319 replies to this topic

[pottyprof]

Gray-Wolf, on 08 October 2011 - 10:43 , said:

A helping hand for those 'cyclical' guys out there; ]

Ah.. At last !!! They found a technical way of saying our models are crap....

[stewfox]

Gray-Wolf, on 08 October 2011 - 10:43 , said:

A helping hand for those 'cyclical' guys out there;

http://www.scienceda...11006084040.htm

It was a ice free summer by 2013 then 2030 then 2050 now 2099 (all quoted in the last 4 years)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm

http://www.theage.co...80919-4k8u.html

http://en.rian.ru/sc.../159884899.html


And now they announce 4 times faster then they thought before but at least another 87 years longer then they first thought

How can one be cynical

Edited by stewfox, 09 October 2011 - 10:49 .

[Gray-Wolf]

It's like weather forecasts Stew, they're always more accurate as a 'hindcast'.........

[BornFromTheVoid]

stewfox, on 09 October 2011 - 10:48 , said:

It was a ice free summer by 2013 then 2030 then 2050 now 2099 (all quoted in the last 4 years)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm

http://www.theage.co...80919-4k8u.html

http://en.rian.ru/sc.../159884899.html


And now they announce 4 times faster then they thought before but at least another 87 years longer then they first thought

How can one be cynical

4 different opinions from a handful of scientists in 4 different years. There are 10s if not 100s of thousands of scientists in something related to this field with different opinions on both sides of the debate. With that, understanding of the dynamics of climate science and Arctic ice are continually evolving. I see no reason for cynicism. Ideas are being refined and (hopefully) improved.
Personally, I'd be more concerned if everything was static.
Even our knowledgeof the processes involved in evolution and epigenetics are still changing, doesn't mean we should be cynical of whether or not evolution is true!

I think everyone should take the individual predictions with a pinch of salt. We don't know everything there is to know and so there will always be surprises

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi BFTV!

Wait and see the opinions once we have our first 'seasonal' pack? I'm sure there'll be plenty of 'so whats' out there?

As for the current situation. Well with the NEtWTV winter forecast update coming out tomorrow I'm wondering if the models now include the 'Arctic Amplification' as a driver in the mix???

Another early Arctic blast (followed by a middling Jan/Feb/March) and I'm properly sold on the changes loss of ice cover is bringing to the N. Hemisphere.

You watch for the 'developed worlds' renewed interest in the Arctic Amplification should the shaky economies be hit by early winter ( chrimbo shopping etc.) freeze up?

[Gray-Wolf]

NSIDC said this in their update;

"Ice remains younger, thinner
Why did ice extent fall to a near record low without the sort of extreme weather conditions seen in 2007? One explanation is that the ice cover is thinner than it used to be; the melt season starts with more first-year ice (ice that formed the previous autumn and winter) and less of the generally thicker multi-year ice (ice that has survived at least one summer season). First- and second-year ice made up 80% of the ice cover in the Arctic Basin in March 2011, compared to 55% on average from 1980 to 2000. Over the past few summers, more first-year ice has survived than in 2007, replenishing the younger multi-year ice categories (2- to 3-year-old ice). This multi-year ice appears to have played a key role in preserving the tongue of ice extending from near the North Pole toward the East Siberian Sea. However, the oldest, thickest ice (five or more years old) has continued to decline, particularly in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Continued loss of the oldest, thickest ice has prevented any significant recovery of the summer minimum extent. In essence, what was once a refuge for older ice has become a graveyard"

(My bold)

[stewfox]

Gray-Wolf, on 11 October 2011 - 14:53 , said:

NSIDC said this in their update;

"Ice remains younger, thinner
Why did ice extent fall to a near record low without the sort of extreme weather conditions seen in 2007? One explanation is that the ice cover is thinner than it used to be; the melt season starts with more first-year ice (ice that formed the previous autumn and winter) and less of the generally thicker multi-year ice (ice that has survived at least one summer season). First- and second-year ice made up 80% of the ice cover in the Arctic Basin in March 2011, compared to 55% on average from 1980 to 2000. Over the past few summers, more first-year ice has survived than in 2007, replenishing the younger multi-year ice categories (2- to 3-year-old ice). This multi-year ice appears to have played a key role in preserving the tongue of ice extending from near the North Pole toward the East Siberian Sea. However, the oldest, thickest ice (five or more years old) has continued to decline, particularly in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Continued loss of the oldest, thickest ice has prevented any significant recovery of the summer minimum extent. In essence, what was once a refuge for older ice has become a graveyard"

(My bold)

What are we to do without Daily updates ? I have managed to get a Daily Express forcast but who knows ??

http://en.wikipedia....icesheet_hg.png

Edited by stewfox, 11 October 2011 - 21:09 .

