More news on CryoSat-2

I'll probably update this post tomorrow (updated now, see below), but Timothy Chase writes in to say that the Guardian has an article today with news related to CryoSat-2, the satellite that has been launched to measure the thickness of Arctic sea ice (among others). So I'm putting this out now, even though it hides the latest ASI update from view, which is also well worth a read if I say so myself.

Rate of arctic summer sea ice loss is 50% higher than predicted

New satellite images show polar ice coverage dwindling in extent and thickness

Credit: Giulio Frigieri

Sea ice in the Arctic is disappearing at a far greater rate than previously expected, according to data from the first purpose-built satellite launched to study the thickness of the Earth's polar caps.

Preliminary results from the European Space Agency's CryoSat-2 probe indicate that 900 cubic kilometres of summer sea ice has disappeared from the Arctic ocean over the past year.

This rate of loss is 50% higher than most scenarios outlined by polar scientists and suggests that global warming, triggered by rising greenhouse gas emissions, is beginning to have a major impact on the region. In a few years the Arctic ocean could be free of ice in summer, triggering a rush to exploit its fish stocks, oil, minerals and sea routes.

Using instruments on earlier satellites, scientists could see that the area covered by summer sea ice in the Arctic has been dwindling rapidly. But the new measurements indicate that this ice has been thinning dramatically at the same time. For example, in regions north of Canada and Greenland, where ice thickness regularly stayed at around five to six metres in summer a decade ago, levels have dropped to one to three metres.

"Preliminary analysis of our data indicates that the rate of loss of sea ice volume in summer in the Arctic may be far larger than we had previously suspected," said Dr Seymour Laxon, of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at University College London (UCL), where CryoSat-2 data is being analysed. "Very soon we may experience the iconic moment when, one day in the summer, we look at satellite images and see no sea ice coverage in the Arctic, just open water."

Read the whole story at the Guardian. Here's the last blog post I wrote on CryoSat-2 last April, when first CryoSat-2 results were released.

-----

UPDATE:

Dr. Seymour Laxon is obviously very busy right now, but nevertheless made time to send me some clarifications:

1) The numbers are PROVISIONAL but are our best estimates right now. We are working hard to finalise (i.e. check the details of) the numbers at which point a paper will be submitted which will hopefully be published in due course. At that point everyone will have access to the whole story/figures etc.
2) The trends are from the period 2004 to 2012 and are obtained by combining CryoSat ice volume with ice volume from NASA's ICESat mission for years 2003-2008 (see Kwok et al, JGR, 2009).
3) The trends are for the two campaign periods which ICESat operated in each year that overlap with the times of year when CryoSat-2's provides data. That is a month during October/November (ON) and February/March (FM).
4) The numbers refer only to the central Arctic (the ICESat domain) and cannot always be compared with the PIOMAS "whole arctic domain" available on the PIOMAS website (i.e. there are times of year when some ice lies outside the central Arctic).
5) Both ICESat and CryoSat-2 measurements have been validated (checked) against data gathered by aircraft and undersea moorings.
6) IF the trends we appear to be seeing continue then the Arctic may become (largely) ice free within a decade. HOWEVER to make a "prediction" of the date at which the Arctic might become ice free it will be necessary to get our data into models which are capable of making such a prediction. We are working on that also with colleagues.
7) From point 3) you may assume that our last data points are for ON11 and FM12. For the current condition of the sea ice there are many websites which show the current extent of the ice (CS-2 cannot measure thickness at this time of year with our current processing).

That's all I can say right now, but I hope that helps and I would encourage all now to wait for the paper where all of the data, methods and uncertainties will be clearly laid out (though for those who can't wait see [Giles et al., GRL, 2008] and [Kwok, et al., 2009] where measurements derived in a similar way are presented).

Thank you, Dr. Laxon, and good luck with the paper!

Comments

[Wayne Kernochan]

@Joe Smith -- here are a few:

Global Warming: Earth -- love it or leave it

Global Warming: Earth -- if you can't stand the heat stay out of my kitchen

Global Warming is SO the last 160 years

Global Warming:
Some say the world will end in fire,
and some in ice.
From what I've seen of human of human desire,
I hold with those who favor fire. -- Robert Frost

Global Warming: The Earth died for our sins.

Pay no attention to the Man behind the warming. - Wizard of Oz

The one good thing about Global Warming: no more Titanic jokes.

