Shear Ice Decline

It’s global warming, absolute proof, what else can it be, WAGTD!
Less sarcastically it’s interseting that the ice appears to be thickening despite this apparent clearing (not melting)of ice.

Steve, maybe I’m a bit thick, but your points seem difficult to follow.
Why do you show the current photo of Barrow? Are you saying something is wrong with the satellite photographs? I think the photo shows a dark line near the horizon which could be an ice opening. But, again, what has this photo got to do with the apparent point of your article?
All you need to show is the animation of the entire arctic area in support of your hypothesis of a clockwise rotation. Or are you also saying that the AMSR-E graphs are inaccurate? If so, why did you place so much emphasis on the same graph back when the red worm was strong?

But a death spiral is so much more interesting than mere wind or currents. Come on Mr. Goddard, you need to get with the program.

Here you go again Steve…
First, you said:
“The video below of the entire Arctic makes it clear. There has been a clockwise circulation which is shearing the ice away from the land in at least four locations (outlined by blue squares.)”
RESPONSE: It’s called the Beaufort Gyre, and it’s a nearly constant feature of the Arctic ocean. Nothing new this year with that.
__________
Then you said: “We have found the recent decline in the JAXA extent graph, and it isn’t primarily due to melt.”
Seems that no matter what happens, AGW skeptics will try to find any OTHER reason for the ice to decline in the Arctic, other than the fact that the region has seen the bulk of global warming so far. And have you considered the fact that thinner ice, with lower volume will be more easily moved by the Beaufort Gyre? I remember no too many weeks back that you had reported (erroneously) that the sea ice off of Barrow was “at least 10 feet thick”. I of course quckly corrected you and first pointed out the fact that it was only a little over 4 feet thick. Now at least you’ve got that right, but please don’t try to make the clockwise circulation of ice in the Arctic anything new. It exists pretty much all the time, every year, so that pretty much every year the ice is subject to the same clockwise sheer forces…but thinner ice can be sheered away much more easily.
Now I can begin to see what your repsonse and other AGW skeptics may be if we see a summer sea ice minimum in the arctic that is below 2008 and 2009— you’ll claim that early melt season “sheering forces” tore the ice away, and that it had nothing to do with warming or climate change…all the while, completely ignoring all the other consequences of the obvious warming in the arctic, such as the melting of permafrost. Last time I checked, the Beaufort Gyre wasn’t able to melt permafrost.
For those interested, this graph shows the warmth the Arctic has seen over the past few months:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Though of course, we’ve already heard why the GISS data is not to be trusted…so I guess “sheering” forces must the reason. 🙂
REPLY: Seems that no matter what happens,, that AGW alarmists will ignore any other possibility than CO2 as a cause. – A 🙂

It’s the rotation of the earth and the curvature of the land northward that is east of Barrow is blocking the movement of the ice. There must be a huge shove of ice at the location where the ice is jamming. Anyone living up there and can take pictures?
Thanks for the videos that makes it easy to see! And thanks for the explanation that’s makes it easy to understand. 🙂

It appears to me to be new, clear ice, forming at lands edge due to wind driven leads opening along the shore line as the, snow covered, pack moves away. In some areas the wind blown snow is covering the new ice. The ice measuring station, originally at the ice edge, has moved out as the ice is moved.

Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
“You don’t know what you are doing R Gates…”
_______________
That well may be the case…or may not be. But I posit a question here: If I’m right, and the summer sea ice minimum is this year turns out less than 2008 or 2009, and not more, as Steve has said he believes will happen, then what? I suspect that your AGW skeptical nature will find other reasons why I just happened to be right, such as “sheer” forces or wind or who knows what else. I was ridiculed yestereday for example for pointing out that waves change the albedo of ocean water, especially for low sun angles, until I had to dig up all the research to prove my point.
I may well not know what I am doing, but I think I know a bit more about the Arctic then given credit…:)

In my opinion, too much is focused on the ice and not enough on the water under this ice, nor the wind and water currents.
As a harbor master in the lesser 48 for the best part of a decade, we most often had the fresh water lake frozen over.

