Arctic Sea Ice Volume at record low.

[CapelDodger]

I think we still have the same navy.

But orders are finally going out for some new kit. And for new navy bases where they weren't needed before.

The flag-waving has already begun. Can the arms-race be far behind?

 

[BenBurch]

If I am reading this chart right, the average for June 1 is about 25 million cubic kilometers of ice.

If I am reading the anomaly chart right, we are now ten million less than that, or around 15 million.

The average chart says we do not get to about 15 million until late august on average.

It also shows that from June 1 to late September, we lose 12 million.

15 - 12 is 3 million.

SO, if things proceed per average from now on, we would expect there to be only about 3 million cubic kilometers of ice in September?

Must be some flaw there, because that is just a ridiculously low number.

 

[CapelDodger]

Again, not an ideal situation and not necessarily a "good" thing, but when we start using terms like "scary" to define the yet unknown we border on fear mongering.

In this case however, I think the data could be considered "alarming". This is a considerable departure from baseline and certainly could be viewed as an "extreme" weather event.

"Weather event". Arctic sea-ice volume as a "weather event".

And "departure from baseline", when it's actually a departure from the trend-line, not from the baseline.

You didn't score many points by that contribution.

 

[CapelDodger]

If I am reading this chart right, the average for June 1 is about 25 million cubic kilometers of ice.

If I am reading the anomaly chart right, we are now ten million less than that, or around 15 million.

The average chart says we do not get to about 15 million until late august on average.

It also shows that from June 1 to late September, we lose 12 million.

15 - 12 is 3 million.

SO, if things proceed per average from now on, we would expect there to be only about 3 million cubic kilometers of ice in September?

Must be some flaw there, because that is just a ridiculously low number.

Of course we're in a regime now where previous experience is of very limited value. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[CapelDodger]

Nah, just a sign that your getting old. I make that same mistake with the 90's and the '00's all the time

There comes a time in life when the decades just race by ...

Not for AGW denialists though. I expect them to stay welded to the 2000's (their "Golden Decade") long enough to see me out.

 

[CapelDodger]

Which is why I said that the last time it was close to being this far out from the trend was 1982.

Well fielded. You show promise as a Sophist.

 

[Wangler]

Must be some flaw there, because that is just a ridiculously low number.

I don't think there is a flaw.

In the paper Pixie posted (Figure 1), a three-sigma deviation from the model ensemble mean is about 3 or 4 x 10^6 for September 2010, by my eyeball.

If we stay at three sigma or greater, it seems possible.

 

[Wangler]

Well fielded. You show promise as a Sophist.

Sigh...the Arctic will be ice-free long before you contribute anything of use anywhere on the JREF forums.

 

[Dancing David]

Gentlemen, Both CD and W, I am bemused by your behavior. While this may be mild in terms of taunting at the JREF, neither of your ad homs contribute to the conversation.

THIS IS ONE THREAD THAT HAS NOT BEEN SENT TO THE MODERATED THREAD, which is the current JREF solution to the issue of the endless pedantry and sniping that plague certain threads and has made these conversations hard to read without them being shut down.

So please cease and desist and if you must insult each other do somewhere else.

For reference you are both ignoring an in thread warning!

There are plenty of things in here that could have well gone into the moderated general AGW thread, but maybe not all. However, keep it civil or it will be either AAH'd or added to that thread.

We don't generally close threads on request unless there is a compelling reason.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[Furcifer]

"Weather event". Arctic sea-ice volume as a "weather event".

And "departure from baseline", when it's actually a departure from the trend-line, not from the baseline.

You didn't score many points by that contribution.

Source? I wasn't aware of a point system here at the JREF.

If there were I would guess playing semantics is a negative. Whether baseline or trend-line is irrelevant to the discussion.

As an anomaly it remains a weather event as well. Again I fail to see the reason for you pointing this out?

Why not address the question at hand? What exactly is "scary" about an ice thaw? Are you proclaiming this a "runaway" event? Does this represent a dangerous condition?

 

[Trakar]

Arctic Roadmap

...One of the Navy’s main goals in the warmed-up Arctic is international diplomacy and “cooperative partnerships.” But amid rising military competition, the document also reflects preparation for potential discord. The plan includes an assessment of Arctic stakeholders and their motivations, to “determine the most dangerous and the most likely threats” and “provide opportunities for cooperative solutions.” That data will be used in strategic analysis, by applying game theory “to consider the interdependencies between actors and actions.” Then the Navy wants to strengthen key international military and business partnerships, to improve “operations, training and common investments.”


The TFCC also hopes to catch up with countries that already have a heavy Arctic presence, and get more U.S. personnel up north. That starts with a fleet readiness assessment, to “identify current capabilities and limitations” and create a list of research and tech projects that will improve everything from underwater warfare to oil spill cleanup. Then there’s expanding the Navy’s participation in Arctic training, and their observation of foreign programs like Canada’s Nanook, a disaster-prep program that the Navy sat in on last August...

Arctic Waters Preparedness: Global Warming Invites Danger and Fleets Worldwide Aren't Ready

Wildlife endangerment to greed inspired incompetence and negligence, seems there is an entire range of dangers to consider with an ice-free arctic,...which one were you interested in discussing?

 

[r-j]

OK when you consider what people will do, yes, then it is frightening.

 

[Furcifer]

Arctic Roadmap



Arctic Waters Preparedness: Global Warming Invites Danger and Fleets Worldwide Aren't Ready

Wildlife endangerment to greed inspired incompetence and negligence, seems there is an entire range of dangers to consider with an ice-free arctic,...which one were you interested in discussing?