Hope this helps ... - w

[AmbiValent]

Wizard of O2C?

[Superman]

Crandles,

You keep referring to the IPCC Reports as they are the tablets handed to Moses on Mt. Sinai. According to that highly authoritative source, Wikipedia:

"Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC) to writing and reviewing reports, which are reviewed by representatives from all the governments, with summaries for policy makers being subject to line-by-line approval by all participating governments. Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.......The IPCC provides an internationally accepted authority on climate change, producing reports which have the agreement of all the leading climate scientists and the consensus of every one of the participating governments."

Now, I've been involved in negotiations involving the agreement of multiple governments on socio-technical issues. Gaining the consensus agreement of two governments is painful enough; usually the product becomes sufficiently watered down that the conservative viewpoint becomes the consensus. Add in more governments, and consensus becomes even more conservative. I can only imagine the Pablum that would result if consensus/agreement among ~120 governments is required, especially on a topic with such high commercial and political sensitivities.

If that's your standard for dissemination, you will not awaken the Rip Van Winkles who are content to sit by and watch the seas rise. What we need is a modern-day Paul Revere who is willing to tell the electorate in uneqivocal terms that 'Climate change is coming'.

[Twemoran]

Chris - Lodger

Is it possible that MYI advection through the CA could be a game changer. Instead of a linear increase through Fram and Nares as the pack fragments and gains mobility, we could be seeing a new 'back door' escape route for the thick MYI that has previously been required to circle the Arctic awaiting it's turn in the queue before leaving through Fram.

Last year when passages opened, ice from the CA headed north to join the pack. This year the opposite appears to be happening as the NWP is being blocked by MYI forced south.

This may end in the late opening the NWP next season if the MYI gets lodged in place, but simply physically separating it from the rest of the ice should ease the melting of both.

Terry

[GeoffBeacon]

Crandles and Superman

Apart from the political influence from governments, I think IPCC reports can't keep pace with the real world. Missing feedbacks in climate models is one reason....

Professor John Mitchell of the Hadley Centre has given me two examples of climate feedbacks that are not included in current climate models (indicating that although these things may be important, they are not always easy to quantify, model, initialize and validate)

“melting permafrost - we don’t have [CO2 and CH4 emissions from permafrost] in the GCM [global climate model], but have some simple modelling of. Too early to show any results yet, but we plan to publish later this year. Bottom line is that both CH4 and CO2 will be released as permafrost thaws. The magnitude is uncertain, but likely to be significant.”

and

“more forest fires - We don’t do yet, but could be important for changing ecosystems response to climate.”

See http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/climate-policy-making-out-of-date/

and then there's “Global warming turns tundra to forest-study”, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/03/climate-arctic-idUSL5E8H251P20120603

Any more?

[crandles]

>"if consensus/agreement among ~120 governments is required..."

Yes I agree. I hope people who are curious enough to go read IPCC reports will realise not only this but also that scientists need data to show a 95% probability that what they are saying is true and there is likely to be more consequences that are likely but are difficult to show that they are 95% likely to be true.

[Chris Reynolds]

Superman, Geoff Beacon.

IPCC Working Group 1, Scientific Basis is the IPCC report Crandles is referring to. Correct me if I'm wrong Chris! I've seen no evidence of bias or interference (whining by denialists doesn't count). That's the document set to use, as it is compiled by scientists.

I don't use the Summary for Policy Makers. When I want to know something quickly I refer to the WG1 Scientific Basis, and use its references to pursue further reading. It's an efficient way of working - or so I've found.

Terry (Twemoran),

Even if the CAA starts to play a greater role it is of limited net width (total of channels) and coastal friction will limit speeds. I'm not convinced by talk of ice transport through Nares because when I look at the size of the strait compared to the area of the Arctic it seems to me to be bound to be a small player.

One 'advantage' of transport into the CAA regards melting is that it's surrounded by land - which can get warm.

But I don't think it will ever be as important as open ocean like Fram.

[Phil]

I'm not sure if this is the right thread, but looking at the USCG track and also the webcam, is anyone clever enough to merge the uni bremen colour map and Healey's position? It would give a very interesting insight into what the yellow and green ice areas look like in reality as it has just started to show ice - or bits of.
Thanks
Phil

[Neven]

Hiya, Phil. I was clever enough to do that last year. I haven'tfollowed the Healy this year, as I thought they were mostly staying out of ice's way. I'll have a look.

