Come on Solar Cycles

You can do better than that - I hope.  We have put forward a rationale for the warming, i.e. influence by AGW.  You have said "It's a warming trend" - so come up with a natural cycle or process that has caused this rapid warming please.

You cannot use ocean currents, as Stephen lamely attempted to do, because the same trend is evident in Hudson Bay, which is largely unconnected to the ocean systems.

If you can find a plausible natural cause I am sure we would all be delighted because it would provide some basis for hope that the steady and almost unrelenting deterioration might be capable of reversal.

It always appears to be "just around the corner" with you Guys though S.C. We keep up our end by bringing the latest 'science' on the subject (even if that science shows us things are happening faster than we once thought they would!) but all you guys bring is 'wait and see'???

Alaska gave up waiting;

http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/climatechangestrategy.pdf

the above is their strategy for dealing with the rapidly changing Arctic.......maybe they should have waited a few years eh?

It always appears to be "just around the corner" with you Guys though S.C. We keep up our end by bringing the latest 'science' on the subject (even if that science shows us things are happening faster than we once thought they would!) but all you guys bring is 'wait and see'???

Alaska gave up waiting;

http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/climatechangestrategy.pdf

the above is their strategy for dealing with the rapidly changing Arctic.......maybe they should have waited a few years eh?

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

Latest science, you are having a laugh surely? I'm sorry that the laws of physics can't move much quicker in order to show you the errors of your ways. But hey, go ahead, maybe losing heat content in the oceans is like turning a light on and off! 

Originally Posted by: Gray-Wolf 

Any chance of not letting this discussion degenerate again SC? That sort of response is patronising, unhelpful and is typically why we end up with slanging matches.  I expected better.

YOU have to show that this ocean heat is NOT connected to AGW, don't you?

YOU don't have a winning argument here, you just have enough to throw an element of doubt on the validity of the claim that the changes are at least partly AGW influenced.

I think that the 'Laws' are moving far too fast for my liking S.C.! The past 4 years have seen the initial lurch towards a rapid climate shift. The changes will be brought about by both the changes we have seen occurring in the Arctic Basin (ice loss and breakdown of the Halocline) and the permafrost melt/tundra wildfires.

This years Arctic Report Card (drawing together all the disciplines studying the changes across the Arctic) hints at the speed of this climate shift with it's look at the impacts on northern hemisphere circulation by the Arctic Amplification.

I have no wish to 'convert' you in your opinions S.C. but think it important that the 'lurkers' are given a good opportunity to make up their own minds, as to the changes we are seeing occur, based on the Science and our own interpretations of such

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/ArcticReportCard_full_report.pdf

EDIT: As for ocean heat are we not just shedding the surface heat (from the years of positive anoms)? Won't next summer just bring about more heating (Esp. with the base line for cloud formation now raised due to increasing ocean temps so less Equatorial cloudiness to stop the sea temp hikes?)

It seems as though ice extent is catching up.

With northerly winds predominating recently north of Iceland and more high pressure forecast over Greenland, it's interesting that Greenlands east coast ice is increasing. Ice brige to Iceland down the line? When did we last see that?

When you think that about 200+ years ago, the ice got down as far as the Faeroes, it shows you how much things have changed.

http://www.woksat.info/etcsl05/sl05-1116-a-apt-e.html

Looks like a well fragmented ribbon down the East coast showing the 'normal' melt water swirls at it's edge.

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/DriftTrackMap.html

And we can even see where that ice comes from (above) as it was the 2nd/3rd year ice which sat over the geographic pole back on April 19th.

Yet more losses of 'older ice' replaced by 'new' salty,weak ice?

Not really? If you look back over  the mid to late 90's you'll see that there was a significant area of land-fast ice (Esp. around the NE Tip of Greenland) and that the ice appeared more or less contiguous. Since 02' we've seen the ice fragmented (as we see today?) and very mobile with melt ongoing around the southern peripheries.

We keep getting erroneous claims of an 'ice bridge' forming between Iceland and Greenland (as used to be a common winter feature) but both the infra red images (all winter) and the MODIS images (daylight) have shown this to be wrong. Maybe some mis-interpretation of the sea ice concentration maps?

I suppose with the demise of the old Paleocrystic ice we no longer have large ,deep ice floes flowing down the Greenland coast with plenty of opportunity for 'collapse and spread' to give the impression of 'contiguous ice'. todays 3m thick ice leaves gaps that F.Y. ice infill's giving us this patchwork effect?