Steve, in the MODIS imagery you can see fast ice attached to the shore near Barrow, even Elson Lagoon appears to still be ice covered. The camera image you show in your post also shows open water beyond the fast ice still attached to the shore. Thus, your post is very misleading and conclusions reached do not follow from the figures you chose to display.
R. Gates is correct, the Beaufort Gyre is always present, but for thinner ice, the ice moves more easily. It would probably have been good to include in your post the SLP fields as you can see a very well-developed Beaufort Sea High. And then it would have been good to discuss the implications of a strong Beaufort Sea High. It doesn’t surprise me at all to see the ice being pushed away from the shores of Barrow by the Gyre, especially given how thin that ice is.
I’m also curious why you wouldn’t bother actually addressing the decline that according to the latest AMSR-E data shows it has now become the lowest extent on record for this time of year. Seems you want to hide the decline.
I think it’s important to remember that there are so many processes at work, many of them linked, so it’s not that easy to separate them out. Changes in atmospheric circulation are a consequence of changes in energy balance, so it’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg issue. Thus, saying it’s all wind w/o understanding that wind changes may also be a result of warming, is just plain wrong. Just as it would be incorrect to say all the changes in the ice cover are a result of warming.

The Naval Ice center has alot of information about the state of the Arctic sea ice. For other “Ice Watchers”, here is an article about the PIPS model used for short term forecasts.
http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/15_1/15_1_preller_et_al.pdf
An interesting read.
The curent PIPS 2.0 model forecasts are available at,
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/ithi.html
This includes concentration, movement and thickness data; both current and archives from prior years. I find comparisons of the 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 data for the same date interesting. The current thickness for 2010 depicts a substantially greater average thickness across the entire arctic basin than is shown for 2009. It certainly doesn’t look like the ice volume model estimate that are referenced here by the AGW fans.
The model includes the current movement vectors and illustrates how the Beuafort Gyre changes and how movement toward the Fram Strait is an on-again-off-again dynamic.
It’s an interesting site to click around to see a different set of ice data.

My employer was involved in a lawsuit awhile back. The opposing lawyers had our expert witnesses disqualified and then claimed we offered no expert testimony.
And so it goes with AGW. Put forth any evidence that CO2 is not the primary cause of the Arctic icepack melting and the warmers dismiss it out of hand. Then they claim there is no evidence which contradicts AGW orthodoxy, so it must be caused by CO2.

I’m not sure that I would call 4-1/2 foot thick ice “thin.”

jeff brown
Your criticisms sound like a bunch of meaningless words. Please explain more coherently.

R. Gates.
Warming may or may not have something to do with changing currents in the Arctic.
CO2 levels may or may not have much of anything to do with the observed “warming”.

R. Gates: May 27, 2010 at 7:33 am
I was ridiculed yestereday for example for pointing out that waves change the albedo of ocean water, especially for low sun angles, until I had to dig up all the research to prove my point.
You might want to re-check that — see below.
Steve Keohane: May 27, 2010 at 7:30 am
Interesting, not relevant here though. Your first link only allows for SUB-arctic atmospheric modeling. The second proves there is little to no change wrt wind/waves and albedo. Results below for a 45° angle of incidence:
Wind Speed (MPH) Albedo
1 .037
2 .036
3 .036
4 .036
8 .036
16 .037
32 .037
There doesn’t appear to be much difference, no matter how hard the wind is blowing the waves around.

On a smaller scale, I have been out on Lake Erie when the wind has picked up out of the south and broken off huge sections of ice and sent them to Canada, much to the dismay of the ice fishermen on the lake at that time. In that case wind, alone, was the cause. Happens quite frequently when the lake is not completely frozen over.

Dear Mr Defense Minister R. Gates, the Arctic is just – normal. It is even colder than in 40ties.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icrutem3_hadsst2_0-360E_70-90N_na.png
Despite all flaws in HadCRUT, I will take it over GISTEMP with its mad creator any day.