[Neven]

It seems they're ploughing through the 'tiny' patch between the big one and Barrow. The captain was probably bored and said: let's go through the ice, it's on our way anyway. ;-)

[Twemoran]

Chris

Nares was credited with 10% of total advection a few years ago,( I don't have a link), and it does seem to me that the CA passages could easily exceed this amount.

Nares and the CA should have a much higher percentage of MYI than Fram, especially the eastern end of the CA.

I hadn't considered the proximity to land as a factor in the melt, but it's a good point.

Terry

[Daniel Bailey]

Even if Nares & the various outlets through the CAA amount to but 20% of total ice advection, the vast majority of that ice advected out those pathways will be multiyear ice.

Making it the equivalent of another Fram. And thus a factor of significance.

[crandles]

>"Nares was credited with 10% of total advection...
I hadn't considered the proximity to land as a factor in the melt, but it's a good point."

It seems to me that little ice is advecting into NW passage. (OK there is a little bit at Western end this year.) The shape of the passages north of NW passage seem to me to be trapping ice. So the area of MYI that can advect into CA is about the area that now remains (because it keeps getting topped up by advecting ice). I think that can melt each year because of warm land effect. So it seems to me that the area involved is limited to about 100 k Km^2 unless it starts falling into tinier pieces that do advect into NW passage.

It is still an extra area for MYI to disappear to. Given the amount of advection of ice out of that "safe zone", it seems to me the lifetime of MYI is rapidly falling towards the point where that 'lifetime' doesn't make it MYI. (i.e while some ice might survive one summer, it will move to a location where it won't survive the next summer.) With so little MYI, this will further accelerate melt ... But I think we all know this already.

[Account Deleted]

“more forest fires - We don’t do yet, but could be important for changing ecosystems response to climate.”

This will be a hard one to incorporate into climate models, as it is depended on many factors. In SE Asia - the biggest factors in fire are land-use/management practices and El Nino.

[Artful Dodger]

The remarkable thing about the sea ice Healy is traversing at the moment ( 72 27.7 N, 164 37.8 W ) is how DIRTY it is.

http://icefloe.net/Aloftcon_Photos/index.php?album=2012&image=20120814-2301.jpeg

[crandles]

>>“melting permafrost - we don’t have [CO2 and CH4 emissions from permafrost] in the GCM [global climate model]
...
“more forest fires - We don’t do yet, but could be important for changing ecosystems response to climate.”

>This will be a hard one to incorporate into climate models, as it is depended on many factors.

Building one model with everthing built in may not be the best approach. An atmosphere chemistry model may be simpler easier model to work on understanding the chemical feedbacks. Then with understanding of those effects you force a GCM with GHG levels.

So "we don’t have [CO2 and CH4 emissions from permafrost] in the GCM [global climate model]" is true, but you shouldn't have them there, or at least it may be better to avoid doing that.

Therefore, you could argue that these sorts of things actually are already in the combined different modellings system. However I am sure there is more to learn and it could well be significant.

[Superman]

Crandles/Geoff Beacon,

"Building one model with everthing built in may not be the best approach. An atmosphere chemistry model may be simpler easier model to work on understanding the chemical feedbacks. Then with understanding of those effects you force a GCM with GHG levels.

So "we don’t have [CO2 and CH4 emissions from permafrost] in the GCM [global climate model]" is true, but you shouldn't have them there, or at least it may be better to avoid doing that.

Therefore, you could argue that these sorts of things actually are already in the combined different modellings system. However I am sure there is more to learn and it could well be significant."

At some point, all the models need to be coupled. I have worked with systems that coupled solid and fluid bodies, with transport of radiation within the fluid media and at the solid boundaries. Because of the different speeds of sound in the different media, and speed of propogation of the radiation, separate models were constructed. Coupling was not a simple process.

With the positive feedback loops in the climate system that have to be linked, coupling will not be easy. But, it is an essential requirement, and it's not clear to me how much inaccuracy due to coupling approximations could be tolerated in such a nonlinear dynamical system, and still produce credible results.

"Missing feedbacks in climate models is one reason...."

I raised this issue on another blog a couple of months ago, since I believe it is central to whether we are past the point of no return or not. One of the responders listed more than a page of positive feedback loops, half of which I had not considered. Unfortunately, I did not download the list, but I will try to figure out where it is located, and will post it if successful.

