135 replies to this topic

[Gray-Wolf]

Rather than clutter up the seasonal ice thread any more than we have I thought I'd open this.

Jethro asked whether or not it matters if the pole were ice free for a few months a year (apart from sinking Santa's operation there )

I'm only as good as the things I've read/seen that smack of reality and I know some of you have issues with my version of 'reality'.

To me it matters a great deal (over time) as it allows processes that have already begun to accelerate.In turn I can see how this impacts areas of the globe which we really don't want to be messing with.

At this point I have to remind us of the extra GHG's we have committed (so far) to the atmosphere and the impacts that these gasses are purported to have.

Some of the stuff I've read of the changes already happening/predicted to happen.

1/ Once the coastal ice has gone the heat penetrates up to 1,500km inland bring many changes along with it.We loose the permafrost, it allows gigatonnes of methane into the atmosphere (and the dregs are squeezed out as the ground freezes up in autumn/early winter).Methane is a 'super' greenhouse gas. The permafrost melt also allows a lot of locked up CO2 to be released (up to 4 times the amount we have currently placed into the atmosphere).

2/We expose a lot more dark water to absorb heat over the ice free period. The ocean then needs to loose the heat before it can re-freeze and so places a lot of heat (relatively ) into the atmosphere over the autumn months.Extra energy in the atmosphere will affect the weather patterns that form. We are already seeing storms moving North and strengthening.Even more heat is drawn into the Arctic (remember our slow re-freeze this year because of the southerlies over Siberia?)

3/Greenland holds a lot of ice. Allow the extra summer heat inland into the ice sheet and what do we end up with? We can forget 1m of sea level rise by 2100.A partial collapse in Greenland not only puts 3m of extra water into the oceans but it floats off every remaining ice shelf in Antarctica.This includes Ross (the size of France) which holds back the east Antarctic Ice sheet. Remember that 'heat penetrating 1,500km inland once the sea is at the coast' thingie? How much of that ice is now due for the oceans? How much more water do we need account for.Until this years report on the mass loss in East Antarctica we all thought is 'safe', not so and without it's main buttress what is to stop it sliding into the sea? (there's over 200ft of sea level rise locked up in EAIS so even a piddlin' amount is a serious number.

Anyone that understands global weather may like to ponder what changes they would expect to see in an ice free Arctic .I do not have anything like the understanding to attempt that.

4/ Coastal erosion. Without sea ice to protect the coast areas of Alaska are collapsing into the sea.Without the permafrost to hold their sea cliffs together both Siberian coasts and Alaskan coasts are suffering.In Alaska communities are being re-located as they are loosing the battle with the ocean.

I'm sure the list is a fair bit longer than this and I'd like for folk to post why this isn't going to happen but also why this ,and more ,may occur over the next generations.

You know I believe we are in the 'end game' in so far as summer sea ice in the Arctic is concerned.

so what happens next?

[jethro]

Thanks for this Ian, I'll try and post something over the next couple of days - not promising though, currently and for the foreseeable, in headless chicken mode.

[Gray-Wolf]

And a very Merry Christmas to you too!!!

[jethro]

Don't mention Christmas! As well as the usual manic "I want a wreath, can you produce 3 miles of garland by tomorrow please", hubby casually said "let's decorate the sitting room, won't take long" - I thought paint - he thought rip out the fireplace, put in new one, rip out coving, install picture rail to match the rest, rip out old wiring, install new, lay oak floor. Won't take long.....Noooo, of course not and of course the entire house has 3 inches of builders dust all over it too. What joy!!

Heeeeeelllllllpppppppp!

[Roger J Smith]

First point, an "ice-free arctic ocean" means an absence of ice in summer. It would take a sustained warming probably beyond anything possible in this current set-up (from position in the Milankovitch cycles) to achieve a perennial ice-free situation.

Second point, an ice free arctic ocean has not always led to warmer conditions on land around the arctic basin. There are conditions in which the ice-free ocean leads to higher snowfall rates on land, and it might even be a trigger for glaciation to begin.

Therefore the predictions about losing permafrost and land ice are not guaranteed to be predictable results. If the melting sea ice is due to changes in ocean currents, then there might be other regional changes to consider.

I do happen to think this is possible, not as soon as some are saying, more like 2023-2030, for natural reasons mainly, but we would need to see a brief solar minimum for this to remain on the table.

Recall that after the ice-free anomaly of 2007, there was quite a strong rebound due in part to heavy snowfalls around the arctic basin in the autumn and early winter of 2008, leading to an unusually cold winter in China with above normal snowfalls, and very heavy snows in parts of eastern Canada and New England.

There are indications that the arctic ocean was more ice-free in some past epochs (post-Dryas) than nowadays, in particular, parts of the Neolithic and parts of the MWP. Those periods may have led to milder climates on land but these did not melt all the ice or permafrost, and did not produce a total meltdown as we can see.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'd really like to see the evidence of less ice (mud logs etc.) over previous warm periods. As I've covered before we see no evidence of bacterial activity in the permafrosts now melting and , should similar conditions have occurred before then we would see the evidence there surely? We also see no evidence of the type of slumping of hillsides/coastal erosion or spikes in methane that are indicative of todays elevated temps. It is one thing saying it is so another bringing forward the recognisable evidence of it.

I am interested in this Roger, If you have the goodies then it would alter my feelings on what we are seeing today and how this appears it will pan out.

I'd much rather see a long cycle natural reason for extended warming (to the extent that we lost the old perennial but had it reform once the 'warming' ceased).

As I have said I see the end of the old perennial which means no more mistakes come the next warm year.All the ice will melt (to all intents and purposes) leaving the odd raft of ice and little else.

What of polar bear/Walrus/Seal numbers then? One bad season will impact them, sure, but a number of years of such conditions?

It doesn't bare thinking on.

This is why the 'good news' would be helpful to me.

[Roger J Smith]

One single fact reveals that the Canadian subarctic and arctic used to be warmer at some point in the Neolithic than even nowadays, and that is the existence of evidence for a tree line 100-150 kms further north than nowadays in the Northwest Territories.

Studies of whalebone deposition on beaches around the arctic basin also indicate that open water channels existed in some parts of the historical period, most likely the Neolithic and the MWP, allowing the whales access to parts of the arctic only recently opened up again after four or five centuries of known (through exploration logs) ice barriers.

My point should not be over-dramatized, I'm just saying that there is evidence that this is not the absolute warmest point of the current inter-glacial even in the arctic.

I also happen to believe that we are entering a period of increased variability in that climate region, on a somewhat downward trend. This really opens the door to many different outcomes. I think that an ice-free arctic (summer at least) is a possibility, more like after 2020 than as early as 2015, but as I've explained, I would not be too fearful of the consequences, it could be part of a natural regional set of changes that would lead to different winter climates in different regions.

The idea that the Canadian arctic (and Greenland and Alaska) are continuously warming up is somewhat of an over-simplification promoted by the AGW lobby. Native people can be found to testify that ice is forever receding, etc etc, but the real climate statistics show a more variable climate through the 20th century wherever records are available; yes, there was a peak around 1998-99, but in fact the trend curves through the period of record are more complex than a runaway warming would suggest. There have been several rather cold summers in the Canadian arctic since 2001, 2007 was an exception to that, but the past two years have not seen large positive anomalies in the far north.

[pottyprof]

The mud on the Arctic ocean floor shows that the ice has gone before.. Its been mentioned before on here but people chose to ignore it..

[Devonian]

pottyprof, on 17 December 2009 - 02:53 , said:

The mud on the Arctic ocean floor shows that the ice has gone before..

How long ago?

Quote

Its been mentioned before on here but people chose to ignore it..

Not by me, if the evidence exists that is (and I think it does, just it was a long time ago).

But, don't you have to compare apples with apples? If not we might have a February that saw 21C maxima and then find the reply 'Oh, that's not unusual, it's happened in March before'?

I really think saying the ice has been absent before (the more so that farther back in time) isn't really a reply to what's happening now. Of course if the conditions in the past were different things would be different but what matters now is what is changing now to cause changes.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Why is it that you don't want to look further back in time? You keep going on about how we can't compare now to then, but I don't see why not. If there was no ice up there before and we all exist now, it obviously wasn't the great catastrophe people keep banging on about. On that note, good to see Gore got broadsided for mentioning it would be ice free in 5 years based on a report. Who broadsided him? The author of the report. Classic.

[Devonian]

Dartmoor_Matt, on 17 December 2009 - 10:56 , said:

Why is it that you don't want to look further back in time? You keep going on about how we can't compare now to then, but I don't see why not.

I don't think you'd suggest comparing the Arctic now with when the Earth was molten rock? Nor would you compare the Arctic now with when there wasn't an Arctic Ocean? So, why compare now to times other than when ocean current, oceans, and continent were as now? That excluded all bar a few tens of millions of years before now I guess - the Miocene.. However, the Isthmus of Panama only closed a few million years ago and that had important implications for climate (via ocean current changes). So, I think it's only really valid to compare now with the last few million years or so.

Now, what do we find over that time? I really don't know tbh for sure. I think we have seen ice free Arctic over that time - others here might know. But, so what if the Arctic has been ice free, does that mean we should not be concerened that our activities might be the root cause of changes to the Arctic now? I think we should be, my view, concerened. If our activities are the root cause then we are playing god with the planet.