Can’t resist.
Smokey:
“A big iceberg moves along as fast as a small iceberg in the current. Otherwise, all the little icebergs would be out in front.”
R Gates is not making a bogus statement, neither are you. However, lets keep the snips to a minimum. The point should be this: Thin ice is more susceptible to wind forces. However, once the ice succumbs to the wind it doesn’t matter if it is thick or thin it is going to move until something stops it. Hence, if the ice at Barrow is a bit thinner, it will break free easier. Once free it is going to move whatever distance until it hits shore, wind eases or the ice bunches up into existing ice.
R Gates:
2007 left the Arctic with less ice. However, wind pushed ice, thick or thin, is not melting, it is bunching up. So that 4′ ice is now piled on top of other ice, making for thicker and therefor slower melting ice.
To support my point, a little, look at the ocean.dmi.dk site. It indicates that Arctic Temperatures are right at normal values at the moment. There is no special melting, or any special warming/cooling going on. So, big breaks in the ice doesn’t support anyones pet theories, AGW pro, against, agnostic or otherwise.
However, Thanks R Gates. Keep it up.

A kind reminder that the models were wrong in 2007 🙂

The Beaufort Gyre is not a fixed phenomenon (anymore than any other aspect of the climate). See this site: http://www.whoi.edu/beaufortgyre/results_fwcdecadal.html
It appears the Gyre was stable from the 50’s through the 80’s, then shifted in the 90’s. Could this be yet another 30 year oscillation?
At any rate, I think it is safe to assume that the shearing effect of the BG could vary from year to year, and is at least as likely to be contributing to the current conformation of sea ice as is CO2.

The University of Alaska sensor shows that ice thickness is increasing. I’m surprised that anyone would try to argue that it is melting. A bit of cognitive dissonance, eh? ;^)

The only real fault with the post as written is the early use of the phrases
“And it appears to be melting away from the shore.”
and then “This apparent melt surprised me, . . .”
Unless someone else first brought up melting these phrases seem out-of-place, insofar as Steve G. then provides us evidence that he knew the ice was not melting.
The exchanges in the comments section suggest this movement or sheer is now a well accepted process. So other than a few ill chosen words, what’s the problem? This is very interesting to see and learn about but otherwise how it relates to CO2 induced climate change seems a long and tenuous path.

Should any body think that the total global sea-ice cover is declining must have a look at the south pole. The current sea-ice cover at the S-pole is breaking the record for this time of year. One must consider that the south polar sea-ice cover is about 20 % more then the north pole one. Hence an increase of say 1.0 % at the S Pole will balance out a decrease of 1.2% at the N Pole. The Global Sea ice cover is not decreasing. The total energy of the planet is the most important scientific parameter to measure in this debate. What is decreasing is the belief in AGW at global level. AGW is dead but politicians are pumping out millions of dollars/euros to keep AGW on life-support, so that they will be able to keep on taxing us and thus feed the AGW-business monster they had created and keep it ‘alive’.
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_s.png

I wonder if there is any data to indicate that there might be net polar rotational winds in right direction to account for this shearing or if this effect could be caused by under-ice ocean currents?

I think the most likely explanation was the very negative Arctic Oscillation which would promote high pressure in the high Arctic, which would promote a clockwise flow of ice. Since the AO was so negative, there could be some momentum causing the ice to flow against the spin of the earth.
I think a positive AO is actually better for high Arctic ice formation and larger minimum extents due to low pressure creating cold weather and a counter-clockwise ice flow that while drawing in more salty, warm, Atlantic water, doesn’t flush vast amounts of ice down the east coast of Greenland (like we saw in 2007).
The last large summer minimum we had was in 1996 which came off of a very small winter maximum… thanks to a negative AO in the winter and a strongly positive AO during the summer. It was a perfect storm for lack of ice melt. I believe that extremely small amount of ice melt in summer ’96 aided the development of the super Niño in 1997/98… kind of like the vast melting in summer 2007 likely enhanced the upwelling in the equatorial Pacific, and thus strengthening the La Niña from the bottom up, rather than from changes in trade winds.

