280 replies to this topic

[stewfox]

North Sea Snow Convection, on 26 April 2010 - 08:59 , said:

Yes daily obsessive doomwatch prophesising, repeating the same mantra day in day out is not a healthy lifestyle.

I thought this was about Arctic Ice not politics??.

Not sure what the personal digs at GW are about, people know his views.

He is one of the main running characters in this long running soap.

Anyway I prefer the apocalyptic version then the 'wait and see'.

What would people give to see a min of 8m sqkms by summer end and how GW handles that ?

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks Stew, I believe it is!

As for 8m sq km , it'd depend on how thick it is and where it's hanging out (lol).

It's when will we be talking about the winter max being 8m km sq that concerns me......

I am sorry that some folk get so sad about things, it's not like we have any control over what is happening there is it? If you were me you'd be seeing the end of a process that started with ocean warming and subtle changes in circulations compounding other 'natural cycles' and augmenting their impacts.

Once the process was underway further 'natural' warming of the Arctic ,the ice, started a 'double whammy' with the erosion of the perennial in it's traditional enclaves (north of Greenland and throughout the Canadian Archipelago) and here we are.

Even a 'cold downturn' would not (IMHO) be enough to reverse the process. With the loss of the perennial and mixing of the ocean in the basin a new era in the Arctic dawned (the end of the post glacial period?) and we must now wait to see how the climate is impacted by the loss of it's air con. unit.

07' gave us an early glimpse of where we were in the 'change' but folk need to realise that this alteration has continued, to the point of completion, over the past 2 years and this year may well reveal how close we are to a pack that would be perennial if 07's synoptics were repeated (i.e. ,weather permitting)

[jethro]

I could well be being incredibly dense here but I still fail to see why this would matter. What catclysmic events would unfold if we only had ice in the winter?

[Gray-Wolf]

Maybe we should retire to the 'ice free Arctic' thread Jethro?

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.catlinarc...aspx?newsid=104

Seems that 79 degrees north, in April, can now expect rain showers!!

The snippit tells us of the 'warm air' being currently pumped into the Arctic on the Southerlies that flank the H.P. system over Resolute Bay.

EDIT: and this from 'Nature'

http://www.nature.co...ature09051.html



Sea ice loss driving Arctic warming cycle, scientists confirm
Study identifies cycle of ice loss and temperature rise that could see Arctic's icy cover disappear sooner than expected

The Arctic is locked into a destructive cycle that could see its icy cover rapidly disappear, scientists have confirmed. A new analysis shows that dwindling levels of sea ice are responsible for unusual levels of global warming in the region. The findings reinforce suggestions that a positive feedback between ice loss and temperature rise has emerged in the Arctic, which increases the chances of further rapid ice loss and warming.

The study could re-ignite claims that the Arctic has passed a key tipping point, which could see ice disappear much sooner than expected. While most estimates say the summertime Arctic will not be ice-free until the middle of the century, some models suggest it could vanish within a decade.

James Screen, a researcher at the University of Melbourne, Australia, who led the study, said: "The concept of Arctic sea ice having a tipping point is still hotly debated. Our results cannot prove whether we have passed a tipping point or not. What we can say is that the emergence of these strong ice-temperature feedbacks can only increase the likelihood of further rapid warming and sea ice loss."

Temperatures in the Arctic have risen twice as fast as the rest of the world in recent decades, a phenomena known as Arctic amplification. Scientists have long suspected that loss of sea ice was responsible, but other factors such as changes in wind, clouds and ocean currents have also been blamed.

Writing in the journal Nature, Screen and his colleague Ian Simmonds, say they used new data to show that the projected ice-temperature feedbacks are now being observed. "Previous studies have been hampered by a lack of quality data for the Arctic," Screen said. "The ice temperature feedbacks have likely strengthened in the last decade or so due to the dramatic declines in sea ice. Prior to this, the signal may have been harder to detect."

Part of this change is down to the albedo effect, with white, reflective ice replaced by dark water, which absorbs more of the sun's heat. The removal of ice has also led to more summer evaporation of water, which acts as a powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and speeds temperature rise.

Screen said: "The albedo effect is very important here, but there are other factors related to the loss of sea ice that likely play a role."

Edited by Gray-Wolf, 29 April 2010 - 09:40 .

[jethro]

I'm confused.