[Tor Bejnar]

A decade ago, Fram Strait was the only advection opportunity for Arctic sea ice, as it had to approach or pass Iceland to fully melt in 'warm' water. By mid-season this year, occasionally some ice was blown toward the Kara and Barentsz and would have melted (per ARC drift maps and various SST maps). Late season, it can be blown toward Alaska, Siberia or the Atlantic (or through the CA) with virtually the same effect.

No ice bridge developed in the Nares Strait in the winter of 2006-07, allowing a great deal more ice to exit that way in 2007 than before or since; part of the "perfect" conditions that year for ice loss.

[Fairfax Climate Watch]

Re: other positive feedback loops

1) bacterial heat generation in soils
2) peat fires

"After peat is harvested, it is usually collected into stockpiles, which sometimes during the storage period can undergo self-heating. This results not only in substantial losses of material (losses of up to 50% of the substance have been reported [20]..."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC92703/

you know how in the winter, those big piles of compost at the plant nursery are steaming and warm (and that's the heat generated well after the peak bacterial activity in compost's 'lifecycle')? Peat is largely non-decomposed plant material, often found in huge quantities and great thicknesses in cold northern climates. I have some Canadian peat in the next room for example, I bought it at Walmart (about 3 dollars for a 8 liter bag). So clearly, by the quote above, peat is capable of generating heat on the same order of magnitude as compost. And there is a lot of peat.

Peat also occurs in large quantities in wetlands all over the world. For instance, it can be found in temperate areas that are now drying up as... well, I'll let NASA explain:

"...Extreme heat and unusually dry weather dried the soil, which is made up of partially decomposed plant matter. This peat soil is highly flammable when dry, and it produces thick smoke as it burns...." "...The Lateral West fire is likely to produce a great deal of smoke over the coming weeks. Peat fires burn deep in the soil, making them very hard to contain..."
Here's the source for that quote, and a photo of the fire:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=51670

[Fairfax Climate Watch]

Here's what the American Academy of Microbiology has to say:

"Major events of the distant past illustrate the need to incorporate microbial activities into existing climate models. They demonstrate that the microbial processes that affect climate do not necessarily balance each other out. Billions of years ago, changing microbial community composition resulted in the shift to an oxygenated atmosphere. The organisms that had inhabited the Earth for at least a billion years were no longer able to survive on the Earth’s surface. In the past, such profound change took millions of years, a time span well beyond that with which current climate models are concerned. Today, changes due to human activity are causing similar large scale global effects in as little as 100 years. There is clear evidence that microbes can have an enormous impact on climate but their responses and impacts cannot currently be measured. In light of ongoing global change and the centrality of microbes in global biogeochemical cycles, their specific responses and activities in the context of climate change modeling can no longer be ignored."

and a link to their publication, Incorporating Microbial Processes into Climate Models, 2012.
http://academy.asm.org/index.php/colloquium-program/browse-all-reports/396-incorporating-microbial-processes-into-climate-models

[Michael Fliss]

Gruss Gott!

The Polarstern on August 8th found a floe 1 to 2 m thick at 84N and 30E on which to set up observatories. They hope it will not have melted when they return to it in October. Also, photo of ice floe at this site:

http://www.awi.de/en/infrastructure/ships/polarstern/weekly_reports/all_expeditions/ark_xxvii/ark_xxvii3/13_august_2012/

The blog from the expedition is interesting with comments on the state of the Arctic ice and has more photos (it is in German but Google translator should work).

http://www.geo.de/blog/geo/polarstern-expedition

[Steve Bloom]

Thanks for those links, M. One major concern is the so-called "compost bomb," or runaway peat combustion. There's a group in the UK actively researching it, but I haven't heard anything of their efforts for at least a year.

[Steve Bloom]

Compost bomb search results here, and see in particular the sixth hit and its citations.

Plus note this new paper pinning the PETM primarily to permafrost degradation rather than methane hydrate melt.

All of it very sobering.

[Neven]

Thanks for that, Michael Fliss. Amazing that I didn't follow this Polarstern blog from the start (even though it has been linked to before here). Silly me.

[GeoffBeacon]

Will we be able to alert the politicians - and stop government organisations stonewalling on the IPCC/climate modeling/feedbacks issue?