So the prospect of having a usable Arctic is in fact "scary"? That's what was being referred to?

The Coast Guard has to consider and prepare for the worst, that's their job.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Decided to look into this today, and noticed the Benburch's thread only tells half of the story. If we're going to discuss global changes, I think taking into account changes in the antartic ice coverage is also imperative. Here's what I found in a few minutes of searching:

A comparison between the trend in the arctic, and in the Antarctic. And the comment of the source website:

Analysis: This cannot be used as an indicator of warming or cooling, because it must be viewed in concert with Antarctica. Also, it only goes back to 1979, when satellite sensors and analytical programs could get a handle on measuring sea ice. Even today it has problems, such as dealing with water on ice, as happens after a warm spell. The sensor sees water, not ice, but this does not mean the underlying ice is gone. If the Arctic loses ice, but the global balance is about the same, there is no GLOBAL warming.

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/Today-Arctic-Ice-Area-and-Trends.html
Which makes sense...
You'll also note a couple of the recent extreme years have been seen in both the northern and southern hemispheres with the arctic ocean seeing record high snowmelt, and the Antarctic seeing record low snowmelt in the same time period...

 

[Trakar]

So the prospect of having a usable Arctic is in fact "scary"? That's what was being referred to?

The Coast Guard has to consider and prepare for the worst, that's their job.

Intelligent people generally find dangerous situations at least somewhat scary, due to them being "dangerous." The melting and ice-free arctic ice-cap is listed as dangerous for many reasons by many different groups, your touching upon one of them (the coast guard's mention of some of its areas of concern), does not address nor ameliorate the dangers they percieve or the "scariness" of those propositions. Is there any particular fear you wish to focus on? Are you prepared to discuss and demonstrate why any particular danger should not be considered as such, or why some measure of "scariness" is an inappropriate response to a percieved danger?

 

[Trakar]

Decided to look into this today, and noticed the Benburch's thread only tells half of the story. If we're going to discuss global changes, I think taking into account changes in the antartic ice coverage is also imperative. Here's what I found in a few minutes of searching:

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/Today-Arctic-Ice-Area-and-Trends.html

Try spending a few more minutes at a site with a bit more of a legitimate scientific approach to the issue:

Antarctic Sea Ice is increasing
Antarctic sea ice has shown long term growth since satellites began measurements in 1979. This is an observation that has been often cited as proof against global warming. However, rarely is the question raised: why is Antarctic sea ice increasing? The implicit assumption is it must be cooling around Antarctica. This is decidedly not the case. In fact, the Southern Ocean has been warming faster than the rest of the world's oceans. Globally from 1955 to 1995, oceans have been warming at 0.1°C per decade. In contrast, the Southern Ocean has been warming at 0.17°C per decade. Not only is the Southern Ocean warming, it is warming faster than the global trend.

Figure 3: Surface air temperature over the ice-covered areas of the Southern Ocean (top). Sea ice extent, observed by satellite (bottom). (Zhang 2007)

If the Southern Ocean is warming, why is Antarctic sea ice increasing? There are several contributing factors. One is the drop in ozone levels over Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole has caused cooling in the stratosphere (Gillet 2003). This strengthens the cyclonic winds that circle the Antarctic continent (Thompson 2002). The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas lead to increased sea ice production (Turner 2009).

Another contributor is changes in ocean circulation. The Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted (Zhang 2007).

In summary, Antarctic sea ice is a complex and unique phenomenon. The simplistic interpretation that it must be cooling around Antarctica is decidedly not the case. Warming is happening - how it affects specific regions is complicated.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

 

[Furcifer]

Intelligent people generally find dangerous situations at least somewhat scary, due to them being "dangerous."

This is where we differ. I've found that intelligent people don't find dangerous things "scary" because they tend to have their wits about them.They able to assess the situation and make intelligent decisions, thereby removing the fear aspect from otherwise dangerous situations or things. It's at the essence of the saying "Knowledge is power".

In this case the sea ice melt doesn't appear to be "scary" at all. The implications have both positive and negative effects. Unless you chose to empathize solely with the polar bears that is. Of course that's exactly why the polar bear has become the poster child for AGW and not the Inuit people.

 

[Trakar]

This is where we differ. I've found that intelligent people don't find dangerous things "scary" because they tend to have their wits about them.They able to assess the situation and make intelligent decisions, thereby removing the fear aspect from otherwise dangerous situations or things. It's at the essence of the saying "Knowledge is power".

Indeed we do differ, only fools, idiots and psychopaths face danger without fear. This isn't to say that fear should dominate or control our thoughts or actions, but it must always temper those considerations.

Dismissing or ignoring proper and appropriate emotions such as the fear of dire consequences as the result of dangerous situations, does not eliminate the fear or the danger, it merely blinds you to information and considerations that can and should be important to your decision making process. Understanding and acknowledging the fear of dangerous consequences is not harmful, ignoring the danger or pretending the fear doesn't exist can be.

Like I said are there any particular dangers, or the fears of dire consequences associated with any particular danger, that you would like to talk about in more detail?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Try spending a few more minutes at a site with a bit more of a legitimate scientific approach to the issue:

How does it explain the correlation between arctic and antarctic sea ice levels as shown in my last post though? Would you mind clarifying?

 

[Trakar]

How does it explain the correlation between arctic and antarctic sea ice levels as shown in my last post though? Would you mind clarifying?

I only quoted a portion of the section from the Skeptical Science page directly addressing why Antarctic sea ice was increasing in a warming Antarctic ocean. The entire page addresses the differences and similarities of arctic and antarctic ice. It only takes a few minutes to read and it is complete with linked supporting references and publications.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm