|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Jul 7, 2013 7:41:50 GMT
I have clicked through all years on Artic temperatures shown above I can't find any other year in the records when the temperatures are continually below normal for such an extended period Hmm! Lets wait and see what happens in September I'm looking forward to reading the inevitable ramblings about the cool Arctic being caused by a negative feedback reaction from the catastrophic warming... |
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jul 7, 2013 19:13:54 GMT
2013 just equalled 2007's record for the most 1 million loss weeks (6?)and we have the warmup progged formid week so I'd imagine 2013 is not finished with it's 'million loss' weeks? Still a long way to go and alot of melt to catch 2012 but it begins to look as though the 'slow start' was spent priming a large section of the basin for rapid melt later on?
|
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jul 7, 2013 20:18:40 GMT
if there is no ice in our arctic future this issue will be gone. something to look forward to.
again how unprecedented is the ice in the south enough for all the spin boys to scream from the hills of the world. ah silence! selective alarm is a signal for self interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 7, 2013 21:51:55 GMT
2013 just equalled 2007's record for the most 1 million loss weeks (6?)and we have the warmup progged formid week so I'd imagine 2013 is not finished with it's 'million loss' weeks? Still a long way to go and alot of melt to catch 2012 but it begins to look as though the 'slow start' was spent priming a large section of the basin for rapid melt later on? Graywolf: It was really not a slow start. When looking at where Arctic Ice is exported, knowing the low ice extent in that area, it was very easy to determine that this was not going to be a "stellar" year of ice retention. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jul 8, 2013 4:31:11 GMT
The impending development of a persistent high pressure system over the Western Arctic Ocean appears to be of signifance. See the 500hPa,SLP tab under the N-Hem option at www.wetterzentrale.de/topkarten/fsecmeur.htmlGiven the thin, fragmented nature of the Arctic Sea Ice, weather that is actually conducive to sea ice melt is of particular interest. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jul 8, 2013 4:58:31 GMT
Given the reduced volume of the Artic Sea Ice, the issue in 2013 is how will this ice respond. Does the weather still even matter?
|
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jul 8, 2013 9:30:23 GMT
It may be more serious than that thermos? We have seen sea ice areas that once nurtured ice turn into the exact opposite and now we may be seeing weather patterns that used to 'help' maintain ice levels now helping denature the winter ice into a form easily destroyed by short spells of warmth ( weather certainly not uncommon over the Arctic summer even beyond 80N?)
The upcoming flip in the AO to something more like what have have become accustomed , post 07', will give us a proper chance to both see large areas of the basin and how quickly the ice is responding to the sun's input?
Some of that mangled ice reminds me of the ice left on the Beaufort side after GAC12 and we all saw what a couple of days sun did to that? We are a good 3 weeks closer to peak insolation than that ice so can we dare hope it will maintain or do we concede we have further large losses to come over very short spans.
How will many of the posters here respond to 2013 reaching parity with 2012? Even now we are hearing how ice levels will 'maintain' this year and not fall into the top 3 lowest years?
The other major point to remember is that both 2011 and 2012 were 'average' weather years ( unlike 07' which, as we all know, was a 'perfect Storm' of melt conditions). This year has seen the 'mix ' of weather favour a very slow melt start but all that time the ice was being conditioned, in the central 'hard to melt' area of the pole, for rapid melt. The other Areas that we have become accustomed to melting out completely may be a tad slower this year but past years has seen then with open water for over 4 weeks of the season?
The 'records' do not look to 'time' but merely 'open water'?