We have to support the IPCC against the deniers but while some of us believe IPCC reports are behind the real world in their science when published, especially with the missing feedbacks in climate models.

It would be good if certain modelers pointed out the shortcomings - thanks to John Mitchell for being the best of the bunch.

I think it was Peter Wadhams that said to me "When there is a conflict between the real world and their models, the modelers believe their models."

But what can we do?

[Paulvanegmond]

@Neven,

Sorry for the offtopic comment, and it's probably been posted before... but Realclimate.org features a post on the 2012 ASI minimum, featuring a link to your blog.

As much of what is discussed here flies completely over my head, I hardly ever post here. But I drop by from time to time to lurk and I continue to be amazed at seeing the power of virtual collaboration at work here. Good job, people!

[Matt Arkell]

GeoffBeacon:

We have to support the IPCC against the deniers but while some of us believe IPCC reports are behind the real world in their science when published, especially with the missing feedbacks in climate models.

Agreed. Really, the IPCC reports reflect the fact that the science is so shocking to BAU, that they have to be restricted to the most well founded, and well backed up research. In and of itself, this is not a bad thing, but it does mean that the reports miss the latest research, and tend to be behind the curve. (The feedback issue may be the most explosive one that this occurs for, as it has the most dire implications).

But they are pointing out the obvious, and still there is stonewalling and disbelief. I hate the fact that it appears we are going to need something approximating catastrophe to have a hope of doing anything about this issue. As everyone here knows though, if AR5 says the Arctic will be ice free in summer by 2020, there are plenty that will heap scorn on it. Had it been said in the third assessment report, I get the feeling it would have been simply ignored as absurd. But here we are. All we have to do is lose 4000 km^3 of ice in 8 years to get there.

To stay at least a little OT, hopefully cryosat-2 gives us another set of data to work with, and that the ice in the Arctic is enough to motivate enough people into action. Hope isn't much of a weapon though.

(Wow. Bit of a downer for a first post.)

[Neven]

Thanks, Paul. And welcome, Matt Arkell.

[Steve Bloom]

AGU fall meeting abstracts are out, with a search capability much improved over immediate prior years. Abstracts seem longer as well and as a consequence more informative than before. Lots of interesting stuff about the Arctic.

[Superman]

Matt,

"that the ice in the Arctic is enough to motivate enough people into action."

There are two cases that need to be made in order for large-scale changes in our use of energy/fossil fuels. One is a scientific case, the other is a political case. The disappearance of Arctic Summer ice helps make the scientific case, but I don't believe it's sufficiently strong to make the political case (where the public would demand and accept stringent measures to reduce the use of fossil fuels, as they are willing to do for smoking). The Arctic is too remote for most people's lives, and most non-scientists will not be overly concerned if all the ice disappears tomorrow.

The more immediate impacts, such as the extended drought we are experiencing in the Mid-West, or the extended heat waves we are experiencing, could build both the scientific case and political case.

Remember WWII, or pre-WWII more specifically. In the USA, we had strong Isolationist movements, which knew there were wars in Asia and Europe, but didn't quite recognize (denied!) the major potential impacts on the USA,and exerted strong influence on keeping us out of the conflict. When the attack on Pearl Harbor happened, all that changed.

Disappearance of Arctic ice is not a Pearl Harbor or 9/11 event. Lingering heat waves with record-setting temperatures, extensive droughts with skyrocketing food prices, increase in frequency and intensity of storms, etc, could have the potential for a Pearl Harbor type of impact.

Too bad we can't forestall these consequences through preventive action, but many people get serious about diet only after cancer or cardiovascular diseases strike. I think that's what we have to face in climate change.

But, this blog, and its coupling to the associated feedback loops, can play an important role in making the technical case mentioned at the beginning.

[Superman]

"Too bad we can't forestall these consequences through preventive action, but many people get serious about diet only after cancer or cardiovascular diseases strike. I think that's what we have to face in climate change."

If they get serious about diet when the cancer is Stage 4, game over. What is the Arctic equivalent of Stage 4? Is it Anderson's two degree temperature increase over pre-industrial, translated to its Arctic embodiment?

[Artful Dodger]

Here is the BBC 4 "Today" interview with Dr Seymour Laxon, from Mon Aug 13, 2012 (includes audio):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9744000/9744378.stm

[GeoffBeacon]

Matt Arkell

"As everyone here knows though, if AR5 says the Arctic will be ice free in summer by 2020, there are plenty that will heap scorn on it."

