I think 'unhelpful synoptics' will only prove to 'compound' things GTW? Maybe a 'bog average year' (with a lot of 'in-situ' melt of the weak F.Y. ice?) will help folk see just how different the Arctic is now it has shed it's protective 'Paleocrystic backbone'.

If we have a poor summer for ice retention folk will still choose to point at that as 'the reason' for any record low and not that the Arctic is now prone to rapid ice melt over summer?

Even 07's summer saw more 'in-situ' melt than transportation losses yet the perception appears to be that it was the 'perfect storm' wot dun it!!!

Is it just me finds this idea that once old ice has melted, we can never have older ice again rather deficient in common logic?
It's inconceivable that there has 'never' been so little old ice before therefore clearly it can come as well as go.
Granted younger ice is thinner and melts easier but this idea that it can never go on to survive and become multi-year ice seems like pure fantasy and hyperbole. 

It might help if you took the time to read and understand the processes involved.  Clearly you haven't because you have chosen to make another post demonstrating your particular brand of ignorance and dismissive scepticism.

Which part of the explanation are you not getting?   There is now an ocean swell apparent in the basin which used not to be the case.  What does this do to the chances of ice surviving for multiple years, rather than being broken up and transported out?

Of course it could recover, but it requires multiple years of recovery to restore multi-year ice and we have no evidence of that - indeed quite the opposite.  And this despite the recent global cooling by which you put so much store - which I think is short-term but you're the one claiming it as significant.

Fully agree Gandalf!

It is the conditions needed to 'rebuild' the ice we used to have in the 1800's that are the difficulty. We all see the ice return (in fits and starts these days!) each winter so the problem (at the moment?) is holding onto that ice once formed.

This year is the first year with the Basin crammed full of F.Y. second and third year ice so we will get to see exactly what 'young ice' reacts like come melt season without 'old ice' bobbing around in the background.

To me the 'difficulty' is not growing ice but growing the 'deep ice' (as referred to in the magazine article about the ice types the various whalers used to meet with). Without the great depth of halocline that used to exist I struggle to find 'growth conditions that won't just push the ice into the 'melt zone'.

We see this each year with the Southern sea ice as this sits in the shallow halocline that it builds as it grows, why should an Arctic Ocean ,open to the same processes as down there, not act the same?

I can see that ,when ice age ice covered the Basin, there was a good opportunity to produce the unique depth of halocline that we had logged and have data for. Once open waters arrive (in enough of an area) then Swells penetrate under the ice and mix the layer out. You can see why the' Paleocrystic Nursery' was positioned where it was? No chance of disruption from Atlantic swells pushing in From Fram or Bering Swells flowing into the Basin.

Regional melting (be it on the Siberian side or the Alaskan side or the N.European side) could lead to 'extensions' in the range of the swells in the Basin but only conditions with as little ice as today could fail to 'damp out' the swells before they got to N.Greenland/C.A.

Someone show me how we can 'reasonably' (as reasonably as we expect the changes AGW will bring us i.e '95% surety') expect to find these conditions again before the first fully 'seasonal' pack (with no ice in the basin older than 1 year) and I'll listen....... otherwise I'm with NSIDC/NASA et al (no realistic chance of return to previous conditions)

Is it just me finds this idea that once old ice has melted, we can never have older ice again rather deficient in common logic?
It's inconceivable that there has 'never' been so little old ice before therefore clearly it can come as well as go.
Granted younger ice is thinner and melts easier but this idea that it can never go on to survive and become multi-year ice seems like pure fantasy and hyperbole. 

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

You are not by yourself Four. That we can never have older ice again, does seem rather strange. Very strange in fact It all depends on the prevailing conditions.

Originally Posted by: four 

Of course the Arctic has been ice free before, but that - by all accounts - happened very slowly and under very different conditions.   The issue now, as I am sure you know, is not the loss of ice but the rate of loss.  Plus the fact that the climate models predict much more rapid warming at the poles, as we are seeing at the North Pole in particular.

So, clearly you think the state of the ice is just a matter of "the prevailing conditions" and I assume that Four is with you on this.

So, I challenge you to make a prediction about when and why we will see a recovery.  All of the evidence is pointing one way at the moment but if this is indeed a transient problem, as you seem to suggest, you should be able to come up with a rational proposition for us.

As with AGW, I will be amongst the first to celebrate if this all turns out to be an illusion, fuelled by a few decades of natural warming forcings from the sun and Pacific.  But you won't mind if I don't put the champagne on ice just yet (lest more ice melts.... )

Future 'predictions' in ice behaviour may be S.C. but the historical data is just that , historical Data.

I do not think anyone can deny that the Arctic has been losing ice since the start of the 20th century (and probably before that?) but that this loss has shown itself to be accelerating through the 80's up to today (with a bit of a 'Hockey stick' going on since 2005?).

If you were a gambling man S.C. which would you bet on happening first, a seasonal pack or a return to ice aged over 20yrs residing in the Basin?

I see that our hard won brief encounter with some common ground last year has been to no avail SC.

OK, if you want to engage at that level again -

You are talking complete b*******s.  The climate models need further refinement - but then we have already agreed this, in case you had forgotten.

It's not a game, as well you know.  Your entire post is tedious, inaccurate, unhelpful and divisive.

.....Apart from that, thanks.....

Is it just me finds this idea that once old ice has melted, we can never have older ice again rather deficient in common logic?
It's inconceivable that there has 'never' been so little old ice before therefore clearly it can come as well as go.
Granted younger ice is thinner and melts easier but this idea that it can never go on to survive and become multi-year ice seems like pure fantasy and hyperbole. 

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

You are not by yourself Four. That we can never have older ice again, does seem rather strange. Very strange in fact It all depends on the prevailing conditions.