[Gray-Wolf]

If we look back over the past two years I've been highlighting how the changes in ice type have lead to a 'switch' in the workings of the Arctic.

In the 'Old Arctic' the 'average' circulation pushed ice up against Greenland ,Canadian Archipelago and South Beaufort sea where it squeezed itself over the ice there or ridged up to form the fantastic office block sized ice that was the Paleocrystic ice (and pushed deep keels down into the ocean too!).

Today , as I'd noted over these past two years, those same areas just feed ice into Nares and Fram or float it into the ocean in front of the Bering straights (where it is melted out).

The old 'nursery' of the Paleocrystic ice is now nothing more than it's 'mortuary'.

Can anyone show me how this is a 'natural cycle' that we have seen many times before?

Edited by Gray-Wolf, 11 October 2011 - 23:26 .

[loafer]

The logical response to your question is

"No, I can't show you, because there is no evidence available.

How you are so certain that it isn't a natural cycle that has been seen many times before?"

[jethro]

Gray-Wolf, on 11 October 2011 - 23:26 , said:

If we look back over the past two years I've been highlighting how the changes in ice type have lead to a 'switch' in the workings of the Arctic.

In the 'Old Arctic' the 'average' circulation pushed ice up against Greenland ,Canadian Archipelago and South Beaufort sea where it squeezed itself over the ice there or ridged up to form the fantastic office block sized ice that was the Paleocrystic ice (and pushed deep keels down into the ocean too!).

Today , as I'd noted over these past two years, those same areas just feed ice into Nares and Fram or float it into the ocean in front of the Bering straights (where it is melted out).

The old 'nursery' of the Paleocrystic ice is now nothing more than it's 'mortuary'.

Can anyone show me how this is a 'natural cycle' that we have seen many times before?

I'd hazard a guess that the latest research concerning the Sun and changing weather patterns in the NH winter would be playing a large role.

[BornFromTheVoid]

jethro, on 13 October 2011 - 13:10 , said:

I'd hazard a guess that the latest research concerning the Sun and changing weather patterns in the NH winter would be playing a large role.

So with the recent prolonged solar minimum and low UV levels will you be expecting a recovery in the sea ice sometime soon?

[jethro]

BornFromTheVoid, on 13 October 2011 - 15:52 , said:

So with the recent prolonged solar minimum and low UV levels will you be expecting a recovery in the sea ice sometime soon?

Not if it's the cause behind ice being flushed out into the ocean.

[BornFromTheVoid]

jethro, on 13 October 2011 - 17:04 , said:

Not if it's the cause behind ice being flushed out into the ocean.

I thought that was happening well before the solar min? Or maybe I'm missing something here!?

[jethro]

BornFromTheVoid, on 13 October 2011 - 17:06 , said:

I thought that was happening well before the solar min? Or maybe I'm missing something here!?

I was offering an answer to GW's question about the last 2-3 years and the difference in the circulation pattern. The latest research shows the quiet Sun impacts the atmospheric patterns during the winter months in the NH which in turn is linked to the colder winters we have had here over the same time period. I imagine you cannot have the impact of the quiet Sun being felt here, without also impacting the Arctic.

I don't think the Sun was linked to circulation changes prior to the Solar min, was it?

[BornFromTheVoid]

jethro, on 13 October 2011 - 17:27 , said:

I was offering an answer to GW's question about the last 2-3 years and the difference in the circulation pattern. The latest research shows the quiet Sun impacts the atmospheric patterns during the winter months in the NH which in turn is linked to the colder winters we have had here over the same time period. I imagine you cannot have the impact of the quiet Sun being felt here, without also impacting the Arctic.