Unless it happens (or nearly happens) before AR5 comes out.

[Paul Klemencic]

Artful Dodger: The Healy is at 16W and and somewhat north of 72N. They found one of the remnants of ice that detached during the storm, and is observable in that area of the Chukchi on the Bremen map. They doubled back and did a second run through the ice.

These photos are similar to what we saw last year when the Healy sailed right up through the middle of the area hit by flash melt in the Chuckchi/Beaufort after the August storm.

If the Healy heads north toward the pole, it will sail through a lot of sea hit by the Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012. This will be a great opportunity to check the accuracy of some of the ice maps.

[FrankD]

crandles, as someone who has warned us against long curve extrapolations*, you would be sensitive to the dangers of inferring generalised behaviour from a single data point.

You reflect on the possibility of advection through the channels of the CAA, but your comments appear to be based just on what we have seen this year. Can I suggest you review the data for the last few years and reconsider? I think you will find that quite a bit of ice can exit through those channels - for example, two years ago Viscount Melville sound emptied, then the northern channels of the CAA emptied into that, and advection from the CAB refilled those. Rinse and repeat. Like the great explorers voyages, it can take a couple of years to migrate all the way through, ut it gets there in the end.

While I haven't attempted to calculate the area or volume involved, I would estimate that it involved the transport of perhaps 50% of the amount of MY that was dragged to eventual destruction in the Beaufort Sea "arm".

*I wouldn't call a 3-4 year extrapolation from 31 years of data "long" myself, but YMMV.

[k eotw]

Dr Laxon has responded to Andrew Orlowski's pathetic misinformation on the topic at The Register.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/14/arctic_ice_everybody_panic/

More scientists should take his lead and call out "journalists" that do this.

[crandles]

Frank, yes you are right my post was overreliant on what has happened this year. Sorry about that.

Any suggestion on how to carry out the review of previous years?
http://www.aari.ru/odata/_d0015.php?lang=1&mod=0&yy=2011
doesn't cover CA and nor do images like
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20111004_Figure6_thumb.png

Images that don't distinguish multi-year ice
are available but you need to view a lot of images to follow where ice is moving from and to.

There probably are suitable videos of melt seasons available but I haven't saved such links.

I am sure there is some advection through to NW passage and beyond that I have wrongly dismissed in those musings.

I was largely agreeing with Chris Reynolds who said:

"Even if the CAA starts to play a greater role it is of limited net width (total of channels) and coastal friction will limit speeds. I'm not convinced by talk of ice transport through Nares because when I look at the size of the strait compared to the area of the Arctic it seems to me to be bound to be a small player.

One 'advantage' of transport into the CAA regards melting is that it's surrounded by land - which can get warm."

I was trying to move that on with an initial stab at area involved and that stab may well be too low. I can easily be wrong and welcome corrections. (Hope that isn't too sloppy of a way to learn and I am not annoying people too much.)

Part of my reaction is to ask to what extent does your "it can take a couple of years to migrate all the way through, but it gets there in the end." back up Chris Reynolds' "it is of limited net width (total of channels) and coastal friction will limit speeds"

I assume 'total of channels' means total of minimum width of each channel.

[Artful Dodger]

Hi Paul K,

Yes, Healy's running her patrol plan up near 72 N, 165 W and those aloftcon shots are pure gold! I recall the scale of the sea ice from last year's photos with the science experiments underway on the sea ice, and Healy's gangway hoisted over the side. Spectacular stuff.

Hi to you to, k eotw

Yes, I read that Register piece and briefly considered commenting on the depth of the Author's ignorance. But you can not fix "Stupid, with a 60% chance of Sociopath". Especially since it's almost certainly canned criticism from yet another bought-and-paid-for denier.

But as we learned this July, "Denial is a river in Greenland" (and every thing comes out in the wash ;^)

Cheers,
Lodger

[Peter Ellis]

Healy's not going anywhere near the Pole till the Start of September.

