Arctic Sea Ice Volume at record low.

[CapelDodger]

That's kind of scary, actually.

Open water between Canada and Russia ...

That must be worrying .

 

[CapelDodger]

Note that it is now THREE Standard Deviations from the trend line... I hope not for long.

It appears from the graph that 1982 was more than 2, but less than 3, SD's.

Of course the decline was never going to approach linear towards the end. Which is what we are towards. The change is quite evident since 2005 at least.

 

[CapelDodger]

Can you please elaborate on the source of the data. If it is satellite data, then 3 years is not significant enough to even develop a trend and SD.

glenn

I think he's inspired the trend-line on the graph, which shows 1 and 2 SD's. 1982 was more than 2 SD's, which in an integral world would be 3. Or possibly 4.

 

[BenBurch]

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png

There we go! As Capel points out, not as much impact then given that there was a LOT more ice volume.

 

[BenBurch]

Open water between Canada and Russia ...

That must be worrying .

If you saw what Canada has for a Navy, you'd think so.

 

[Wangler]

There we go! As Capel points out, not as much impact then given that there was a LOT more ice volume.

Oh, so the latent heat of approximately similar volumes of sea ice has changed in the intervening years?

I see.

 

[BenBurch]

Oh, so the latent heat of approximately similar volumes of sea ice has changed in the intervening years?

I see.

No, but the dynamics are different now; That was unlikely then to cause immense leads of dark water to soak up more heat. Now that is very likely the result.

 

[CapelDodger]

If you saw what Canada has for a Navy, you'd think so.

Don't knock the Canadian Navy. They saved our ass in WW2, we wouldn't have won the Battle of the Atlantic without them. The third largest navy in the world by 1945. They've done it before and can do it again.

The economic and (therefore) strategic implications of a navigable Arctic Ocean are ... a fascinating subject for conjecture .

 

[CapelDodger]

Oh, so the latent heat of approximately similar volumes of sea ice has changed in the intervening years?

I see.

Latent heat isn't the point, and nobody suggested that it is.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I guess your imagination is limited..\As a polar bear the McDonald's is closing too early

http://www.conservationmaven.com/fr...ed-with-reduced-polar-bear-size-and-repr.html

Species can adapt to changes over long time......not our anthro accelerated habitat changes

ONE severe sea ice loss event could devastate populations dependent on sea ice access.

Now your "imagination" is not required...you have information to understand the point.....the rest is up to you

You have zero data with which to establish the limits of my imagination, so I suggest you limit your comments to things with which you do have data ..

I'm still waiting for the ' scary ' part ..

 

[BenBurch]

You have zero data with which to establish the limits of my imagination, so I suggest you limit your comments to things with which you do have data ..

I'm still waiting for the ' scary ' part ..

I think you'll be waiting a very long time as its obvious to everybody else.

Seriously, if you don't look at the data and realize that something significant is happening in the Arctic, you don't comprehend what it means.

 

[BenBurch]

And actual areal extent is tracking below 1997...

 

[Wangler]

No, but the dynamics are different now; That was unlikely then to cause immense leads of dark water to soak up more heat. Now that is very likely the result.

Ben, do you have a reference regarding differences in dynamics?

 

[BenBurch]

Ben, do you have a reference regarding differences in dynamics?

Not handy. But its basic physics. As you can see from the extent diagram just posted, we are losing area at the same time as we are having a volume excursion. Loss of area means dark water. Water is well-known to absorb more heat than ice does; Ice is reflective. The result is obvious. Back in the early 80s, if you lost ice volume, there was SO much more ice that it just spread thinner and there was not the formation of leads as there is now.

As you can see, in 1980, there was a lot more area than now;

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=06&fd=02&fy=1980&sm=06&sd=02&sy=2010

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I think you'll be waiting a very long time as its obvious to everybody else.

Seriously, if you don't look at the data and realize that something significant is happening in the Arctic, you don't comprehend what it means.

Where did I say it wasn't significant; as to what it means, it means different things to different people.. Some good, some bad.

If it's ' obviously ' scary , then you should be able to articulate why.

 

[Wangler]

Hmm, alright.

Thanks, I'll pull out the Google-fu.

 

[Furcifer]

Better yet, articulate why it's not "scary" using evidence. Since you introduced "scary" then you should be able to easily articulate what is or is not "scary". The onus is on you as you introduced the term.
Don't ask Ben to explain your limitations....

This

I can't find a single reference to anyone dying of heat stroke in the Arctic. The real danger is dying of exposure wandering around on that sea ice.

In the worst case scenario those scrawny polar bears are easier to catch and skin if you do get stranded.

More to the point, the fact that the volume of ice has changed so much in such a short time is unusual, but not particularly "scary". The loss of ice in itself doesn't provoke fear, it's the people claiming that it's "scary" that does.

The economic advantage of having the North West passage open to navigation isn't "scary" at all. There are many Canadians who will benefit from the delivery of cargo that would otherwise be impossible or extremely expensive.

 

[blobru]

Don't knock the Canadian Navy. They saved our ass in WW2, we wouldn't have won the Battle of the Atlantic without them. The third largest navy in the world by 1945. They've done it before and can do it again. ---

I think we still have the same navy.

 

[Mikemcc]

This

I can't find a single reference to anyone dying of heat stroke in the Arctic. The real danger is dying of exposure wandering around on that sea ice.

In the worst case scenario those scrawny polar bears are easier to catch and skin if you do get stranded.

More to the point, the fact that the volume of ice has changed so much in such a short time is unusual, but not particularly "scary". The loss of ice in itself doesn't provoke fear, it's the people claiming that it's "scary" that does.

The economic advantage of having the North West passage open to navigation isn't "scary" at all. There are many Canadians who will benefit from the delivery of cargo that would otherwise be impossible or extremely expensive.

The potentially 'scary' part of it is that if this particular short-term trend continues it will mean that the arctic ice is responding to polar temperature changes at a faster rate than anticipated. This will have knock ons with albedo changes, Greenland ice-loss, and hence sea-level change. The effects will still be drawn out over a timescale of decades though.

 

[Mikemcc]

"Arctic Ice at Low Point Compared to Recent Geologic History"

"The ice loss that we see today -- the ice loss that started in the early 20th Century and sped up during the last 30 years -- appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years," said Leonid Polyak, a research scientist at Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University. Polyak is lead author of the paper and a preceding report that he and his coauthors prepared for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100602193423.htm