By Steven Goddard,
In my last post, we discussed how there has been no visible change in the landfast ice near Barrow, AK. during the last week.
The University of Alaska has been tracking breakup of this ice for the past decade. The latest breakup was July 11 which occurred last year. The earliest breakup occurred in 2004 on June 16. They have devised a model which forecasts the breakup, based on solar radiation already received and forecast into the future by NCAR’s WRF weather model. Their current forecast has it breaking up after July 10, which would at a minimum tie the record.
http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_breakup
The current WRF forecast is predicting very cloudy conditions near Barrow through mid-July.
http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_breakup/Barrow_SW.png
Temperatures in Barrow have been running well below normal this summer.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/PABR/2010/6/25/MonthlyHistory.html#calendar
This has been largely due to cloudiness. The current view of Barrow is seen below.
http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_webcam
Long term weather forecasts change all the time. But for those of you expecting a big melt this summer, I hope you didn’t bet a lot of money on it.
I hope they did!
I just wonder how the recent activity from the unpronounceable volcano and the ongoing low sunspot activity is likely to impact the ice melt this year but could be counteracted by the recent acceleration in the release of methane from the Arctic Ocean seafloor, interesting times,
All this has probable be covered before but only just found this website and logged on, so have some catching up to do.
“This has been largely due to cloudiness. ”
Cloudiness?
Isnt 2500 scientists saying its because of a belt of CO2? A greenhouse?
Dear, oh dear.
Is it Unprecedented? Is it Robust? Is it worse than we thought?
No? In that case, no grants for you.
It appears that seaice.alaska.edu is down this morning.
Mr. Goddard
Going from memory, while reading books by early explorers in the arctic, I recall them referring to what they called a “water sky”. This meant open water ahead and was a very thick fog which formed over that water. They had to be off of the ice before this began I believe in either May or June–I’m too lazy to look it up for sure! But my question is, how do satelites and sensors deal with this thick fog or isn’t it an issue?
A model? You’re relying on a model?
Well well. Had they only been up to date up to 2000 with education-documentaries for students in ordinary school age 14-16, which of course their teachers must have missed to show in their classes. Or had didn’t they attend class?
Eitherwhich. I am 61 years old and when we back in late 50’s and early 60’s were shown 8-mm films regarding the Ice breakups in Arctic, the now told story was what was told back then. When my diseased father, born 1915, studied what we call ‘Naturlära’ = Science of Nature their books from 1920’s contain same information. What am I to think of the ‘new’ but old information. Or about education. Same story here in Sweden as elsewhere. Don’t they ever learn?
@ur momisugly kwik,
“isn’t 2500 scientists”
You’re kidding me. You seriously think that the IPCC is credible? The IPCC has tons of activists, who consider themselves to actually be scientists.
If you want to study grammar, please check out your English. Isn’t refers to a singular object, and last time I checked 2500 is not singular. You would use “aren’t” instead of “isn’t.”
Steve,
If any posting of your would cause me to loose all repect for your scientific objectivity and honesty, this would be it. You are taking one data point in the Arctic, relating to the date that shore-fast sea ice break up, combined with a local weather forecast, and actually making the statement:
“Long term weather forecasts change all the time. But for those of you expecting a big melt this summer, I hope you didn’t bet a lot of money on it.”
I am actually wondering why you are so fixated on Pt. Barrow. Did you have to scour (i.e. cherry pick) all the available data covering the entire Arctic to find one piece of data that might (if it were the entire Arctic!) represent what is happening across the Arctic? I know the trend this summer so far has not supported your long term contention that the Arctic sea ice is “recovering”, but such a blantant example of trying to cherry pick data to prove your point has got to be transparent to even you most faithful followers.
Now, in regards to what is actually happening across the entire Arctic, we know that from the March 31, 2010 maximum sea ice extent through today, we’ve seen more total ice extent lost than any other year on record. Looking at this sea ice extent graph, (which I know you’ve told us not to look at until July), we can see how steep the slope has been since March:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Now, I am wondering, and I think some of your faithful followers should ask this honest question to themselves at least: If the circumstances had been different, and we somehow saw the very high extent of April continue through June, do we really think that you would not be using that sea ice extent chart in nearly every one of your Arctic Sea Ice Updates? I for one am quite certain you would, and it would be the topic of every AGW skeptic’s blog and conservative talk show hosts daily rant. Instead, you find one data point, that appears to support your notion of a “recovery” of Arctic sea ice.
I guess the cherry’s to pick are getting pretty thin in the Arctic right now Steve, but really…
Interesting that there was a boat off the beach at Barrow yesterday.
“Is it Unprecedented? Is it Robust? Is it worse than we thought?”
Nope. It’s rotten ice!
Just as all of the “missing” CO2 warming of the last decade is “hidden” way deep down in the deep dark oceans.
The “missing” decline in the sea ice extent is there, you just can’t see it or measure it or quantify it.
Post-normal science and all that.
Bryan, it’s not unpronounceable.
1.) Clench your teeth together, fix your lips in an inane grin (think Wallace (& Gromit)) and say, quickly, “Hey ya forgot ya yoghurt”. When people say “What?”, you lose the grin and reply: “You know, that Volcano In Iceland!”, and then they say:”Is that how you pronounce it?”, and you say “Yes.” No word of a lie.