Quote

If there was no ice up there before and we all exist now, it obviously wasn't the great catastrophe people keep banging on about.

Why 'obviously'? Do you know the changes happened at the same speed as now? You don't. It's not obvious.

Quote

On that note, good to see Gore got broadsided for mentioning it would be ice free in 5 years based on a report. Who broadsided him? The author of the report. Classic.

You really should be cautious when reading WUWT...

Edited by Devonian, 17 December 2009 - 11:33 .

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Twas the BBC, but thanks for the warning

The obvious bit referred to us being here now... which I think is fairly obvious, as we are having this discussion, no?

But at the end of the day, what difference does it really make? Summer ice, or no summer ice.

[laserguy]

Dartmoor_Matt, on 17 December 2009 - 11:55 , said:

But at the end of the day, what difference does it really make? Summer ice, or no summer ice.

I'm wishing the damn stuff would melt overnight completely,or freeze and expand so rapidly that a terrible ice-age kicks off and engulfs the planet. Anything,please,to stop these ridiculous parties going off around the world where all the guests have this idea that they can control it one way or the other by sharing CO2 around.

[Devonian]

laserguy, on 17 December 2009 - 13:03 , said:

I'm wishing the damn stuff would melt overnight completely,or freeze and expand so rapidly that a terrible ice-age kicks off and engulfs the planet. Anything,please,to stop these ridiculous parties going off around the world where all the guests have this idea that they can control it one way or the other by sharing CO2 around.

LG, you're veering OT but CO2 has risen in conc by 30% plus during our fossil fuel buring age. So, to reduce those emissions can only be to want to return the climate (or climate forcings) closer to normal pre industrial levels. Thus it's infact to reduce the effect (or control) on the climate we have not increase it.

Dartmoor_Matt, on 17 December 2009 - 11:55 , said:

Twas the BBC, but thanks for the warning

The obvious bit referred to us being here now... which I think is fairly obvious, as we are having this discussion, no?

But at the end of the day, what difference does it really make? Summer ice, or no summer ice.

Here I go OT...

Do the rainforest matter? Do tuna (some species of which are vastly over fished) matter? Does anything 'matter'? I don't know, it's a philosphical thing, or it's our future on the planet thing?

I think everything matters - the web of life suported by a fit environment. Someone could cut out bits of masterpiece painting and still see what it is about, but how much could you cut out and still have a masterpiece? How much change can the environment take? We don't know. I think we, as a species, have too much effect on the planet and I think ice free Arctic summers would be evidence of that.

[Captain_Bobski]

It would be interesting if they found a tribe of wild tuna living in the rainforest, don't you think...?

[laserguy]

Devonian, on 17 December 2009 - 13:16 , said:

LG, you're veering OT but CO2 has risen in conc by 30% plus during our fossil fuel buring age. So, to reduce those emissions can only be to want to return the climate (or climate forcings) closer to normal pre industrial levels. Thus it's infact to reduce the effect (or control) on the climate we have not increase it.

Not really OT since Arctic ice or CC in general can't be mentioned these days without the CO2 monkey looking over our shoulders,but to respond to your post if I may,before being hauled back strictly OT,I have to ask - yes,but what's that got to do with anything? Please don't trouble yourself to answer,I already know(and I gotta go to work right now)! . At the time of writing,the ice is doing ok,btw!

V.Quickly - just seen your response to DM and y'know what - I agree with you wholeheartedly,except for the bit about ice-free Arctic summers being 'evidence'. But some things are way,way out of our control. You know what I'm talking about! See ya.

[Chris Knight]

If this thread is not to go OT, then fanciful speculation about warming due to atmospheric changes should be avoided. The causes for the reduction in (summertime, Arctic) sea ice are not known, expected, predictable or quantifiable (so far), and any link to atmospheric carbon dioxide changes are not demonstrable. We do know how the atmospheric carbon dioxide trends have been changing in a regular fashion for the last half century, but the response of the global or local temperatures have neither been dependent on those figures, predictable nor regular. Those with beliefs that properties of increased quantities of carbon dioxide have definite real-world effects, should at least wait until those effects can be reliably demonstrated in the real world, before casting their self-ordained superior prescience on the rest of humanity.

Edited by Chris Knight, 17 December 2009 - 21:40 .

[cyclonic happiness]

Gray-Wolf, on 15 December 2009 - 16:21 , said:

Rather than clutter up the seasonal ice thread any more than we have I thought I'd open this.

Jethro asked whether or not it matters if the pole were ice free for a few months a year (apart from sinking Santa's operation there )

I'm only as good as the things I've read/seen that smack of reality and I know some of you have issues with my version of 'reality'.

