Remember these stories?
and
Follow up: the bogus ‘North Pole becomes a lake’ story
There was a lot of worry about ‘open water’ at the North Pole which turned out to be camera drift. WUWT reader “jimbo” just found this story of open water ‘near’ the North Pole reported in 2000. The second link contains a correction but not about the main claim.
New York Times – August 29, 2000
Open Water at Pole Is Not Surprising, Experts Say
…..Dr. Serreze said an examination of satellite images from July 15 showed what looked like a large body of ice-free water about 10 miles long and 3 miles wide near the pole……
“The fact of having no ice at the pole is not so stunning,” said Dr. Claire L. Parkinson, a climatologist at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “But the report said the ship encountered an unusual amount of open water all the way up. That is reason for concern.”
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/featured_articles/20000829tuesday.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/20/weekinreview/august-13-19-it-s-melting.html
and…
Published on Monday, September 4, 2000
Climate Change Has The World Skating On Thin Ice
by Lester R. Brown
If any explorers had been hiking to the North Pole this summer, they would have had to swim the last few miles. The discovery of open water at the Pole by an ice-breaker cruise ship in mid August surprised many in the scientific community.
It seems that history repeated itself.
davidhoffer, you started poorly and are now moving even further backwards.
Put that quote in context.
jdallen: ” Further, without additional supporting evidence any connection [made by Anthony] between conditions at that time [ie the open waters in either 1987 or 2000] and the present is anecdotal.”
Which I find 100% accurate. Open water within the arctic sea ice is common (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynya or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_(sea_ice). Since these are recurring features, anecdotal stories about them do not “confirm or refute any specific trend in climate”.
The temperature reconstruction you link to — while interesting — is immaterial to jdallen’s statement. Temperature records over the last 1,000 or 10,000 years do not help understand whether the anecdotes of the last couple decades are related to any climate trends.
tjfolkerts;
Further, without additional supporting evidence any connection [made by Anthony] between conditions at that time [ie the open waters in either 1987 or 2000] and the present is anecdotal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That the earth’s climate is cyclical, that it has been both warmer and colder than in the past, is not anecdotal. The ice core record shows this to be true, as do historical records such as viking settlement of Greenland, vineyards in Britain, crop failures and famine during the Little Ice Age and more. The record is clear on this and we have plenty of evidence in that regard. The anecdotal evidence cited by Anthony is part of a greater whole. When one takes into account issues such as continental drift, changes in the earth’s orbit, changes in solar activity, and many other factors, it would be difficult if not impossible to show that any given year conditions are substantively the same as in any other year, on any timescale.
OT. Rich Jones: I was honoured to once meet a former navy captain who served on the Skate.
Mr. Jimbo,
WELL DONE. Great follow-up comments, too. The time has come, O Jimbo the Magnificent, to write a real article. You have SO MUCH to share (and do, in small doses).
Do.
Your loyal fan,
Janice
Someone went through the BBC archives and showed how every time a ship had traversed the northwest passage they claimed it to be the first time it had ever occurred. It’s like when Groucho would joke how he knew Doris Day before she was a virgin.
@Manfred – Ice floes of that size stay in place not because it is connected to something, as much as it is because they are simply so massive, and require a huge amount of energy to accelerate. Leads open up between blocks of ice like you describe pretty constantly, and the ice doesn’t spontaneously begin to move. That takes much larger forces, which in and of themselves are powerful enough on their own to break ice (much as the fracturing events that occurred across the Beaufort Sea late last winter and early last spring.
One general exception to that rule is fast ice – that which is grounded and connected to a shoreline. But in a case like that, the ice is typically much thicker – in excess of 5 meters – which is more than even the most robust of the ‘nuke powered Russian vessels can manage – so an ice breaker is unlikely to be able to accomplish much attacking ice of that nature.
Another exception is when ice becomes more highly fractured and you have many, smaller disconnected floes (as exist currently in the central arctic basin). Then, wind may develop more “fetch” across open water and raise waves that both move and further disrupt ice. The smaller floes being less massive, are also easier to move and require less consistent wind to disrupt.
Website for the row boaters. It’s not all that informational.
http://mainstreamlastfirst.com/
@davidmhoffer who said: “That the earth’s climate is cyclical, that it has been both warmer and colder than in the past, is not anecdotal.”
Correct, but that is not what I was arguing, and I am afraid there is no evidence your correlation (cyclical behavior) applies to this specific pair of events (Leads in May, 1987 and conditions currently as we understand them in 2013 at the pole). Your assertion is a false generalization.