James Sexton says:
May 27, 2010 at 8:33 am
@ R. Gates,
I think what our friends are saying, it isn’t melt.
…
As you can see, the temps show what ever is occurring, one can’t call it melt. At least, not from the top.
…
Personally, I believe the underwater currents combined with volcanic activity underneath the Arctic is what we’re observing, but I’ve no way to prove it.
Yes, I think you’re right.
Melt from the bottom – the warm waters from the Atlantic (mainly) and Pacific (a bit) are causing the unprecedented melt rates this Spring:
Dropping. Like. A. Rock.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
In a few days, 2010 will have dropped past all the lowest sea ice extent years, and become the lowest for that date in recorded (satellite) history.
Notice how 2010 cut across all the other years ? (2006 coming soon)
How much heat gets into the Arctic from the warmer oceans ?

http://www.springerlink.com/content/p817k8141473v711/
These days, it would be generally accepted that through its northward transport of warm tropical waters, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) contributes effectively to the anomalous warmth of northern Europe (Large and Nurser 2001; see also Rhines and Hakkinen 2003; Rhines et al., this volume). The oceanic fluxes of mass, heat and salt that pass north across the Greenland–Scotland Ridge from the Atlantic to the Arctic Mediterranean have now been soundly established by direct measurement under the EC VEINS and ASOF/MOEN programmes, as have the corresponding fluxes to the Arctic Ocean (Ingvaldsen et al. 2004a, b; Schauer et al. 2004). We now know that the 8.5 million cubic metres per second of warm salty Atlantic Water that passes north across this Ridge carries with it, on average, some 313 million megawatts of power and 303 million kilograms of salt per second (Østerhus et al. 2005). As it returns south across the Ridge in the form of the two dense overflows from Nordic Seas, its salinity has decreased from about 35.25 to 34.88 and its temperature has dropped from 8.5 °C to 2.0 °C or less. Not surprisingly, surrendering this amount of heat is of more than local climatic importance.

Too bad Argo can’t send floats under the Arctic ice yet – but they are working on next generation gliders to get this info.
8.5 °C water in, 2.0 °C water out. Sounds like a lot of ice-melting heat going up there from the warm southern oceans.
Because of the very narrow Bering Strait, most of the ocean heat enters the Arctic by way of the North Atlantic. It just so happens that this April, and this January to April, has had the warmest northern hemisphere ocean temperatures on record:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global
The warmth was most pronounced in the equatorial portions of the major oceans, especially the Atlantic.
Warmest oceans on record, with an especially warm Atlantic.
Record fast melting of the thinning ice in the Arctic this April and May.
So, it’s not CO2 causing the Arctic ice to melt at record rates. It’s the warmer water making its way to the pre-conditioned Arctic ice, from the warmest oceans on record.
Which was caused by CO2 buildup.

Isn’t “Death Spiral” a fighting technique used by Norsemen berzerkers?

I would like to see a calculation of how much of this ice melt was caused by Al Gore’s huge luxury $8.5 mansion, one of many which he owns. How much warming would occur if we all followed Al Gore’s example of how to live the green life?
Double standard much, Al?

@R. Gates
‘Seems that no matter what happens, AGW skeptics will try to find any OTHER reason for the ice to decline in the Arctic, other than the fact that the region has seen the bulk of global warming so far.’
Must be truly odd if you can’t see the hilarious in your attack, using a logical fallacy no less, of a scientist’s use of more proper logic debunking a crappy hypothesis.
ROFL. Do you see it now?

Non-update on the terrifying Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly chart from the Polar Science Center using the PIOMAS model which the (C)AGW proponents have been posting for months as telling THE REAL STORY and clearly showing the Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral:
No change. Last updated May 13, posted schedule for updates is every 3-5 days (based on data availability), now 14 days since last update when the graph was showing an alarming steep decline.
Maybe they read the criticisms of it here and decided the model needed further “validation.” Perhaps when done they can demonstrate it has all the robust accuracy of a tree ring, at least.

R. Gates:

Seems that no matter what happens, AGW skeptics will try to find any OTHER reason for the ice to decline in the Arctic, other than the fact that the region has seen the bulk of global warming so far.

Yes, we do tend to look for reasons other than ice melt while the temperature remains at well below freezing point.