Current mission list:
http://icefloe.net/healy-current-mission

The mission up to Aug 25th is in the Chukchi, looking at the ecosystem around the ice fringe
http://www.icefloe.net/files/Grebmaier_Healy_2012%20overview.pdf

After that, they'll be doing a more northerly geological surveying mission through to the end of September. Looks like they'll get up to 85N or so.
http://www.icefloe.net/files/Mayer_Healy_2012%20overview.pdf

[Diablobanquisa.wordpress.com]

The Healy is moving and is showing some ice (broken and in advanced state of melting) around 72ºN and 164/163ºW. (Aug 14-15)
In Bremen´s map (Aug 14) is not any ice until and beyond 165ºW.
So, I think, Bremen´s map underestimates a bit the sea ice concentration.

[Fairfax Climate Watch]

previously in this post, Superman said:

"I suspect that, for climate change, if you wait for data with which you are fully comfortable before informing policy-makers, it will be like the cases above. It will be too late, perhaps for the planet. The consequences of what appears to be happening now have to be laid out in the most stark terms possible. Otherwise, when people believe they have time remaining to make a decision, they will delay to the last minute."

I agree, and I would like to add a few words.

If we decide to wait for the qauntifiable proof, the confident certainty to say just what and how all these GHG are going to change this planet, then we are risking fruition of the qualitative possibility that our act of non-action will allow the planet's climate to spiral into something which can not feed or otherwise sustain six(+) billion people.

And if we accept that the potential negative impacts of climate change far exceed what rigid numbers-based forcasts have projected so far - and exceed them in terms of impacts on human sustainability, then we must ask ourselves, ourselves individually and as a people, some hard questions about risk valuations. For example, why havn't we been pouring every spare dime into solar and wind facilities? If the possibility exists, even if it is possibly uncertain and possibly small, that our global emissions are speeding us like a car out of control towards untold horrors such as global famines and the death of billions, then what are we doing as a people?

...

[Superman]

M. Owens,

"then what are we doing as a people?"

We are trading the survivability of our progeny for satisfying our insatiable demand for intensive energy use in the here-and-now. My reading of Kevin Anderson's requirements for CO2 reductions that will limit temperature increases to two degrees over pre-industrial, and my belief that his numbers are based on very conservative assumptions, leads me to conclude that, at best, we would need a Manhatten Project-type effort to have any slim chance of dodging the climate change bullet. Neither the average energy consumer nor the average fossil fuel energy worker would support this level of effort one iota. I see no way out, but if someone can show me a credible roadmap that would allow us to dodge the bullet, I am open to all realistic options.

[Artful Dodger]

Diablobanquisa wrote: "I think, Bremen´s map underestimates a bit the sea ice concentration"

Bremen (and all the other) sea ice charts do not show regions where sea ice concentration is below their threshold, which is 15% in the case of Bremen. So any region with 0-15% sea ice is displayed as open ocean.

You can see this in all the extent charts, and this characteristic is I think why some some ice watchers are startled by recent rapid regrowth of sea ice in October.

Wherever ice nuclei persist in the ocean, freezing can begin much more easily. So when all the sea ice is truly gone at the end of Summer (0% concentration), refreeze will take far longer to begin, and proceed much more slowly.

[Nightvid Cole]

Paulvanegmond,

You'll pick up what you need if you keep reading, but I'm not sure what you mean by 'over your head' when the latter is upside down :P

[Espen]

Diablobanquisa.wordpress.com,
"The Healy is moving and is showing some ice (broken and in advanced state of melting) around 72ºN and 164/163ºW. (Aug 14-15)
In Bremen´s map (Aug 14) is not any ice until and beyond 165ºW.
So, I think, Bremen´s map underestimates a bit the sea ice concentration."

Healey was not near 72 for the last 240 hours is has been operating in between 79 and 81 for several days:

http://www.sailwx.info/shiptrack/shipposition.phtml?call=NEPP

[Peter Ellis]

August 14 was quite a lot more than 240 hours ago.

[Neven]

I just received information that Dr. Seymour Laxon died in an accident on New Year's Day. :-(

[Artful Dodger]

Sincere condolences to family, friends, and colleagues on the untimely death of Dr. Seymor Laxon of University College London.

Dr Laxon was lead author of a recent GRL paper validating PIOMAS modelling with CryoSat-2 data. He was also a friend of this blog, having given Neven a personal reply to questions about CryoSat-2 data.

All the Arctic climate community shares your loss. His legacy lives on in his work, which now continues with greater sadness.

In Memory of Professor Seymour Laxon

The Times of London - Jan 18, 2013

Kind regards,
Lodger