I don't know about misrepresentation, but, yes, it would appear that the simple ice extent images I've seen are not truly accurate.

What do you think will happen to ice extent in this area if very cold northerly winds, which have featured recently, continue for another two months?

My concern has turned to the integrity of the new 'younger ice' (and I hope now Cryosat2 is now commissioned we can all accept the poor state of our sea ice) and the way that the 'new Arctic' destroys older ice via the Beaufort Gyre/Trans polar drift instead of creating the massive floes we grew up knowing by blocking exits and ramming up giant ridges/over riding slabs of ice.

The loss of the ice's ability to do this (due to it's depth/integrity) means just what we have witnessed, the rapid loss of the Paleocrystic ice.

I would imagine that by Jan/Feb (should La Nina not send us it's normal warm winters end after it's normal 'early' cold snap) the movement of this ice will be restricted by F.Y. ice in the flow but by then it will contain another big amount of 'older ice' which will rapidly melt come late spring.

As for a central Arctic of F.Y. ice? I think we'll see even more of the sea area past 80N ice free this summer allowing a lot of ice movement in the pack and allowing ice drift towards exits/high melt regions leaving us with our 'normal 4 to 5 million extent come Sept and both passages open by Aug?

That's a very helpful explanation Gray-Wolf, thanks.

It is one thing to observe the trends, as I do, but another to understand better the processes at work.

I suppose it is not entirely out of the question that there could be several favourable winters in a row that would start to build the multi-year ice once again.  From my understanding and your further explanations it seems that stopping or reducing significantly the transport of ice out of the Arctic is a key and something I had not appreciated until this year.

Back to current data, there has been a bit of a jump in ice extent in the last 2-3 days and we remain just above the record low of 2006 for this date - but only by about 30k sq km or 0.3%

Hi G.T.W.!

I'm also a tad concerned about the swells that have been able to propagate through the basin. The last ice age formed an very deep halocline layer which the thick sea ice protected (even areas with partial melt would be able to have neighbouring halocline to 're-build' the depth should it have become disturbed). Since the massive 07' melt large swathes of Arctic Ocean have had this layer impacted (studies off Hawaii showed the water column disturbed up to 200m down by ocean swells....about the depth of the halocline?) and for a number of seasons now.

Folk studying the ice have reported swells under the thin (sub 3m) sea ice that now forms so this process may well be ongoing all year today? Without this 'depth' of nurturing water the ice thickness may well be being pegged by the warmer saltier waters close to the surface? The 02'-08' NASA study showed a 3m average depth across the basin.

If we look for 5m+ ice today we only now find it in coastal areas where the halocline reaches the sea floor (N. Coast Greenland/East Siberian sea?)

When I see 5m+ ice in the ocean depths I'll be a tad happier! until then I'm of the opinion that the Basin can no longer build deep ice without pushing it into the 'melt zone' and whether this extends to the 200m depth or is just a 'surface' change doesn't seem to matter to the ice. With heat absorbed all summer then we could well find that we end up with a 'seasonal pack' (like Antarctica) even with the old Halocline preserved 6 or so metres below?

Enough of my black dog.......

Actually there is the theory that a warmer Arctic is exactly what is required for Northern Hemisphere cooling. Warm air pushes into the Arctic forming Huge cells of High pressure pushing the Cold air into the Northern hemisphere. It is not that surprising that the 15% Ice extents are still down...

Cryosphere Today - extent 15% or greater - click to enlarge

  But look at this......

And despite the Warm air going into the Arctic we still get this........

Danish Meteorological Institute - Mean Temperature above 80°N - click for more

 The Climate is going through a sea of change(pardon the pun) and it has litte or nothing to to with Man made Co2,

Oh and i know this is no the Antarctic thread but just for reference seeing as we are looking at the 15% Ice extent as some kind of evidence.....

NSIDC Antarctic Sea Ice Extent - 15% or greater - click to enlarge

There IS an Antarctic ice thread, it has just dropped down the pages because of lack of posts - I'll find it and bump it back up for you to repost.

I find your comment quite bizarre as regards the Arctic ice.   I assume you think that there has never been a similar synoptic pattern before?

Unless there is a jump in the final figure for ice extent yesterday we will hit a new date low.