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

Of course the Arctic has been ice free before, but that - by all accounts - happened very slowly and under very different conditions.   The issue now, as I am sure you know, is not the loss of ice but the rate of loss.  Plus the fact that the climate models predict much more rapid warming at the poles, as we are seeing at the North Pole in particular.

So, clearly you think the state of the ice is just a matter of "the prevailing conditions" and I assume that Four is with you on this.

So, I challenge you to make a prediction about when and why we will see a recovery.  All of the evidence is pointing one way at the moment but if this is indeed a transient problem, as you seem to suggest, you should be able to come up with a rational proposition for us.

As with AGW, I will be amongst the first to celebrate if this all turns out to be an illusion, fuelled by a few decades of natural warming forcings from the sun and Pacific.  But you won't mind if I don't put the champagne on ice just yet (lest more ice melts.... )

Originally Posted by: four 

I don't make predictions, except for fun - I don't know enough. In fact, I'm not aware of anyone who does know enough.

The global system temperature is perhaps better for keeping tabs on where we are climatically and the ocean waters are representative of about 97% of that system. And within the ocean waters we can't find the heat which GCM's predicted should be there.

The Arctic Ice is a proxy which we haven't yet unravelled.

Is it just me finds this idea that once old ice has melted, we can never have older ice again rather deficient in common logic?
It's inconceivable that there has 'never' been so little old ice before therefore clearly it can come as well as go.
Granted younger ice is thinner and melts easier but this idea that it can never go on to survive and become multi-year ice seems like pure fantasy and hyperbole. 

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

You are not by yourself Four. That we can never have older ice again, does seem rather strange. Very strange in fact It all depends on the prevailing conditions.

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

Of course the Arctic has been ice free before, but that - by all accounts - happened very slowly and under very different conditions.   The issue now, as I am sure you know, is not the loss of ice but the rate of loss.  Plus the fact that the climate models predict much more rapid warming at the poles, as we are seeing at the North Pole in particular.

So, clearly you think the state of the ice is just a matter of "the prevailing conditions" and I assume that Four is with you on this.

So, I challenge you to make a prediction about when and why we will see a recovery.  All of the evidence is pointing one way at the moment but if this is indeed a transient problem, as you seem to suggest, you should be able to come up with a rational proposition for us.

As with AGW, I will be amongst the first to celebrate if this all turns out to be an illusion, fuelled by a few decades of natural warming forcings from the sun and Pacific.  But you won't mind if I don't put the champagne on ice just yet (lest more ice melts.... )

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

It happened very slowly? How do you know that? I didn't know we had any accounts at all? Where are they?

I don't make predictions, except for fun - I don't know enough. In fact, I'm not aware of anyone who does know enough.

The global system temperature is perhaps better for keeping tabs on where we are climatically and the ocean waters are representative of about 97% of that system. And within the ocean waters we can't find the heat which GCM's predicted should be there.

The Arctic Ice is a proxy which we haven't yet unravelled.

 

Originally Posted by: four 

I believe the 'missing heat' issue is not one of model predictions but of the measurement of the radiation inbalance by satellite and hence the amount of heat gained by the earth system. Actually I thought the issue was now largely resolved but I could be worng. I will do a literature search and get back on this one.

Oh dear, here we go again.....

Do you know that past melting of the Arctic happened very slowly?   My statement is based on something I read, to the effect that the rate of melting is 'not natural', i.e. it is being forced.

I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence. 

Fact: The Arctic is warming faster than anywhere else

Fact: The Arctic ice is thinning and melting

Fact: The climate models predict this as the probable outcome of AGW

So, what do you mean exactly?

Well of course natural melting has a forcing mechanism...

That isn't the issue, is it?  The issue is that there is evidence that the forcing(s) at work now are much greater in effect than past melting.

As for your attempt at humour, sorry Dave but I have difficulty finding your linking of WUWT and IPCC remotely amusing.  One is rooted in scientific enquiry and the other is just full of contrarian tosh.

WUWT just panders to those who think they are capable of independent thought but are really just looking to reinforce their prejudices, as I think you know.

Possibly, but why this sudden pursuit of accuracy?  Most of your posts have a singular lack of accuracy and a preponderance of prejudice.

Clearly you don't accept that the global climate system is behaving unusually so there is precious little point in trying to discuss it with you.

I really don't understand the ongoing desperation to make out a major crisis is underway.
Some underlying insecurity perhaps?
Every opportunity is taken to exaggerate and spin to make things seem [far] worse than they are.
It's most peculiar and seems bordering on a pschotic condition.

Which one do you think it is?

My stratigraphy 'training' would beg to differ with those folk who think we cannot 'plot' past ice retreats. Many of the diatoms/foramonifera and such are incredibly temp/sunlight sensitive (some have a narrow range of temps they can live in others differing levels of sunlight penetration from 'full ice' through partial cover to 'open water. If changes are 'slow enough you can follow the 'migration' of the critters as they follow receding ice in and advancing ice out.

Berg deposits (dropped as they melt) Whale bones (need 'air holes) to breathe etc ,etc give us a wealth of indicators as to the conditions above from the mud logs we collect......

In fact, hows about giving this a quick 'sken'?

http://courses.washington.edu/proxies/SeaIce.pdf

When you start to realise just how 'small' a niche many of the 'fossils' we use to create paleo-environments are you can start to realise how important they are (over many time periods/environments).

I rekon those forams were probably psychotic

LOL.....No comment!

How ya bin? Not seen yuz fer a while?

You have managed to portray yourself as so imbecilically wrong and out of touch with reality that your posts have become merely comical.

If your whole life revolves around trying to prove the planet is doomed, it's clearly very displeasing when someone points out that actual evidence of imminent catastrophy is lacking.

Look around Four - have the men in white coats arrived yet?