EDIT: Well that did not take long? 2013 just did another 'million week' so now pips 07' for the record with it's current 7 weeks worth of 1 million losses.
|
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Jul 9, 2013 12:10:35 GMT
Sunday Telegraph (7 July) reports: Changing Arctic ice due to ocean currents, not due to humans.  Christopher Booker cites the work of Ken Drinkwater and his team at the Institute of Marine Research in Bergen who have been observing the Arctic for decades. Drinkwater says that the melting ice is due to changes in ocean currents and he dismisses the idea that the ice is melting because of any rise in global temperatures. He says that a greater amount of warm water is flowing into the north Atlantic and up to the Barents Sea. He notes that is just what happened in the 1920s and 1930s when the ice melted even more dramatically than it has done in recent years, before it recovered again during the decades of what is called "the Little Cooling". |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 9, 2013 16:33:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jul 9, 2013 19:06:31 GMT
not long before all is discovered, great article Magellan.
any peer review and how solid is the research?
|
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Jul 10, 2013 7:30:04 GMT
Hi CH, Telegraph link: www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/10163570/Our-lights-will-stay-on-but-it-will-cost-us-a-fortune.html I've subsequently found this quote form Ken Drinkwater: "In both articles, my comments focussed upon the Barents Sea and not the Arctic Basin. Our studies did indicate that much of the heat entering the Barents Sea in recent years was advected in by the inflow of warm Atlantic Waters and although direct warming through air-sea heat exchanges no doubt occurred, it appeared not be the dominate process at the time of our studies. This increase in heat led to the melting of the sea ice"It appears the author of the Telegraph article (Christopher Booker) was making the incorrect assumption Barents Sea = Arctic Basin The paper:  Link: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079661111000218 |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jul 11, 2013 19:12:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Jul 11, 2013 21:45:59 GMT
Rhetorical Question: If the big El Nino of 1998 was ultimately a cooling event...
[warm water --> warms air --> convects upward --> radiates to space --> leaves the planet]
... then why can't a "melting Arctic" be a cooling event? Or can it?
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 11, 2013 23:13:49 GMT
Throttleup:
It is a cooling event.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 11, 2013 23:21:06 GMT
Rhetorical Question: If the big El Nino of 1998 was ultimately a cooling event...[warm water --> warms air --> convects upward --> radiates to space --> leaves the planet] ... then why can't a "melting Arctic" be a cooling event? Or can it? Thats pretty near to the theory I have been advocating lately. I really don't know to what extent greenhouse gases play into any of this other than note that greenhouse gases are capable of slightly warming the planet by providing a mechanism for heat to be transferred back to the surface each night when the air, by virtue of cooling more slowly, is warmer than the surface. But besides water vapor there is not much heat capacity in CO2 so its difficult to say if these gases play a big role. The problem in detecting that is water vapor is more complex. Cooling causes condensation and clouds which literally clouds the entire issue of the greenhouse effects of water vapor. It is a given assumption that to the extent that El Ninos warm the climate they also accelerate cooling but it may be muted again by clouds. I think the ice is the key to the approximate 66 or 72 year ocean cycle. Fact is the mass of the ocean is much cooler than the surface of the ocean and the bottom of the oceans are in contact with a source molten rock from the core of the earth. The only physical mechanism that can enable this is convection. The bottom of the oceans warm from contact with the core (through a large insulating field of rock) and that creates convection. Convection needs water to replace the convecting water so cool water settles to replace the convecting water. But that is not sufficient to keep the oceans colder than the surface. Another possibility is super cooling at the poles sinking and diffusing through the lower ocean. Science has already identified that saltwater can be supercooled to a minus 3 or 4 degree C without freezing by exposure to the wind in cold regions (poles or near poles) of the planet. The ice cap could act to moderate the convection like an eskimo's igloo. This year we are seeing the absence of even arctic climate amplification. Hadcrut 4 must be causing fits for its advocates. But thats typical when somebody is wrong, they keep looking for that confirmation bias and continually erode their own position. Obviously, the missing heat (lack of arctic amplification) did not create the higher volume of ice this year in the Arctic though Numno or Graywhale may want to convince you of that. Ocean science is very young and the PDO was only first recognized in science in 1996. We have a lot to learn. |
|