This study suggests ice loss results in a loss of albedo which in turn leads to more open water and thus a dark surface which absorbs heat, leading to even greater ice loss. Have I got that right?

How does this tie in with the studies which show the ice has lost much of it's reflective qualities due to being coated in soot? If it's black already, it won't make a lot of difference to the albedo levels.

Has this study been done on the assumption that the ice is pristine and white? Have they taken the soot issue into account?

From http://www.scienceda...70606113327.htm

In the past two centuries, the Arctic has warmed about 1.6 degrees. Dirty snow caused .5 to 1.5 degrees of warming, or up to 94 percent of the observed change, the scientists determined.

Also

http://www.nasa.gov/...g_aerosols.html

[Gray-Wolf]

I think you are confused jethro!

The majority of the 'old perennial' was melted from below ,not above. The 'Old Perennial' held the 'old Arctic' together as it resisted melt for thousands of years giving us the benefit of it's high albedo over the period of summer 24hr sun (which gives the Arctic a massive 12.62 W per m2 at solstice!!! a third more than at the equator at it's max energy input). With this resistant ice now 'history' any 'melted out ocean absorbs 80 odd % of this energy and re-radiates it as heat for the GHG's to trap.

I'm sure you have been watching the Icelandic saga and will see the difference a little overnight snow brings to ash covered snow fields? (did you see the snow fall on the pole cam on the 26th too?).

Anyhow I don't think dirty snow will melt out an office block sized piece of perennial better than sub-tropical waters.....

The recent studies are looking at the 'new Arctic' and it's 'new mobility', not the old pack with it's 40 odd percent ice island 'old perennial' locked behind Greenland and throughout the Canadian Archipelago. This 'old ice' was mainly static (as the old buoy tracks show) and accreted new ice via the collisions of the newer ice , which fragmented/melted over summer, smashed into it as it flowed around the Arctic Gyre (I'm sure you've seen the vids of bay ice overwhelming coastlines when the wind blew in the right direction?).

The new pack (which has buoys now zipping around the basin, 9months for one dropped in at the Siberian side and exiting via Fram, as opposed to the 26+months they used to take in the 'clogged up' old Arctic) is subject to wind and current as never before.

The dark water , and Arctic Amplification (which you sought confirmation of last year I remember?) means a positive feedback loop is already in place in the Arctic as outlined in the article (you see the changes 'no ice' bring to what was an ice desert? )I remember you were quite big on water vapour as a major GHG and now ,due to the open water, we have that up there now trapping more and more of the re-radiated heat. We even have north Alaska on 'fire alert' as now thunderstorms (and their lightning') threatens the drying lands there....(talk about 'fire and ice'......and soot!) are starting to occur there as that water vapour forms into weather ( Catlin's base camp had rain the other day!!!, rain in April in the Arctic circle).

My interest in the north of Greenland this year is mainly because it's historic position as the bastion of perennial in the arctic (along with the archipelago) and ,as we saw on the 07' time lapse of the melt season, it's sudden lurch North as it broke free sept 07'. I mused at the time that it could now drift into warmer waters but it appears 'warmer waters' drifted into it and it collapsed in situ ,over the last 3 years (as Dr B. documented last Oct).

If this sea clears of ice this summer then that will be the whole of the Arctic now 'new arctic' and prey to the feedback.

Once this heat starts to percolate inland (over 1,500km inland once the coastal ice is gone) then the permafrost is in line for changes and further GHG feedbacks.

As I have said I am now watching the Arctic as it is where we expect to 'pre-view' the impacts we will all see from our warming.

I'll ask you this too Jethro. Once the pack is 'seasonal' will you re-visit how we found ourselves at this place or will you still be content that this is just one of natures 'repeats'?

EDIT: Once the pack is fully seasonal I think we'll have ample opportunity to seek evidence of other periods of 'seasonal ice' in recent history. Science at present says that there has been no such event in the span of human existance (140,000 yrs).

Edited by Gray-Wolf, 29 April 2010 - 16:39 .

[jethro]

Gray-Wolf, on 29 April 2010 - 15:51 , said:

I think you are confused jethro!

The majority of the 'old perennial' was melted from below ,not above.

I'm sure you have been watching the Icelandic saga and will see the difference a little overnight snow brings to ash covered snow fields? (did you see the snow fall on the pole cam on the 26th to?).

Anyhow I don't think dirty snow will melt out an office block sized piece of perennial better than sub-tropical waters.....

The recent studies are looking at the 'new Arctic' and it's 'new mobility' not the old pack with it's 40 odd percent ice island 'old perennial' locked behind Greenland and throughout the Canadian Archipelago. This 'old ice' was mainly static (as the old buoy tracks show) and accreted new ice via the collisions of the newer ice , which fragmented/melted over summer, into it as it flowed around the Arctic Gyre.

The new pack (which has buoys zipping around the basin, 9months for one dropped in at the Siberian side and exiting via Fram, as opposed to the 26+months they used to take in the 'clogged up' old Arctic) is subject to wind and current as never before.

The dark water , and Arctic Amplification (which you sought confirmation of last year I remember?) means a positive feedback loop is already in place in the Arctic as outlined in the article (you see the changes 'no ice' bring to what was an ice desert? )I remember you were quite big on water vapour as a major GHG and now ,due to the open water, we have that up there now trapping more and more of the re-radiated heat. We even have north Alaska on 'fire alert' as now thunderstorms (and their lightening') threatens the drying lands there....(talk about 'fire and ice'......and soot!) are starting to occur there as that water vapour forms into weather ( Catlin's base camp had rain the other day!!!, rain in April in the Arctic circle).

My interest in the north of Greenland this year is mainly because it's historic position as the bastion of perennial in the arctic (along with the archipelago) and ,as we saw on the 07' time lapse of the melt season, it's sudden lurch North as it broke free sept 07'. I mused at the time that it could now drift into warmer waters but it appears 'warmer waters' drifted into it and it collapsed in situ ,over the last 3 years (as Dr B. documented last Oct).

If this sea clears of ice this summer then that will be the whole of the Arctic now 'new arctic' and prey to the feedback.

Once this heat starts to percolate inland (over 1,500km inland once the coastal ice is gone) then the permafrost is in line for changes and further GHG feedbacks.

As I have said I am now watching the Arctic as it is where we expect to 'pre-view' the impacts we will all see from our warming.

I'll ask you this too Jethro. Once the pack is perennial will you re-visit how we found ourselves at this place or will you still be content that this is just one of natures 'repeats'?

To be honest I'm permanently confused, too many thoughts, ideas, things to do for much clarity to occur.

However, all you've written above isn't related to the previous study you posted, that study focussed upon the loss of albedo due to less ice. I'm not saying more open water doesn't create a loss of albedo, I'm simply trying to clarify if this study was taken on the assumption that the ice/snow was pristine and therefore had a high albedo level. The previous studies I linked to showed this not to be the case, much of the ice/snow is blackened with soot already so how much difference would open water make from an albedo point of view?

You cannot compare snowfall in Iceland covering ash, to snowfall in the Arctic covering soot, the Arctic is officially a desert with low levels of precipitation, it rarely snows but when it does, it doesn't melt hence the accumulation of ice.

It's not me who was 'big' on water vapour GW, it's the scientific community, it is the biggest greenhouse gas. If there is more water vapour above the Arctic not only will it trap heat but will also wash some CO2 out of the atmosphere as it reaches saturation level. Then it will fall as snow (or on a warm day rain) assisting to cover the dirty snow with fresh, clean, bright, light reflecting new stuff - is this a positive feedback or an inbuilt natural negative one, limiting any positive feedback to an overall neutral one?

If the pack ends up perennial will I re-visit? A little tricky that one, I've never said this is one natures' repeats, I think you're confused now. My stance is and has always been, natural plus augmentation from us, it's the percentages I dispute and the belief that we can over-ride all the natural feedback cycles.

[Gray-Wolf]

Sorry Jethro, I find it hard to think about the Arctic without resorting back to the wider changes we have witnessed, predominantly over the past 15yrs (I think some folk choose to ignore this period and talk of the Arctic in terms of extent of ice cover alone, which might suit their agenda better, and not the massive loss in ice volume throughout this period).

I think you'll find more and more studies will be highlighting the part that changing water temps, and extending oceanic currents, played over this period of ice mass loss and so stop those folk who see the problem as just "a big melt in 07"from imagining any variability in winter 'extent' as a sign of 'recovery'.

I also believe we will have far more info on the loss of perennial ,and the job perennial used to do in the Arctic as this year progresses. As ice type maps will be updated to reflect the Dr Barber findings, and skeptik sites cry 'foul' as multi year ice figures are cropped to reflect their true extent (luckily Cryosat2 will have the 'thickness figures' which will prove the losses if the U.S. 'IceBridge' mission doesn't beat them to it) and the media fill us with 'fact-sheets' on ice types and losses on their environment pages.

I am not doubting the role of 'dark matter' reducing the Albedo of snow but I know you'll know which melts faster between a sheet of ice covered in soot and a layer of snow covered in soot! And ,yet again ,lets not forget that the larger part of ice in water is 'within the water' and not it's top surface alone.

I would be a lot happier if all we had to worry about was the amount of soot on the surface of the sea ice I promise you!!! as it is we are watching the final collapse of the 'old perennial' even if ice extents don't fall as low as 07's over summer (which I imagine they will, even without the synoptics of 07' ,due to the thinness/fragility of the pack we have today)

I am intrigued by the speed of all this and do wonder just how much 'extra' energy the globe is currently recieving (when compared to the globe with the old style pack) and how this 'extra' alone would alter climate even without extra GHG's in the atmosphere.

To me it's almost as if the warmth spent itself on warming the oceans to warm the ice pack to give us a double whammy of extra energy from the pole and the 'warming' that now has no ice to spend itself on?

[jethro]

That's all well and good GW but none of it addresses the points I have made nor answered my questions.

I really cannot see any reason to speculate nor label sites/folk as having an agenda, surely the aim is to uncover an accurate picture and understand the reasons why.

Reasons contributing to my confusion.....

We have one study claiming albedo changes are primarily to blame, another which says soot, another which says ocean currents, another which will claim the ocean changes are mostly natural, yet another which says CO2 is to blame, then we'll have another saying 'oh it's mostly winds', someone else will chirp in with their paper claiming Solar influenced moving pressure belts, oh and then we have the pressure belts moving due to AGW.

The list goes on and on and on and on.

They all share one thing in common, they all claim to have the definative answer. None of them seem to take into account the previous studies. If for instance the soot studies I linked to earlier claim 94% of the changes are attributable to soot, does this then mean everyone else gets to squabble over the attribution of the remaining 6%? How do they work these figures out? It all seems so utterly meaningless without cross reference to other studies. It's like me trying to make a Yorkshire pudding, failing miserably and then deciding catagorically it's because I didn't put in enough eggs whilst ignoring it may be too much flour/not enough flour/wrong flour/oven too hot/ too cool/didn't beat it enough blah, blah, blah.

The current situation seems to be a little like all those health warnings we get, this year Red wine is good for you, next year it probably won't be again, eat this, eat that, oh no don't eat that afterall. Is it any wonder I, and I'm sure many others have run out of energy to worry about the latest study?

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm sorry Jethro the study of the ice in todays arctic , and the positive feedback loop we are witnessing, has nothing to do with how we got here. It explains why the old ice cover was important and how it's reflectivity stopped most of that whopping 12.64 watts per metre squared being absorbed by the planet and it then be re-emitted as infra red.

The fact that 'today' we have lots of open water around the high Arctic over summer means that 'today' we ARE capturing some of that energy input which warms the water ,further melting the ice so more energy can be absorbed to melt further ice to then be re-emitted as infra-red to be captured by the water vapour that has been evaporated from this 'newly opened water' or by the extra GHG's we have pumped into the atmosphere (thus warming the trop. as is now noted over late Autumn/early winter) which delays the formation of the ice at summers end until the water has shed sufficient heat to allow ice formation which leads to a thinner pack being formed so the next spring it takes less energy to melt it into open water ...........

Once the last areas not impacted in this way fall foul to it (this summer?) then the whole of the Arctic basin will start acting as we see the Siberian/Bering sectors act over this past 10 years.

What the article doesn't address are the impacts that 'open water' has on the ocean itself (which used to be novel in it's internal stratification with a deep surface layer of 'fresh', 'cold' water or 'Halocline' ).



With open water comes waves and with waves comes mixing and the deep halocline layer is lost leaving warmer ,saltier water free to occupy the uppermost reaches of the ocean. The depth ice is now able to form to is limited by the 'annual' reformation of the halocline layer as the sea starts to freeze. This means an end to 'thick ice' as it will always be pushed into warmer ,saltier waters as the winter snows depress it beyond the protection of the halocline it formed as the ice skim grew (did we not wonder why the Grace study [04 to 08] saw such a limitation in ice thickness with both 2nd and 3rd year ice pegged at 2m or just over 2m?)