@davidmhoffer who said: “The ice, which for no apparent reason seems so important to you, disagrees:”
I discuss arctic pack ice and you throw out a link about ice cores in Greenland? That is not the ice I was speaking of, but I’m quite willing to take up a discussion some time of what those cores do or do not indicate, and how they may or may not be related to global warming.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/22/open-water-at-the-north-pole-2/#comment-1397802
TJ, I don’t deny that there is some multi-year ice, but I don’t believe it was as extensive historically as some would have us think. I think many examples of “multi-year” ice were actually pieces that had been broken apart, pushed back against and under each other by the currents, and then frozen back together within the same season. The early measurement data from satellites could not distinguish between those pieces that had managed to not leave the Arctic Circle for a few years and these same year multi-layer pieces.
The satellite process distinguished “age” based upon the “thickness” coefficient of their signal. It’s not like someone was up in the Arctic individually monitoring each berg and floe, making sure it didn’t leave. The resolution of the satellites early on was not that precise. I think that in the early years of measurement, any ice that read as being X meters in thickness was dubbed multi-year just because the early researchers could not believe ice could get that thick unless it had been there for more than just one year. As years have passed, they have gotten better, especially as they have gotten more data, but i doubt that they went back and reanalyzed their initial data with the knowledge that experience has given them.
jdallen;
I discuss arctic pack ice and you throw out a link about ice cores in Greenland?
>>>>>>>>>
I see you have totally and completely missed the point. Here are the ice extent anomalies from the satellite era for the Arctic and Antarctic:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
One has slightly decreasing ice extent with increasing variability since about 2006 that makes it difficult to discern a trend.
One has slightly increasing ice extent with increasing variability since about 2006 that makes it difficult to discern a trend.
Which should I fear? The creeping doom of Global Warming emanating from the North? Or the creeping doom of an Ice Age emanating from the South?
jdallen says:
August 22, 2013 at 11:27 pm
@Manfred – Ice floes of that size stay in place not because it is connected to something, as much as it is because they are simply so massive, and require a huge amount of energy to accelerate. Leads open up between blocks of ice like you describe pretty constantly, and the ice doesn’t spontaneously begin to move…
——————————
If you consider a small ice floe of say 10m*100m, you would certainly agree, that it would be moved around by wind and ocean currents
If it is 10km*100km and the same wind/ocean current is pushing uniformly in the same direction over its whole area it would be moved the same way.
If the wind is very strong, it may break off anyways, but otherwise it would stay connected instead of drifting south and melt.
Icebreaker finds open water … behind the vessel.
RE: Eric Simpson says:
August 22, 2013 at 1:56 pm
Your recommendation of my obscure site on this worthy site resulted in 138 “views” in an hour. That’s more than I used to get in a week. I didn’t know what the heck was going on.
A fairly large gale south of Iceland is forecast to head straight north up to a point off the northeast coast of Greenland, nearly over the “North Pole Camera,” a week from now. Hopefully the lens melts off, and we can watch what the southeast winds do.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the camera got blown north of 84 degrees latitude again. It certainly seems in no hurry to get flushed out through Fram Strait this year. I have the sense that the ice is being pushed towards Canada a lot. While this may not make the “extent” increase, I surmise it may make for a more solid ice pack next spring.
A Note about the rather neat “Cryosphere Today” comparison maps. They don’t show the areas where the sea is dotted with bergs. The sea can be 25% ice-covered, and on the map it will look ice-free.
I have a hunch that this time of year, when temperatures start dropping, those scattered bergs can act as sorts of “seed crystals” for new ice. Ordinarily, over truly ice-free waters, the winds can be well below the freezing point of salt water, and all it does is chill the water which then (unlike fresh water) gets denser and sinks. However if you have chips of ice and slush floating around the salt water can freeze against the floating stuff without sinking.
RE: Some call especially thick ice “multi-year” because that is the only explanation they can think of to explain how the ice could get that thick.
==================================
Obviously, compressive forces can plan a significant role. This can take the form of deformation and lateral shortening, or, ice can override adjacent ice, then the two masses laminate together.
@Manfred said – “If the wind is very strong, it may break off anyways, but otherwise it would stay connected instead of drifting south and melt.”
I think you are seriously over estimating the tensile strength of the sea ice relative to the huge mass embodied by the floe size you describe – 10KMx100KM.
The mechanism which creates leads also works in reverse – creating pressure ridges, where ice stacks up as much as 15 meters thick. (sidebar – *This* is actually one of the primary mechanisms by which really thick ice – > 3 meters – forms, as for reasons of heat flow and the insulative qualities of ice, sea ice naturally will not become much thicker than 10CM/degree C below the freezing point of salt water, or about -1.8C.)
Wayne Delbeke says:
August 22, 2013 at 1:35 pm
I can’t help but wonder about all those ships smashing up the ice …
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yeah, like the Russians new Ice breakers…
Scientific American Breaking the Ice: Russian Nuclear-Powered Ice-Breakers
That might explain all that open water in the Arctic ocean near Russia. link
For the curious the temp remains below freezing link
And the ice within 2 std. dev. link
“That might explain all that open water in the Arctic ocean near Russia.”
Not even close. Among other reasons, they’ve got no economic reason to be charging around the East Siberian Sea.