We're not going to settle this for a while yet, clearly.  I am some others expect there to be no recovery in the state of the ice in the Arctic despite the natural cycles having swung in favour of cooler conditions.  Time will tell but your statements are baseless and stunningly complacent IMO.

More warm air into the Arctic means faster ejection of energy to space. So does less ice in the Arctic Ocean because the water below is then uninsulated. The albedo change is insignificant at such high latitudes.

When the Arctic is more isolated from inflows of warm air such as when the AO is positive and the jets flow in a tighter faster band around it then the Arctic interior gets colder but only because energy is being prevented from flowing in to replace what is being lost to space.

So a positive AO is an indicator of a warming world whereas a negative AO is an indicator of a cooling world.

Now moving to the Antarctic a positive polar oscillation with the jets running more tightly and faster around the Antarctic Continent skims away the Antarctic Peninsula but allows the interior to get colder just as observed.

A negative oscillation lets more warm air in and because of the positions of the southern continents on average the preferred route for cold air out is across the Peninsula which then grows.

So it's all perfectly explicable without invoking AGW at all.

It's only explicable if the ice recovers.

Calling it as nothing to do with AGW is a tad premature.

Only a tad.

It was more than a tad premature to invent AGW.

But in any event those warm inflows of air to the Arctic would restrain sea ice regrowth would they not ?

At the same time as ice is building up over the northern continents for months at a time.

Snow at lower latitudes for longer on the northern continents has a hugely greater albedo effect than a bit of sea ice on the Arctic Ocean when the sun might be above the horizon but remains low and gives little warmth.

I recommend you upgrade your overcoat even if the recovery of Arctic sea ice remains fitful and slow.

And the low level cloud/Arctic sea smoke that the A.A. provides help the heat radiate into space?

http://www.woksat.info/etcsl08/indexsl08.html

take a look at the 'long strips' (they show the full Arctic?) and tell me how many 'clear days' we've had since Sept 22nd?

The 'changes' we see above 70N are so rapid Mother N. (and her cycles) have been side swiped out of the way. don't take my word for it though , just check the data (when compared to where our 'cold drivers' should have us ,globally)

Gray - Wolf

All that cloud or sea smoke coming off unfrozen water represents energy leaving the Earth on it's way to space. You make my point for me. That very process is a form of negative system response to the warming you fear.Converting water to steam and cloud absorbs vast quantities of energy and converts it to latent form for whisking upward on the winds.

Nothing is instant. It takes a while to turn around the planetary supertanker.

And yet the theory has lasted longer than the equally daft theory of evolution ......  Wonder why?

That would be fine were it not for the fact that there shouldn't be open water there......  It's about the same as arguing that steam rising from the water used to put out a forest fire is somehow good news because it means the heat is escaping.....

As for the super-tanker analogy, yes, absolutely correct - the supertanker called mother nature, now shunted badly off course by AGW.

You're slimly justified self-assurance is becoming tedious Stephen.  Every argument you put forward has an open timeline determined by you, which is just plainly daft.  How do you argue against a lump of jelly nailed to the wall?

I don't think you have grasped this Stephen. What "ice building up over the northern continents for months at a time"?? Are you referrring to the recent cold weather?   If so, it's like comparing chalk and cheese.  One minute you are arguing for long time lags to support one line of argument and the next you are floating this nonsense.

I don't think AGW was invented?  As I understand it AGW was discovered in the same way as other scientific advances.  If you are back on your hobby-horse that man's influence is trivial compared to nature then that's different (although you are still wrong, as the data indicates), but don't overplay your hand.

As for the "bit of sea ice" - now you're just being either provocative or stupid.  I assume the former.  Again, you demonstrate a gross lack of understanding of the significance of the Arctic.

Tedious - sometimes I wonder why I bother to read this rubbish.

The argument Stephen puts forward here is not nonsense. If the winter season lasts longer in the Northern Hemishere with more extensive snow cover, then, heat lost from the global system will be more than recent times have experienced. And compared to the Arctic these temperate regions will indeed have a greater affect on albedo losses, for the simple reason of a higher heat input of the sun, in these regions, being reflected back into space -  heat input into the Arctic being relatively negligible for much of the year.

And, the point here is that the extent of and extended winter season in the temperate regions, is strongly connected to the the mean position of the jet stream.

I'm sure you can work it out.