Who else is rooting for that baby ice

Question

hold on in there baby arctic ice! autumn is nearly here....

i have been obsessively checking the ice extent data, it looked good up to this month but has now plummeted. oo er! that fragile one year ice is so vulnerable to warm winds and currents. i made my prediction this spring that we would be loosing the lot within 10 years, i sooo hope i am wrong. what's your best guess?

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

Answer 1

Go baby ice go!  No wait, I mean stay!

Yeah there is a noticeable downward turn in that daily data, especially when compared to the normal trend in which the melt rate starts to slow by this point.

I still think some of the new ice will hold up, because this isn't a particularly warm year.  Most of this year was in a strong part of the La Nina cycle.

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wol...

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/ENSO/enso.mei_in...

However, I wouldn't be surprised if it all melts once we have a warmer year, which is predicted by 2010.

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNe...

I doubt it will last another 10 years.  I would be surprised if we don't have an ice-free arctic summer within the next 5 years.

Answer 2

You don’t need to worry too much about the North Pole, it regularly melts. Here are a few photo’s of submarines at the North Pole.

USS Skate (SSN-578), surfaced at the North Pole, 17 March 1959.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/085...

USS Seadragon. 25th aug 1960.. “surfaced in open water” then they played a game of baseball

Photo at the pole http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/085...

Also http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arct...

USS Seadragon and USS Skate rendezvous in “open water” at north pole.

Seadragon (SSN-584), foreground, and her sister Skate (SSN-578) during a rendezvous at the North Pole in August 1962. (see the men on the ice in the background).

Photo http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/085...

USS Queenfish. Arrived at the North Pole on Aug. 5, 1970, “Rising through open water”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/scienc...

On Aug. 5, the Queenfish became the 10th American submarine to reach the geographic North Pole. It then surfaced through a hole in the ice about 500 yards away.

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2008/03...

HMS Superb, USS Billfish, USS Sea Devil. 18th May 1987

U.S. and British sailors explore the Arctic ice cap while conducting the first U.S./British coordinated surfacing at the North Pole. The ships are, left to right: the nuclear-powered attack submarine Sea Devil (SSN-664), the fleet submarine HMS Superb (S-109) , and the nuclear-powered attack submarine Billfish (SSN-676), 18 May 1987.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/086...

http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/086...

Then on 30th march... all frozen again. http://navsource.org/archives/08/500/086...

.. and all this before global warming was discovered.

You can check out the ice any time you want courtesy of NASA's TERRA and AQUA satellites. http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/

click on "Real time".

All is well; don't panic.

Answer 3

I still feel we will retain more ice than last year and we will keep building on it:

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test...

So in 10 years I predict will be back up to the 1990 averages and maybe even closing in on the 1980 averages.

Answer 4

Looks like the ice is beginning to trend UP (increase).  That's great news!!

Don't forget..... there was a time when you could grow tomatoes in the Arctic...... and that was BEFORE cars, factories and Al Gore's private jet.

Edit 1:

LittleRobberGirl........... looks to me like the graph shows 2008 as looking 'better' in terms of more ice..... than 2007.  That is pretty simple to see.

Keep in mind that the Arctic shares in the same 'normal' cycles of warming and cooling as does the rest of the planet.

Answer 5

can't really say.

saying i AM rooting for it would mean i've accepted the 'science' behind awg. which i haven't.

saying i'm against it sounds like i'm rooting for a fiery flood, which i'm not.

so let's just say i'm rooting for whatever will be the best outcome for the environment to an extent which doesn't include intentional interference...

(when we intentionally interfere, the results are usually unintentionally bad)

Answer 6

Here is William Connolley (former realclimate contributer) on the subject:

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/08/mo...

And this compares ice extent going back every year to 2002:

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/sea...

Answer 7

Well...it's variable.  Some years the Arctic loses a lot of ice, other years not so much.  For example, land ice on many of the islands can completely disappear over a summer period.  But, it might not.  We never know for sure.  Some always has to, since it's the nesting and egg laying region for Canada geese.  They've relied on it forever to lay their eggs, and I doubt they'd be happy about having to lay in the snow.

The amount of sea ice also varies from year to year, and can look a lot different from one year to the next.  Sometimes it 'calves' - breaks apart from warming at the shore and produces ice bergs, again nothing new.  My best guess on when all the ice will finally disappear?  Never.

Answer 8

I am rooting for the baby ice.  Of course, there is a lot more of it now than there was before:

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/21729...

edit:  I forgot to mention, that is ICESAT data.  You can find more on ICESAT by googling "ICESAT JPL" and similar strings.

edit:

The Ice Cheer:

Cold and snow, cold and snow, go with the floe

Frazil dazzle, pressure ridge, summertime thaw

Open leads, pack ice, circumpolar drift

C'mon now baby ice, make it through August!