Tamara says:
May 27, 2010 at 9:16 am
The Beaufort Gyre is not a fixed phenomenon (anymore than any other aspect of the climate). See this site: http://www.whoi.edu/beaufortgyre/results_fwcdecadal.html
It appears the Gyre was stable from the 50′s through the 80′s, then shifted in the 90′s. Could this be yet another 30 year oscillation?
At any rate, I think it is safe to assume that the shearing effect of the BG could vary from year to year, and is at least as likely to be contributing to the current conformation of sea ice as is CO2.
I have suspected for some time now that the primary driver of the decline in Arctic sea ice was the dramatic shift in the BG and the Transpolar Drift which occurred in 1989. What started me down that path was this animation from Rigor and Wallace
http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/animations/Rigor&Wallace2004_AgeOfIce1979to2007.mpg
Here is their description of the animation
The red dots shows the current location of buoys used to estimate the age of sea ice. The areas of older, thicker ice are shown in white, while younger, thinner sea ice is shown as darker shades of blue.
This animation of the age of sea ice shows:
1.) A large Beaufort Gyre which covers most of the Arctic Ocean during the 1980s, and a transpolar drift stream shifted towards the Eurasian Arctic. Older, thicker sea ice (white ice) covers about 80% of the Arctic Ocean up to 1988. The date is shown in the upper left corner.
2.) With the step to high-AO conditions in 1989, the Beaufort Gyre shrinks and is confined to the corner between Alaska and Canada. The Transpolar Drift Stream now sweeps across most of the Arctic Ocean, carrying most of the older, thicker sea ice out of the Arctic Ocean through Fram Strait (lower right). By 1990, only about 30% of the Arctic Ocean is covered by older thicker sea ice.
3.) During the high-AO years that follow (1991 and on), this younger thinner sea ice is shown to recirculated back to the Alaskan coast where extensive open water has been observed during summer.
The age of sea ice drifting towards the coast explains over 50% of the variance in summer sea ice extent (compared to less than 15% of the variance explained by the seasonal redistribution of sea ice, and advection of heat by summer winds).
For me what is most significant is the dramatic shift in where the residual ice ends up at minimum in Sept. Prior to ’89 most of the old ice is left west of the pole, after the change in the current circulation the old ice is left along the Canadian coast where the TPD, which changed from running mostly parallel to the Lomonosov Ridge to running almost exactly along the Prime Meridian, works almost year round to move it out through the Fram.
From reading the comments around here, it appears most people think that the winds are the primary drivers of ice movement in the Arctic, but having spent more than 60 yrs. living on the bank of the Mississippi in southern Minnesota, I tend toward currents being more important. If you’ve spent time in a houseboat, almost the perfect inverse of an iceberg, on the Mississippi you might also suspect that when it comes to a faceoff between the the wind and the current, the current comes out on top almost every time.
I’ve been watching the ice drift maps at DMI for a while and to my eye the patterns from this Spring suggest the BG may be returning to a pattern close to what it was in the ’80s, but they’ve shut them down for the season so we’ll have to wait to see how that pans out.
My Minnesota experience also tends to make me doubt the claims that melting is the leading cause of ice disappearing in the Arctic, at least within the confines of the Arctic Ocean itself. The west to east flow of the TPD across from the Bering Sea to the Fram looks to be somewhere between 1 and 1.5 degrees of latitude per month, which would suggest that open water from the Alaskan coast to Lat 77 to 80 or more west of the pole could be accounted for by movement alone.

From Billy Liar on May 27, 2010 at 11:59 am:

If I see one more occurrence of ‘sheer’ when people mean ‘shear’ I’m going to scream.
REPLY: Sheerly you jest? 😉 A

Current and former metalworkers may talk about shear nonsense, as they are best able to gauge it. 😉

Isn’t it obvious? Some one pulled the plug from the Arctic Ocean floor. The water is swirling clockwise as it drains. This pulls the surface ice along creating the shear. There’s only one thing that needs to be done: Plug the damn hole!

Comments
1. There should be evidence of folding or buckling or of one sheet overriding another in areas where the rotation has caused compression. It would be interesting to look for that.
2. Such a shear process should decrease ice extent but have a much lesser impact on ice volume since the ice is simply moving and not melting. I seem to recall some story being told a week or tow ago about ice extent being unimportant and ice volume being the only thing that matters.
3. At some point, maybe this year – maybe in a few year’s time, we will have another big melt. The world DID warm slightly over the last decade or two of the 20th century. We should expect to see more frequent big melt events as a result. Big melt events do not validate AGW just as their lack does not invalidate it. I see an unfortunate tendency for people of all persuasions to get sucked into thinking that it is all about the extent – volume – whatever – of arctic ice.

Phil,
So you are suggesting that the ice is simultaneously thickening and melting? Good call.

Anu,
The unusual “melt” in 2007 was on the Pacific side, in the Chukchi and east Siberian seas.

\
Obviously created by
those giant Russian
nuclear tourist icebreakers
making their first excursions.
http://www.sailwx.info/shiptrack/shiplocations.phtml
You will have to look
for them.

R. Gates
Arctic sea ice extent has declined almost as low as 2006, which had the second largest summer extent in the JAXA record. Scary ….

Ok, I will wade in.
1.) The chart from Barrow shows the ice they are measuring is still increasing and is now at 4.5 feet. with even more insulating snow on top of it.
2.) The air temperature has increased to a whooping 30F (still below freezing)
3.) There is a hole forming offshore relatively near where these measurements are being taking.
We are told the Ice is “melting” but the above data does not support that especially with a strong negative AO (low sea water temp.)
As Steve points out shear does explain the hole especially since it is shaped like a long narrow “tear” The other “holes” along the shore line are also long narrow tears.

jakers
Ice is three dimensional. If it is losing area on the leeward side of a peninsula due to shear, then it is increasing volume by piling up on the windward side.

R. Gates says:
May 27, 2010 at 2:46 pm
The 3,000,000 or so sq. km of ice extent lost in the Arctic since the yearly high on March 30 didn’t all vanish by shearing nor by melt, or being washed out of the Fram Strait by the currents…
…yada, yada, yada. Give it a rest, please.
You go on and on in an attempt to establish AGW as an energy imbalance. Of course it is! Climate is an energy imbalance by its very nature. Why, then, do you concentrate on the loss of Arctic ice with no mention of Antarctic sea ice gain? If you look at any one part of a system, you most certainly will find an energy imbalance, but that also means you are looking less closely at the other part or other systems, increasing the likelihood of missing the big picture.
One of these “big picture” items is your oversimplification in implying that wind is a “macro temperature”, suggesting that global warming leads to greater wind energy. This is not necessarily so. As you must know, winds depend more on a varied or wider temperature gradient and not simply an increase in temperature. And according to the IPCC (and I gather, the great “consensus”), AGW is not so much manifested by an increase in daytime highs as it is in an increase of night time lows. In other words, AGW should result in an INCREASED HOMOGENIZATION of temperatures, and thus a decrease in temperature gradients.
I’m not claiming that wind energy is lower or higher than normal, globally. I just find your reasoning that AGW is at the root of it lacking.

Daniel M says:
May 27, 2010 at 4:07 pm
“I’m not claiming that wind energy is lower or higher than normal, globally. I just find your reasoning that AGW is at the root of it lacking.”
____________
AGW or not, one of the forms of energy that sunlight is converted to wind…and so when looking at the total energy balance of a system, you need to look at all the forms of energy that solar radiation may be converted to and that multiple forms of energy (that once were sunlight) can cause sea ice to melt. That was my point. I never said wind would increase or decrease because of AGW. But but one thing is certain, if AGWT is correct, that extra energy that is not leaving the earths systems will be somewhere.

Actually the beaufort gyre has been strong all winter. That publicity seeking bunch of polar walkers struggled with it in trying to reach the pole remember?
The ice moves/rotates all the time and you consequently always get these areas where the sheets are pulling apart. In winter the open water so created quickly freezes. As it gets warmer this freezing slows and you reach a temperature where it happens too slowly to cope with the rate at which the sheets are pulling apart. Then you start to see open water. Nothing has to melt. The temperature doesn’t even have to go above freezing for this to happen.
This is probably how the ice cap breaks up every year. It is just part of the natural mechanism by which that happens.I don’t think there is much point quibbling over whether this means the ice has moved or melted. The bottom line is that natural processes are starting to diminish the extent of the pack ice as they do every year, and that this year, after a very slow start, the process now seems a little ahead of schedule.

I’m just curious about what has happened up there. The ice is spinning faster than the Earth??
Or, did the Earth slow down ever so slightly that the ice continues and tears away?
Or (c) unknown forces at work.
It is, however, most interesting that the ice has continued to thicken.

Billy Liar says:
May 27, 2010 at 11:59 am

If I see one more occurrence of ‘sheer’ when people mean ‘shear’ I’m going to scream.
REPLY: Sheerly you jest? 😉 A

And don’t call him ‘Sheerly’!

R. Gates says:
May 27, 2010 at 7:08 am
Warmth in the Arctic winter. Interesting concept.
Just to be accurate the graphs you show don’t show warmth they show an anomoly from the norm. This years Barrow weather record shows that the thermostats only hit 0oC in the past few days. Back in March it reached a barmy -40oC.
There has been no warmth in Barrow this year to melt the ice. That will come from now onwards.

k winterkorn: “My linear projections show that if the rotation is this fast now, that by 2035, the ice cap will be rotating so fast that all the polar bears will spin off into the water and drown, and the baby seals will be crushed as the ice caroms off the coastline.”
lmao
Incidentally, my seven year-old daughter also thought this was hilarious and she fervently adores both polar bears and baby seals.

stevengoddard says:
May 27, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Anu,
The unusual “melt” in 2007 was on the Pacific side, in the Chukchi and east Siberian seas .
Maybe by late September.
And yet in this year of record Spring melt, it is the areas closest to the incoming Atlantic warm water that show the biggest sea ice loss compared to the 1979-2008 mean:
Baffin/Newfoundland Sea:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.4.html
Greenland Sea:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.5.html
Barents Sea:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.6.html
Kara Sea:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.7.html
Laptev Sea:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.8.html
Hudson Bay:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.13.html
The areas not yet melting are all farthest from the North Atlantic, and its warm water flow into the Arctic:
http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/factors/land_sea_distribution.html#ocean_currents
Notice where all the biggest melts are:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png
Are you going to have a special “Arctic Sea Ice News” when 2010 drops out the floor ?
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

E.M.Smith says:
May 27, 2010 at 5:45 pm
The wind comes from the DIFFERENTIAL heating, not heating per se.
_______________________
I appreciate the point and I agree, but it does not invalidate my basic point that thermally derived wind represents another form of what was originally solar energy. You can’t get differential heating without just plain heating…you need the solar energy.

R. Gates says:
May 27, 2010 at 7:27 pm
If winds are picking up in the Arctic due to increased differential heating due to extra heat trapped, then the winds should also be increasing all across the globe. Not just in the Arctic and nowhere else.

Mattias says:
May 27, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Thank for a good comment Anu!
I you list of great links I want to add the Arctic sea ice VOLUME. Because the ice has a thickness and is not just flat 🙂
That’s very true, the shrinking volume of Arctic sea ice is a key component of how much the ice extent will shrink in the years and decades ahead.
I look forward to the CryoSat-2 data, and updates to the PIOMAS Arctic Ice Volume chart.
http://www.esa.int/esaLP/ESAOMH1VMOC_LPcryosat_0.html

jakers
If the ice is pulling away west of Point Barrow, then it is probably piling up east of Point Barrow.