@davidmhoffer
“One has slightly decreasing ice extent with increasing variability since about 2006 that makes it difficult to discern a trend.
One has slightly increasing ice extent with increasing variability since about 2006 that makes it difficult to discern a trend.”
First off, you are trying to equivalate to very different dynamic systems, which enormously different dimensions.
Secondly, you misconstrue the mechanisms by which antarctic extent has increased.
Thirdly, you cut off your time series artificially to fit your conclusion, and misinterpret (particularly for Arctic ice) the significance of the observed behavior.
I have not studied the Antarctic in as much detail as I have been following, but some reading I have done suggests expansion of Antarctic extent is at least partially tied to melting of ice sheets at depth, rather than freezing, and by way of that, increasing ice flow off of the continent. An example of that research here:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1767.html
In addition, the anchoring of the Antarctic ice sheet on land, surrounded by a circumpolar ocean, completely changes the heat exchange taking place, and is the absolute reverse of the Arctic – a fairly thin sheet, on an ocean, surrounded by circumpolar continents. Further, the scale of ice is immense – it is estimated the Antarctic contains 30,000,000 KM3 of ice. Greenland’s sheet contains less than 10% of that, and is land locked. The actual volume of Arctic ice, at peak in early spring currently is estimated at around 22,000 KM3, or less than 1/10th of 1% of the ice in the Antarctic.
Regarding the the variability, in particular in the arctic, which now swings through far wider changes in extent and thickness than previously recorded, that can be at least partially explained by the extent numbers starting to “bounce along the bottom”. Since 1979, September ice volume has declined from an estimated 16,900KM2 to under 3,400KM2 in 2012. Variability has increased for the very simple reason that seasonally, there is far more sea surface to refreeze! Where as in 1979 the decrease from maximum to minimum was about 8.5 million KM2 (~16.5 million KM2 at maximum extent down to around 7.2 million KM2 at minimum). The variation in 2012 was 15.24 at maximum, and about 3.41 at minimum. By nature, as the lower bound becomes smaller, the annual variability will increase, as the maxima is not decreasing at the same rate, and is a far larger value.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=79256
So, by cutting off your series, you cut off the data establishing the long term trend. By ignoring the change in bounds, you ignore the mechanism behind the increase in variability. By ignoring the decrease in minimum, you overlook the fact that as compared to 30 odd years ago, there is 3-4 million KM2 additional sea surface interacting with the atmosphere at the end of the melt season now, and a similar general decrease in albedo. The trend is not leveling off.
1979/2012 maxima compared
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=15&fy=1979&sm=09&sd=15&sy=2012
1979/2012 minima compared
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=15&fy=1979&sm=09&sd=15&sy=2012
And same for 2006, as it was mentioned
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=04&fd=15&fy=1979&sm=04&sd=15&sy=2006
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=15&fy=1979&sm=09&sd=15&sy=2006
Correction – this is the link for the compared 1979/2012 maxima
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=04&fd=15&fy=1979&sm=04&sd=15&sy=2012
Frankly, putting the science aside, I can’t take anybody seriously about “carbon pollution” when they have a personal “carbon footprint” of a small African nation.
Folks like Al Gore are the environmental equivalent of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker. It’s all about the money .. and bad makeup.
jdallen says:
August 23, 2013 at 5:27 pm
“That might explain all that open water in the Arctic ocean near Russia.”
Not even close. Among other reasons, they’ve got no economic reason to be charging around the East Siberian Sea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Of COURSE they have a reason it is called MINERAL RIGHTS, why the heck else would they be planting a D@ur momisugly$& flag in the bottom of the Arctic ocean?
JDAllen says: Since 1979, September ice volume has declined from an estimated 16,900KM2 to under 3,400KM2 in 2012.
Not sure I can take you seriously when you mix volume and area. Plus your 1979 start date which leaves off 5 or 6 years of satellite data which shows a low area extent. See Steve Goddard’s site for the link.
jdallen says:
August 22, 2013 at 7:56 pm
Frankly, as a result, I find the thinning ice in the arctic terrifying.
Wow, “terrifying”. Really? The phrase “climate bedwetters” comes to mind.
Your fear is as unwarranted as it is amusing to us Skeptics. But, I think david was right; you people revel in your fear. It is all part of your CAGW religion.
@Gail Combs – there is a great deal of difference between claiming mineral rights and actual exploitation of them. I’m not aware of that happening, any more than it is on the US/Canadian side. Further having ships does not equate to their being out of port. They are rather expensive to operate, and the activity necessary to open the East Siberian Sea as you suggest would need to be positively frenetic, and be rather noticeable in other ways – such as activity reports in the media – which are absent.
@mkelly – thank you for pointing out my typo. I do hate it when that happens. I’m afraid I can’t find the referenced images you are speaking of on Goddard’s site. Could you direct me a bit more?
@Bruce Cobb – descending into name calling? Rather uncivil of you.