To me it matters a great deal (over time) as it allows processes that have already begun to accelerate.In turn I can see how this impacts areas of the globe which we really don't want to be messing with.

At this point I have to remind us of the extra GHG's we have committed (so far) to the atmosphere and the impacts that these gasses are purported to have.

Some of the stuff I've read of the changes already happening/predicted to happen.

1/ Once the coastal ice has gone the heat penetrates up to 1,500km inland bring many changes along with it.We loose the permafrost, it allows gigatonnes of methane into the atmosphere (and the dregs are squeezed out as the ground freezes up in autumn/early winter).Methane is a 'super' greenhouse gas. The permafrost melt also allows a lot of locked up CO2 to be released (up to 4 times the amount we have currently placed into the atmosphere).

2/We expose a lot more dark water to absorb heat over the ice free period. The ocean then needs to loose the heat before it can re-freeze and so places a lot of heat (relatively ) into the atmosphere over the autumn months.Extra energy in the atmosphere will affect the weather patterns that form. We are already seeing storms moving North and strengthening.Even more heat is drawn into the Arctic (remember our slow re-freeze this year because of the southerlies over Siberia?)

3/Greenland holds a lot of ice. Allow the extra summer heat inland into the ice sheet and what do we end up with? We can forget 1m of sea level rise by 2100.A partial collapse in Greenland not only puts 3m of extra water into the oceans but it floats off every remaining ice shelf in Antarctica.This includes Ross (the size of France) which holds back the east Antarctic Ice sheet. Remember that 'heat penetrating 1,500km inland once the sea is at the coast' thingie? How much of that ice is now due for the oceans? How much more water do we need account for.Until this years report on the mass loss in East Antarctica we all thought is 'safe', not so and without it's main buttress what is to stop it sliding into the sea? (there's over 200ft of sea level rise locked up in EAIS so even a piddlin' amount is a serious number.

Anyone that understands global weather may like to ponder what changes they would expect to see in an ice free Arctic .I do not have anything like the understanding to attempt that.

4/ Coastal erosion. Without sea ice to protect the coast areas of Alaska are collapsing into the sea.Without the permafrost to hold their sea cliffs together both Siberian coasts and Alaskan coasts are suffering.In Alaska communities are being re-located as they are loosing the battle with the ocean.

I'm sure the list is a fair bit longer than this and I'd like for folk to post why this isn't going to happen but also why this ,and more ,may occur over the next generations.

You know I believe we are in the 'end game' in so far as summer sea ice in the Arctic is concerned.

so what happens next?

If the Arctic does become ice free in the summer, there is no reason why huge low pressure systems couldn't form up there and start spinning massively cold cyclones southwards, cooling the northern hemisphere into the next ice age!

IMO there is nothing to worry about, as far as no-one has the faintest idea what effect a melting arctic would have.
I'm sick to the back teeth of all of this climatic apocalypse talk, everyone i know is getting too cynical to care anymore and that is so much more worrying.

(ps not against you matey, just the barrage of propaganda)

Edited by cyclonic happiness, 17 December 2009 - 21:43 .

[Devonian]

cyclonic happiness, on 17 December 2009 - 21:42 , said:

If the Arctic does become ice free in the summer, there is no reason why huge low pressure systems couldn't form up there and start spinning massively cold cyclones southwards, cooling the northern hemisphere into the next ice age!

IMO there is nothing to worry about, as far as no-one has the faintest idea what effect a melting arctic would have.
I'm sick to the back teeth of all of this climatic apocalypse talk, everyone i know is getting too cynical to care anymore and that is so much more worrying.

(ps not against you matey, just the barrage of propaganda)

Yeah, all those stolen mails have been spun into a ridiculous amount of propaganda that has, clearly, worked.

Chris Knight, on 17 December 2009 - 21:37 , said:

If this thread is not to go OT, then fanciful speculation about warming due to atmospheric changes should be avoided. The causes for the reduction in (summertime, Arctic) sea ice are not known, expected, predictable or quantifiable (so far), and any link to atmospheric carbon dioxide changes are not demonstrable. We do know how the atmospheric carbon dioxide trends have been changing in a regular fashion for the last half century, but the response of the global or local temperatures have neither been dependent on those figures, predictable nor regular. Those with beliefs that properties of increased quantities of carbon dioxide have definite real-world effects, should at least wait until those effects can be reliably demonstrated in the real world, before casting their self-ordained superior prescience on the rest of humanity.

Not belief but science. The ones with the belief are those who think science can be wished away.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Thats the point tho Dev, the link between increased CO2 and temperature has not been made. At the moment its just a convenient fit. Along with one or two other things that conveniently get ignored.