My seat of the pants world view has always been that factors like insolation, wind speed, especially if it’s gusty, water current speed and maybe relative humidity have a very significant, if not dominate effect on ice pack break up. Living a half mile from Lake Huron which is a significant body of fresh water, the breakup always seems to be triggered on a sunny day with wind, not so much on the air temperature. Air just doesn’t have enough calories in it per unit of temperature to make a big dent in ice breakup. Seems the men of letters are starting to recognize this.
Rather than talking about Pt. Barrow’s weather or when its local shore-fast ice will break up, to understand the conditions in the Arctic, it might be more helpful to look at how much warmer it was than normal over the Arctic during May:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/ARCTIC%20Temp%20201005%20versus%201998-2006.gif
Over most of the Arctic (yes, it was about normal or slightly cooler than normal in Pt. Barrow) it was 2 to 3 degree warmer than average in May and in April. These high temps might be more important to your expectations for or against a big melt this summer than when the shore-fast sea ice breaks up in Pt. Barrow.
I’ve been out of town for a while and wow, the ice has really started to decline this summer. I have to agree with R. Gates here. It does seem that Steve is grasping at straws since the ice is not behaving as he would have liked. Or really as we all would have liked, since I certainly would prefer the ice to stay up there. But the reality is the ice continues its decline. It is silly to extrapolate from fast ice attached to the shore of Barrow to the entire Arctic and make such a bold statement that we shouldn’t be expect a big melt this year. What about all the open water already in the Beaufort Sea? And looking at the AMSR-E data from today and from 2007, the situation clearly looks worse this year since lower ice concentrations cover a much larger region today than then.
Steve, honestly instead of trying to pretend the ice is not declining, why not focus on what is causing it. Just because the ice is declining, that does not necessarily imply it’s from CO2 (though that is what the climate models suggest). So why not start looking at the mechanisms for the decline we’re seeing this summer? Seems to me the negative AO this winter did nothing to help the ice and may have actually hurt it.
Snowlover123 says:
June 26, 2010 at 8:35 am
The day you learn norwegian as well (or as little) as I know english, and german, I will take your advice.
hehe.
Some further information about the so-called “rotten ice”, and why remotely sensed projections can be so far off. See this study:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL041434.shtml
And here is a summary of the study:
“In September 2009 we observed a much different sea icescape in the Southern Beaufort Sea than anticipated, based on remotely sensed products. Radarsat derived ice charts predicted 7 to 9 tenths multi-year (MY) or thick first-year (FY) sea ice throughout most of the Southern Beaufort Sea in the deep water of the Canada Basin. In situ observations found heavily decayed, very small remnant MY and FY floes interspersed with new ice between floes, in melt ponds, thaw holes and growing over negative freeboard older ice. This icescape contained approximately 25% open water, predominantly distributed in between floes or in thaw holes connected to the ocean below. Although this rotten ice regime was quite different that the expected MY regime in terms of ice volume and strength, their near-surface physical properties were found to be sufficiently alike that their radiometric and scattering characteristics were almost identical.”
He
Answer to R. Gates June 26, 2010 at 10:31 am
Average? You simply don’t haver reliable data for period before 1959! Thus you case is as best drawn from nonexisting data – at worst forged!
Steve, while it is cloudy over Barrow today, the MODIS images show it’s clear over most of the Arctic Ocean and I can see lots of melt ponds…
One data point is enough for GISS to extrapolate over half of the Arctic Ocean.
Some people think that their incessant talk will melt the ice.
stevengoddard says:
June 26, 2010 at 6:18 am
It appears that seaice.alaska.edu is down this morning.
——-
REPLY: Steve, I’ve been going to the site every day, and the worldwide activity map (showing locations of users) has been lighting up like a candle!
Not surprising, with the increasing popularity of WUWT globally. Last I looked, Pt. Barrow looked pretty “normal,” a bit of melt close to shore (the UA website has some good graphics on the physics of the process), but foggy & frozen just as your screenshot shows.
At what point do the icebreakers become implicated in the Arctic ice breakup?
jeff brown says:
June 26, 2010 at 11:46 am
Steve, while it is cloudy over Barrow today, the MODIS images show it’s clear over most of the Arctic Ocean and I can see lots of melt ponds…
Check the North Pole webcams for some extensive melt ponds:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa1.jpg
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa2.jpg
stevengoddard says:
June 26, 2010 at 6:18 am
But if you only relay for your assumption on one point single point in the Ocean for estamation- How much credibility can be found in such an assumption? 😛
It does appear that melt ponds have appeared at the North Pole, about two or three weeks later than normal.
If these links have been posted before, sorry aboot that;
Predictions of Summer Ice Conditions near Barrow Alaska 2010 Prediction Season (End of May 2010)
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/lindsay/Alaskan_summer_ice.html
Seasonal Ensemble Forecasts of Arctic Sea Ice ((see the movie below, updated on 6/2/2010)
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/seasonal_outlook.html
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/z.gif
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/z1.gif