I don't think the Sun was linked to circulation changes prior to the Solar min, was it?

Is it a circulation change that's allowing the ice to flow out of the Arctic more easily or maybe it's just because the ice is less consolidated and gets caught in currents/blown along by wind patterns more easily... or both?
I don't know of any definite link between the Sun and changes in Arctic circulation, but I think it would be unwise to completely discount any possible links.

[Boar Wrinklestorm]

BornFromTheVoid, on 13 October 2011 - 17:38 , said:

I don't know of any definite link between the Sun and changes in Arctic circulation.

Well, I'd hazard a guess that maybe, just maybe, there might be a very slight hint - slight, mind you - that, since >99% of all the world's energy is derived from that marvellous free light bulb in the sky, that it might, just might, mind, have something to do with the weather. I'm not sure on this, and, really, it's just a sort of guess; unfortunately, I do not have the means to run £multi-billion computer models, and I certainly don't have higher end degrees in any of the sciences so such a rumination should be considered on it's own merits.

Maybe you should just consider this as my own personal inclination.

NEWS-FLASH: There is ice in the Arctic.

Edited by Sparticle, 17 October 2011 - 05:30 .

[Gray-Wolf]

http://ocean.dmi.dk/...icecover.uk.php

Anyone know why we have a 'stall' in growth going on? Are we 'exporting' a.t.m.?

[loafer]

Likely to be the effect of the recent warm spell which came through the UK and onwards to the north east.

The latest temperature chart, here;

http://www.uni-koeln...nNNWWarctis.gif

...shows the northern Norwegian coast to be particularly warm, given the time of year.

Also seen here;

http://www.weatheron...=0&PERIOD=&WMO=

Look forward to next weekend and the GFS shows a significant chill down;

http://www.weatheron...=0&WMO=&PERIOD=

[BornFromTheVoid]

Sparticle, on 17 October 2011 - 05:16 , said:

Well, I'd hazard a guess that maybe, just maybe, there might be a... free light bulb in the sky... I'm not sure on this, and, really, it's just a sort of guess; unfortunately, I do not have the means to run.., and I certainly don't have... any of the sciences so such... should be considered on it's own merits.

Maybe you should just consider this as my own personal inclination.

FLASH... the Arctic.

Where'd we be without selective quoting eh?

Anywho, of course the sun has a huge affect on our tiny planet. Sure without it the Earth wouldn't have even formed. While it's blatantly obvious that the sun is the biggest driver for almost all of Earths processes, with the numerous feedbacks, crossovers and ridiculous range of climate affecting cycles all around us, it is difficult to determine exactly how changes or lack thereof in sun are influencing Arctic circulation patterns and in what way they're doing that.

[Gray-Wolf]

However we got here , BFTV, we are here.

Some of the land fast ice areas (deep grounded ice) and features like the 'ice tongue' (from Greenland out towards Svalbard) are now history only and I fail to see , without as many years as it took them to disappear, how we majik them back? Without them ( as NSIDC says) even the old nursery of the Paleocrystic ice has turned into it's mortuary.
My 'pet' whine about the halocline also comes in here. It was (or so I have come to believe) a relic of the last ice age (and the depth of ice above it then) but it also played it's role in keeping the old 'deep ice' that kept the Arctic as we knew it. Every 'wave' that rolls across the basin is mixing this unique feature out. Catlin tells us that the ice melt is also 'mixing out 'this layer with cold melt water sinking and warmer ,more saline waters bobbing up to the surface.

We should not kid ourselves that the Arctic is as simple as 'cold'. It had many systems that helped keep it as was.

I have to sigh when the odd post pops up promising a bit of cold ,arctic weather up there as though this is a positive.

Come summer we will see ice drop to the 'new' level for ice min(as we have since 07's shocker!) and this new level will slowly reduce (over time) until the pack is fully seasonal.

That is. of course, if we forget the 'perfect storm' years and it is the next one of these that will bring the 'first' seasonal pack though this would surely 'rebound' for a few years after ?(as we saw the post 07' years do) until , once again the rate of decline drops us into 'seasonal pack' territory.

The Arctic is broken , well Broken, and it'll take more than a couple of cold summers to fix it.

(the above is ,of course , my opinion and 'take' on things)