest air conditioner, the Pacific Ocean. I think the most profound question is asking what is the physical mechanism that prevents the ocean from warming to the same temperature as the surface. If you want to understand how global climate operates you absolutely need to know how the world's largest air conditioner operates.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 12, 2013 20:51:16 GMT
Icefisher: As you aptly wrote, knowledge is a wonderful thing. With knowledge, that should only drive one to learn more, and accept what is not known.
The whole problem with much of the current Climate Science is the short time frame that it is looking at. In a climate sense, 30 years is the very rapid blink of an eye.
We know that we have been warming since the end of the LIA. Lots of reasons for why this is happening. The concentration that CO2 is the main driver is just flat out a waste of time anymore. It isn't....never has been and never will be.
Think how exciting this could become if the Scientists were not tied to that thinking. Not all of them are, but the ones who get the most press are.
It is about social control, nothing more, nothing less. Led by Govt that wants even more control. Power is a hungry animal and must be fed.
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Jan 13, 2013 10:13:01 GMT
"Power is a hungry animal and must be fed" (Sigurdur) unquote Correct, and also: Impoverishment and hunger -among declining middle class- are meant to be the most strong forcing drivers for change that all Powers of the World should have fear of.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jan 14, 2013 13:28:43 GMT
Meanwhile, back at the Ranch.......
PIOMAS gives us the lowest volume recorded for Nov/Dec/Jan so , to me, it looks like ice has melted compered to this time last year? At times i wonder at just how you guys witness reality? Ho Hum.
So, getting to the last 2 months of the 're-freeze' now guys. Will we see the 'ice factory start up over Bering this year or are we now exiting that ransitional phase?
Meanwhile I'd again implore to go back to your intrepid swedish Dr's journey's through the extremities of the basin ,during the 30's and 40's, and listen to his descriptions of the ice he encountered there. The 4 storey high ice mountains blocking his passage onward. Then ask what surface area did that 'old Arctic' present to the atmosphere? What kind of sq meteridge did the atmosphere have to spend energy on from Arctic sun up through to sun down in Autumn?
What kind of a comparison does the surface area of todays pack offer to the atmosphere's energy?
Could it be that even before we start exposing the ocean below, through the F.Y. ice able to transmit over 3 times the energy through itself into the ocean below, we have a superflous amount of energy compared to what used to be used up on ice melt?
And then when we expose 1/2 the basin to the atmosphere what becomes of the energy that used to be employed in melting out the ice that remained there all year in the past?. And when solar starts to raise the temp of the waters below does this also not make redundant energy trying to get up to the pole from the equator?
When the land around the Arctic Ocean starts to show higher temps than land to the south does this not pose a bit of a climate conumdrum compared to past years when heat travelled north to try and balance out the northern Hem.s temps?
And what of the land around the basin that used to hold snow until June/July but now is bare land by May? what of the energy that used to be employed on melting snow over those two months? What does that energy turn it's hand to now? And what of the solar now accepted by the land instead of being reflected back into space? What becomes of that energy?
I did wonder whether we should expect some kind of 'rebound' in the ice this year but , I'm sorry to say, things appeared well stacked against such. it appears to be 'old thinking' and though not pleasant I have to embrace the new realities if I wish to understand how things now work in the world i live in?
As for the SSW? Damp Squib. The circulation of the northern hemishere is not playing ball and the warmings , later down the line, will prove to be final warmings.
Wet snow here in the UK. Here then gone like it used to. Seems the warm Atlantic wants to play out this year?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 14, 2013 15:22:43 GMT
Graywolf: You miss the point I was trying to make earlier.
The Arctic Ice Area has been in a decline for over 100 years. What we are witnessing right now is nothing exceptional for our current interglacial period.