The first article you link us to was published in June 07' so goodness knows how old the original paper was and what data they used.

When something as astounding as the 07' ice loss takes science by surprise there is a lot of study goes into both explaining the phenomena and also why we were so taken by surprise.

I think the paper you link to would have been binned nearly as soon as it was released due to the changes July ,Aug, Sept of that year brought us. It is quite obvious that you need at bit more than a scattering of soot to drive the scale of change we witnessed and also that we hear no more of it linked to the ice pack but do hear of it across the ice sheets.

The NASA paper lines up well with the CO2 anoms over the northern hemisphere landmasses. Nature likes balance and I'm sure these things do quickly spread out around the globe but initially they are concentrated at their point of origin. Once the Arctic Amplification is running at full tilt you have to wonder what this will mean for the upper ice in Greenland if we have both GHG's and particulates in abundance with an arctic ocean bleeding heat into the atmosphere?

Edited by Gray-Wolf, 29 April 2010 - 20:45 .

[laserguy]

Gray-Wolf, on 29 April 2010 - 09:31 , said:

Part of this change is down to the albedo effect, with white, reflective ice replaced by dark water, which absorbs more of the sun's heat. The removal of ice has also led to more summer evaporation of water, which acts as a powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and speeds temperature rise.

Screen said: "The albedo effect is very important here, but there are other factors related to the loss of sea ice that likely play a role."

Pity then that,at the time of writing,Arctic ice is higher than it's been for many a year on this particular date. All that CO2 sloshing around,too! Must be plenty of albedo going on right now "up there". As J observes,there's far too many with their finger's stuck in their favourite pies all clamouring to prove that their theory is "the one" - trying to explain something that may well be par for the course and nothing at all unusual/unprecedented etc. I personally wish all these scientists would go get a proper job and stop pestering me.

[Gray-Wolf]

Just don't look.

By summers end you will either be lambasted by endless 'enviro section' stories from the mail, express, telegraph, times of how science got it wrong 'cause the ice has gone' or 'how science got it wrong 'cause the ice hasn't gone' either way science gets it.

[jethro]

With respect GW the paper you linked to could be binned tomorrow too, which is exactly my point. We're bombarded with paper after paper, study after study ALL claiming to have the definitive answer and yet none of them seem to reference the previous studies.

This latest study, reiterated by yourself above, is that we have lost the albedo effect of all the ice lost in recent years - I ask again just how reflective the ice or effective the albedo was, (if as previous studies have shown) the ice was blackened with soot? Has this been accounted for in this latest study?

Also, there was a lot of study into why there was such a dramatic loss of ice in 2007, the conclusion was that it had been driven by the Arctic Oscillation, not AGW.

[Gray-Wolf]

laserguy, on 29 April 2010 - 20:44 , said:

Pity then that,at the time of writing,Arctic ice is higher than it's been for many a year

Cor!! you got that in under the wire!!! As it is 09' will be the first year we crash through but the steepness of ice loss over the coming weeks is set to fall very rapidly (if the state of the 'outer pack' is anything to go by!!!).

Now we , on our side of the house (lol) get shouted at for our 'could be', 'in all probability', 'most likely'!!!!

I suppose you have to employ a little 'common' here Jethro. We (none of us) had the facts of the scale of past ice destruction in 07' these intervening years we've had the NASA/NSIDC studies, we've had the sub data released (Russian and U.S.) and we've had a number of reports from on the ice (Dr Barber being an example) so we now have info that wasn't available to us back then and so our 'understanding' is vastly increased making it easier to see things more clearly.

In as far as 'albedo' do you not feel you're being a tad pedantic? if, instead of 80% reflective to 80% absorption we had 40% albedo dropping to 80% absorption? would it make a difference so great as to be notable? We are in the infancy of A.A. and it is measured over the side of the Basin that has spent longer 'ice free' over summer (Bering and the Siberian Shelf sea) as the phenomena grows it's a lot of change to occur (+80 to -80) even if we take your wish to reduce the albedo so as to limit the 'reflectivity' before the fall of the ice what would this give us (esp. over the 'dimmed period')?