Smokey says:
May 27, 2010 at 7:11 pm
E.M.Smith:
“AGWT ? That’s a new one on me. “T” ? Well, it’s been a month, guess it’s time for the AGW crowd to mutate their argument again… and their name… and …”
Mike, what R. Gates means by AGWT is “Anthropogenic Global Warming Thermogeddon,” [snip]
_________________
Hey Anthony, I realize that we “warmists” are outnumbered here and merely tolerated or seen as side-show attractions, but I sure don’t think we should be called such names and you’d never let us get get away with calling AGW skeptics “Fascists”…oh well, I know, it’s your site and you can do want you want…
REPLY: I agree, out of line, snipped. -A

Mattias says:
May 27, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Thanks for posting that animation. It’s an improved and extended version of one I linked to earlier
Dave Wendt says:
May 27, 2010 at 12:37 pm
I think it shows even more clearly that the primary driver of the decline in ice age, and as a consequence ice volume, was a dramatic shift in the circulation patterns of the Beaufort Gyre and the Transpolar Drift that occurred in ’89-’90 possibly related to the AO. See Rigor’s and Wallace’s notes for their animation that I included in my comment above.
Since the shift in the BG and the TPD seems largely unrelated to CO2, and on its own seems sufficient to account for the declining sea ice, it’s likely that in this case the canary in the coal mine might be dropping off its perch not because of bad gas but just because of plain old age.

AndyW
What part of the ice is getting thicker is it that you don’t understand?
http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_sealevel/brw2010/BRW_MBS10_overview_complete.png

So it’s not GLobal Warming that’s causing the ice loss, it’s….
GLOBAL SPINNING.
We’d better tax that straight away.

oops, should be “they really don’t want to know”

R. Gates says:
May 27, 2010 at 7:08 am
Here you go again Steve…
First, you said:
*
*
So then, you’re an AGW propagandist?
You must be, seeing as how you’re continually pushing your propaganda message.
As Goebbels once remarked: “If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.”

Stevge Goddard,
When are you going to stop ignoring points that seem to counter what you say and instead bring up something I haven’t even commented on? I see this as a common trait in your replies, and they are also getting increasingly combative too for some reason. Some of your points are interesting and right, some are interesting and wrong, at least to my current knowledge, so I am giving you the chance to put counter arguements, but instead you side step always.
Andy

R. Gates:

So, AGW is an issue of energy imbalance. Those who believe it is happening would say more net energy is entering earth’s systems than leaving. How might that energy show up? And where the heck is it? This causes scientists like Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo no small amount of toil “looking” for it, as we all know. Wind and ocean currents are another form of energy, and if they cause ice to go away, along with higher water and air temps, then in a system that is experiencing an overall energy imbalance, does it matter what clears the arctic of ice…or what combination it is since ultimately it energy all the same, right?

Two things wrong with your argument:
1) As energy cannot be created or destroyed, if more net energy is entering earth’s systems than leaving then the total energy in the earth’s systems would continue building, even if everything else remained static. And, as that process would have begun when greenhouse gases first appeared, the earth would have been baked to a crisp a few billion years ago already – in which case, this discussion would certainly not be happening.
2) If some proportion of the energy in the system is manifesting itself as wind, ocean currents etc (of which I have no doubt, BTW), then simply measuring temperature anomalies (or trying to) without measuring anomalies in wind and ocean currents etc, or even quantifying energy proportions, tells us little or nothing about the energy flow in the system, or how much it’s changed – or not.

Steve Goddard said
“You are quoting ice figures for regions of the Arctic which are always ice free in late summer. They have no relevance to the minimum, thus I am not spending any effort discussing them.”
You are correct and I agree, but it was you who said the whole of the reduction up to now was due to not melt, a broad generalisation that I think is totally wrong. Similarly, I can turn the argument back on yourself and say lets not discuss these Arctic Basin “shear” polynyas now because come September they won’t mean a damn.
I think we should toss everything up in the air and get a better understanding.
The acid test to your theory is whether this ice free zone gets smaller or stays the same size or gets larger. If it gets larger then I’d fall on the side of melt encouraging the wind and currents here to expand the area.
Andy

This is how it started in the film” the day after tommorow”.

The force be with you (Gates, are you switching from the dark side?). CO2 or warming isn’t causing ice sheer. In fact, ships are warned about this mirage. Do not think that these openings are signs of melt, lest you get caught in one that closes and traps your ship. This is what seductively opens up fake shipping lanes and then traps you, as Gates so kindly mentioned:
http://www.aari.nw.ru/clgmi/forecast/show_drift.asp?fign=0&lang=0