The Arctic is a dynamic place, and has never been "stationary" as some folks seem to think it should be.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 14, 2013 17:41:08 GMT
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051330/abstractThe role of summer surface wind anomalies in the summer Arctic sea ice extent in 2010 and 2011 Strong summertime anticyclonic wind anomalies over the Arctic Ocean, with anomalous flow toward the Fram Strait, during summer months of 2007 contributed to the record-low the Arctic sea-ice extent observed in September of that year. Had the summer winds over the Arctic during the summers of 2010 and 2011 been the same as those in 2007, September sea ice extent would have reached new record lows in those years as well. By regulating the flow of ice toward and through the Fram Strait, variations in low-level winds over the Arctic have contributed to the month-to-month, year-to-year, and decade-to-decade variability of sea ice extent. If open water equates to Arctic ocean heat uptake, why isn't it showing up in OHC profiles? Why shouldn't 2012 be off the chart? climexp.knmi.nl/get_index.cgiWhy is the North Atlantic OHC data falling? Unfortunately KNMI stopped working just now, so I can't post the NA OHC. Trust me, it isn't going up. Graywolf, it would help if you'd support your statements with data. I seriously am trying to understand if the Arctic is in a death spiral (whatever that means), there should be heat continually increasing year after year in the northern latitudes of the Pacific and Atlantic regions. If AGW is accelerating, what is the data supporting that?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 14, 2013 18:29:41 GMT
magellan: When the north shore of Greenland is ice free during the summer for around a 1,000 years, then i will start to worry. Until that happens, there is just nothing to get really excited about.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jan 14, 2013 18:40:04 GMT
The only 'spiral I know off is a circular, year on year plot for Arctic ice volume?
My point was what happens to the energy that was once employed melting snow/ice when there is no snow/ice left to melt? Surely this is not difficult to understand as a question?
In the 1950's say, ice was present across the basin in vast quantities and atmospheric heat was spent on the job of attacking that ice all summer long. The global heat engine is driven by the temp difference between pole and equator so we shift warm air to the pole and cold air flows to the equator. If we are losing the ice then ,for part of the year, the energy that used to be employed melting ice can only warm ocean and air can it not? If , say in the 1950's we looked at the sunlight coming in over the pole most of it got reflected straight back into space. today? Well the predominant ice type accepts 3 times (and more) the suns energy through it than the predominant ice type back then and for a portion of the year the basin is half emptied of ice allowing a vast swathe of that once reflected solar to be absorbed by the ocean?
In the 1950's global GHG levels were significantly lower than today's so any energy re-emitted into the atmosphere leached into space far easier than it can today under higher GHG levels.
All in all I see 'new energy' added into the system by a lowering of the albedo and a redeployment of energy once utilised in melting ice. I think that this is a big push on the climate system and growing all the while.
How will we see this 'push' stopped and then reversed?
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Jan 14, 2013 19:58:00 GMT
Meanwhile, back at the Ranch....... PIOMAS gives us the lowest volume recorded for Nov/Dec/Jan so , to me, it looks like ice has melted compered to this time last year? Please use something besides PIOMAS. It has been pretty much proven that Baghdad Bob is running the show over there, and the POMAS numbers are not to be believed.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 14, 2013 21:15:01 GMT
And then when we expose 1/2 the basin to the atmosphere what becomes of the energy that used to be employed in melting out the ice that remained there all year in the past?. And when solar starts to raise the temp of the waters below does this also not make redundant energy trying to get up to the pole from the equator?
Sounds to me like you need to brush up on your view of thermodynamics. What do you mean by "what becomes of the energy that used to be employed in melting out the ice"? When the land around the Arctic Ocean starts to show higher temps than land to the south does this not pose a bit of a climate conumdrum compared to past years when heat travelled north to try and balance out the northern Hem.s temps?
And what of the land around the basin that used to hold snow until June/July but now is bare land by May? what of the energy that used to be employed on melting snow over those two months? What does that energy turn it's hand to now? And what of the solar now accepted by the land instead of being reflected back into space? What becomes of that energy?Hmmm, seems to me Graywhale that energy absorbed by snow is partly radiated back to space and the atmosphere; and partly transported into the ocean. When bare ground absorbs the energy it doesn't run off into the ocean so more goes into space and the atmosphere and less into the ocean than normal. This would be a negative feedback. Any potential for positive feedback comes from the sunlight energy "NOT EMPLOYED" in the melting of snow or ice. But it seems to me by way of Stefan Boltzmann equations related to emissivity that there is no feedback from this that is not temporary as additional radiation is enabled at night to negate the daytime effect. So via the simplest explanation there is no positive feedback even from albedo changes. I of course have been asking for a scientific reference to support more complicated notions of this but it seems all anybody can offer is to take it as article of faith. . . .which of course must be what they did. I of course cannot do that as my faith dictates I should not accept faith in lieu of science.
|
|