North pole to melt this year?

[RayDog]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Texoz]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mop]

wrong hornpharmd...it is on a 30 year incline and has had record highs as recently as 3 years ago (incidentally, the SAME year as the Arctic had it's lowest recorded extent...which is probably NOT a coincidence). and how 90 percent of the world's ice has not bearing on a thread about less than 10 percent of the world's ice is quite an interesting claim. care to back it up?
antarctic ice graph

 

[mop]

Texoz....but i don't believe the Arctic is going to continue it's decline...i think more years than not now we will see it gain....probably 2 out of 3 years in the future it will have higher minimums than the year before. the PDO has shifted as have other key ocean MDO's.....but this summer should be a big indication as to whether the theories i adhere to (not my theories i want to be clear) are correct or not.

 

[hornpharmd]

Mop you are correct. I was taking my cue form the lecture that Paso posted on another thread. I need to rewatch again and the lady may have said it was antarctic ice mass that was on a slight decline, not sure. Anyways here is a better graph that actually shows the trend lines vs. just data points...scroll down:

nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

Based on this data I see no reason to get excited about the relatively small increase in ice extent in the antarctic region when the arctic is on a much more rapid decline.

I also put no merit into your prediction about where the arctic will be in the next 2 or 3 years. You have no research evidence to base this on and your past predictions have not come to fruition as we continue to see arctic ice extent go down.

 

[pasotex]

The ice in Antarctica is overall in slight decline. It is rapidly melting in the west and slightly growing in the east. If the east melts, we are in a world of hurt. There was an excellent program on Nova about a month ago on this issue.

 

[pasotex]

I am on my iPad so I really cannot get a link right now. I suspect the "gain" in sea ice is offset by melting land ice because I know Antarctica is net negative. Antarctica is mostly land ice unlike the Arctic which is sea ice.

 

[pasotex]

The Link

 

[RayDog]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[hornpharmd]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[RayDog]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[pasotex]

Sadly, I tend to agree with RayDog.

 

[Texoz]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mop]

so the ice is still low for this time of year....should be interesting to see what happens over the next 60 to 90 days....because a late start to melting could more than make up for a late freeze in some parts. currently it is running above only 2006...and is about tied with 2007. i do expect it to sort of start arching upwards rather quickly over the next 3 or 4 weeks. my guess is that by the end of February we will see it at least in the middle of the pack (4 years above and 4 years below), which means it will need to pass 3 years and stay above 4 before March 1st. with the AO going positive and the PDO staying negative along with a few other key indicators (sun spots etc etc) i think this year will still prove to be a recovery over last year and possibly above 2009's rather impressive year.....which would mean a recovery in 3 out of the past 4 years with 2010 being the only year to experience a dip over the previous year. but that is obviously a prediction and therefore a hypothetical until next september's minimum.

ijis

 

[hornpharmd]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mop]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[RayDog]

If you take the mean of the 2007-2010 data for the minimum sea ice extent and then plot the +/- 2 sigma error bars from the 1979 to 2000 data around the mean you will find that the year to year variations over the 2007-2010 time frame are statistically insignificant. That is why I said the data was essentially flat in an earlier post.

Your conjecture for 2011 would also constitute a statistically insignificant variation, even if you are correct, which I find highly unlikely.

 

[mop]

ray dog....i am sure the same math could be done to suggest that 2005-2007 was statistically insignificant and i know that it takes a lot of data to reach significance, but all we have right now are year over year changes. i also enjoy watching PIPS to look at ice thickness. it is interesting to see how 1998-2000 compare with current thickness.

 

[RayDog]

Based on the chart linked above the difference between the minimums in 2006 and 2007 were greater than 3 sigma, so there is a high certainty that it was due to a significant event of some kind.

In general correlations are not statistically meaningful until you have 12 or more points. Some will say 20. The year to year data while somewhat interesting to speculate about is statistically meaningless.

 

[general35]

This thread was started in 2008. It is 2011 Is there ice in the north pole right now or not? FYI, antarctic sea ice is well above average.

 

[mop]

so 2011 has slowly but surely been rising. it is still in the lower half of the last 10 years but has moved into a tie with 2010 and is now above 2005 and 2006. should be an interesting year because the Arctic Oscillation has gone positive (being negative was keeping the ice from growing) and this looks like it is going to be a rather long winter so melt off might not start until a week or two later this year. all told, i am predicting a new high for the satellite record by late march or early april, but topping 2003 may not happen. we will see if that prediction has any merit. i am basing it on much i have read and on Joe Bastardi's prediction for as much.

 

[Texoz]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[pasotex]

sources? We don't need no sinkin' sources

 

[mop]

so a new study out in the Geophysical Research Letters says that the notion of a tipping point with Arctic Ice....a point of no return....is not viable scientifically. in fact, that Arctic Ice recovers quite quickly from past lows......

while they clearly acknowledge Anthropogenic causes of ice melt off....they conclude that in fact, there will not be a tipping point of Arctic ice towards zero because the nature of the melted ice is that it can release more of the stored up oceanic heat into the atmosphere due to the absence of the insulating factor of ice being gone. here are their conclusions:

In reply to:

---

---

 

[hornpharmd]

Not a great recovery this winter so far:

nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

Another way to look at it:nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20110302_Figure3.png

 

[Texoz]

I read that article and maybe I missed it, but I don't see any mention of what happens if the global temps keep warming. Seems like they're leaving that aspect out of their discussion.

Meanwhile, historic melting in Greenland over the last 6 months.
The Link

 

[GT WT]

Phytoplankton blooms in the Arctic are occurring earlier -
The Link

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Ag with kids]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[GT WT]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Ag with kids]

In reply to:

---

---