We cannot spend to much energy wishing that the Arctic Basin wasn't a blighted with change as the data tells us it is. None of the surprises it has brought us (over the past 15yrs) have been pleasant now have they? I was waiting on a 'reasonable 'image of the North of Greenland yesterday (yesterday was not as cloud blighted as the past week) as you can see the extent of Nares up the west/NW of Greenland and the flow into Fram.

The shattered ice from one is close to joining with the other (and this in April!!!) meaning you could already canoe around the North of Greenland right now!!. The other side of Nares being open all winter is now showing in the rapidity that the entrance to the NW passage (deep channel) is opening up (some more major collapses at the middle yesterday) as the ice can flow away down past Baffin and out through Davis (Already!!!) . I quick look to the other end of the passage lets you realise just how poor Barents ice formation was this winter but ,on top of that, the amount of 'green' now showing in Alaska;

http://rapidfire.sci....php?T101192140
shows you how warm it is across the north this spring (only mountain snow left!!!)

Edited by Gray-Wolf, 30 April 2010 - 08:35 .

[Gray-Wolf]

OOPS, double post

Edited by Gray-Wolf, 30 April 2010 - 08:33 .

[jethro]

Sorry Ian, no time to play today.

One quick thing though....isn't pedantry another name for accuracy in scientific studies? In fact I'd have thought vital, otherwise it's all just random, meaningless numbers.

[Gray-Wolf]

jethro, on 30 April 2010 - 08:47 , said:

Sorry Ian, no time to play today.

One quick thing though....isn't pedantry another name for accuracy in scientific studies? In fact I'd have thought vital, otherwise it's all just random, meaningless numbers.

Hope you are able to enjoy it out there Jethro!!!

It's the scale of the changes that have occurred, no matter what it's 'past' reflectivity was we are now 'here' and it is here that the paper is focused on. The fact that the ice surface may have possibly been able to melt a tad faster/slower on it's way to 'here' isn't important is it? The ice 'did melt and we 'did' end up in this situation.

The fact that we have a very fragile pack this year (more so than any year previous as the folk out on the ice are reporting and the images are showing) with poor ice formation all the way to the pole and a continued collapse (at least into late Sept when Dr B. was watching it) of the remnants of the 'old perennial' means an even greater potential for 'open water' this year.

L.G.'s 'extra extent' is currently approaching the 15% min figure in all of the areas it got blown out into so we are going to see figures tumble over the next 2 weeks but it doesn't stop there. We have Hudson Bay in a similar state of premature decay, The Siberian side of the Basin letting go, ice flowing from beyond Frans Joseph out of Fram, Davis,Baffin island,Nares already in full flow (no ice bridges this winter again......no perennial big enough to log jam the outlet and water warm enough to keep it ice free all winter), Baring straights in flow with Barents moving out that way (on the same wind that allowed the 'ice factory' to build the late season ice and blow it out into Bering sea).

I honestly can see that even a 'normal summer' will set a min extent record this year with only 'extreme weather' able to keep the figures as high as 08/09 summers. The odds of 'extreme weather works both ways and the winds are just as likely to empty the basin as they are to hold the ice in. With the AO-ve the circulating winds are weak and the L.P. systems 'blocked' by the H.P. seem content to accelerate the flow through Fram, Nares and Bering!!

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.denverpos...rts/ci_14917371

Makes me wonder how much man's activities impact the snow/ice around the globe. If increased desertification leads to increased dust-storms and these, in turn, lead to earlier melt dates (35 days in The area in the Rockies the article mentions) then we have yet another positive feedback loop with increased warming leading to even more desert and even more dust.

I know from asthma studies Jamaica has a problem with Saharan dust (which we are busy 'growing' through poor farming practises/land use) and if we are to suffer the type of N/S swap of air masses we have this past winter how much dust could we drape over Greenland each winter (and not just our cars???

[Gray-Wolf]

Looks (to me) as though the ice is reaching it's first phase of melt with the ice outside the Arctic Circle now rapidly declining. If we think back to December and how ice was doing prior to the 'ice factory' switching on in the Bering Straights and the inland sea/lake ice across Europe forming you'll remeber we had concerns about thickness and extent. With the 'Anomalous ice' now fast dissappearing we'll get a chance to see how the high Arctic is placed to endure the summer melt.

The glimpses that Modis has given us over the past 2 weeks has shown (me) that Barents, Can. Archipelago and the ice area from Frans Joseph into Fram is already well into their melt.