Hazardous ice floes yes, but I don't see it can be showing more or less solid sea ice to that extent.

I don't thiink 'ice floes' and 'pack ice' are the same thing at all.  If the reference was to 'ice floes' I would agree with you.

My understanding of 'pack ice' is that it is fairly solid ice. Ice floes are areas of ice in open water.

I'm amazed we made it through the century we seem so low tech . .

When I was a child I ate dirt, but still survived to experience this entertaining thread
Sorry, off topic.

I'm amazed we made it through the century we seem so low tech . .

When I was a child I ate dirt, but still survived to experience this entertaining thread
Sorry, off topic.

LOL.  I hadn't appreciated fully the entertainment content....

Back on topic, we finally broke through the 8m sq km level yesterday: 8,075,000.

Yes, almost a quarter of a million sq km increase in the last two days. Let's hope that continues for a little while (although that may just be the normal refreeze rate as I haven't actually checked!)

Hi Doc

The normal rate of recovery for the last week of October is around 550k sq km (1979-2000).  The best since 2002 was 1.0m in 2007 - but related to the very low minimum that year.  We have managed 524k this year, putting it close to 'normal'

Interestingly 2002 and 2003 added 200k and 150k respectively.

The last two days have seen the highest growth for the last two days of October since the daily records are available in 2002.

Thanks for those stats.

I guess 2002 and 2003 started from a higher baseline and the "easier" (more southern) areas had already frozen up and hence the lower freezing rate in those years.

On the subject of Arctic Ice (which I guess all this thread is ) it's nice to see Barrow with its wintry overcoat on.

http://dw.sfos.uaf.edu/sizonet/ice/barrow/ABCam.jpg

I don't think it's quite continuous with the Arctic basin ice just yet but it shouldn't be too long.

Yup Dr M. , sure is good it gets cold when the sun goes down......

Yup Dr M. , sure is good it gets cold when the sun goes down......

I didn't say it was unusual just nice to look at.  It's probably later than usual (I haven't checked) I just thought the link belonged in here rather than elsewhere.

A significant recovery yesterday - an increase of 166k sq km to 8,241k.

Still the 2nd lowest after 2007 for this date (since 2002), but growing at a decent rate finally.

The normal rate of increase is around 60-70k per day at this stage in the cycle.

Yup Dr M. , sure is good it gets cold when the sun goes down......

I didn't say it was unusual just nice to look at.  It's probably later than usual (I haven't checked) I just thought the link belonged in here rather than elsewhere.

Yup Dr M. , sure is good it gets cold when the sun goes down......

I didn't say it was unusual just nice to look at.  It's probably later than usual (I haven't checked) I just thought the link belonged in here rather than elsewhere.

Nice to look at indeed, FWIW I'd have put the link here

It's already there

I didn't say it was unusual just nice to look at.  It's probably later than usual (I haven't checked) I just thought the link belonged in here rather than elsewhere.

Nice to look at indeed, FWIW I'd have put the link here

It's already there

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

NSIDC view of October is now out.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

NSIDC view of October is now out.

This is obviuosly why though, not a great mystery...

"At the end of October, ice growth slowed, and at the end of the month extensive open water areas remained in the Beaufort, Chukchi, Kara and Barents seas. This region had the warmest ocean surface temperatures at the end of the melt season."

Still as GW said, at least the heat can radiate to the atmosphere allowing the seas to cool.

As can be clearly seen if you look, the Worlds Oceans are "Cooling" as we go into the negative cycles, the Arctic is one of the few places that had positive anomalies, but even here it has cooled down.

UNISYS Current Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly Plot - click to enlarge

"At the end of October, ice growth slowed, and at the end of the month extensive open water areas remained in the Beaufort, Chukchi, Kara and Barents seas. This region had the warmest ocean surface temperatures at the end of the melt season."

Still as GW said, at least the heat can radiate to the atmosphere allowing the seas to cool.

As can be clearly seen if you look, the Worlds Oceans are "Cooling" as we go into the negative cycles, the Arctic is one of the few places that had positive anomalies, but even here it has cooled down.

It's confirmation that the Arctic is changing.  That heat wouldn't have been there a decade or more ago and it means that the annual cycle is altering because that heat has to dissipate and this will slow the ice rebuild.  There is a painful logical progression at work, where more open water leads to more heat which leads to later re-freezing which leads to thinner ice which in turn is going to melt quicker in the spring/summer, in turn leading to more heat in the system - and so on...

As for ocean temperatures, if you isolate the La Nina pattern in the Pacific the rest of the globe looks neutral to slightly above normal still - bearing in mind that the colour coding can be slightly misleading (pale blue being areas with either no anomaly or a slightly positive one).

"At the end of October, ice growth slowed, and at the end of the month extensive open water areas remained in the Beaufort, Chukchi, Kara and Barents seas. This region had the warmest ocean surface temperatures at the end of the melt season."

Still as GW said, at least the heat can radiate to the atmosphere allowing the seas to cool.

As can be clearly seen if you look, the Worlds Oceans are "Cooling" as we go into the negative cycles, the Arctic is one of the few places that had positive anomalies, but even here it has cooled down.

It's confirmation that the Arctic is changing.  That heat wouldn't have been there a decade or more ago and it means that the annual cycle is altering because that heat has to dissipate and this will slow the ice rebuild.  There is a painful logical progression at work, where more open water leads to more heat which leads to later re-freezing which leads to thinner ice which in turn is going to melt quicker in the spring/summer, in turn leading to more heat in the system - and so on...

As for ocean temperatures, if you isolate the La Nina pattern in the Pacific the rest of the globe looks neutral to slightly above normal still - bearing in mind that the colour coding can be slightly misleading (pale blue being areas with either no anomaly or a slightly positive one).

 

And with the jetstream south in important places like the North Atlantic, more continentality could become the norm. Yes, it's weather, but, before AGW hit the scene, increased continentality has happened before - the LIA for instance.

"At the end of October, ice growth slowed, and at the end of the month extensive open water areas remained in the Beaufort, Chukchi, Kara and Barents seas. This region had the warmest ocean surface temperatures at the end of the melt season."

Still as GW said, at least the heat can radiate to the atmosphere allowing the seas to cool.

As can be clearly seen if you look, the Worlds Oceans are "Cooling" as we go into the negative cycles, the Arctic is one of the few places that had positive anomalies, but even here it has cooled down.

It's confirmation that the Arctic is changing.  That heat wouldn't have been there a decade or more ago and it means that the annual cycle is altering because that heat has to dissipate and this will slow the ice rebuild.  There is a painful logical progression at work, where more open water leads to more heat which leads to later re-freezing which leads to thinner ice which in turn is going to melt quicker in the spring/summer, in turn leading to more heat in the system - and so on...

As for ocean temperatures, if you isolate the La Nina pattern in the Pacific the rest of the globe looks neutral to slightly above normal still - bearing in mind that the colour coding can be slightly misleading (pale blue being areas with either no anomaly or a slightly positive one).

 

Yep, your pain and your logic. Your logic based on an important area of Earth, but, nevertheless, local. What is the area of the Arctic basin as a percentage of the Earths area? 1%, 2%? And what is the NH temperate area as a percentage of the Earths total area? If these temperate areas of the NH become more continental - like we've seen over the last year - what are the sum radiative effects with increased winter albedo and summer solar isolation?

And with the jetstream south in important places like the North Atlantic, more continentality could become the norm. Yes, it's weather, but, before AGW hit the scene, increased continentality has happened before - the LIA for instance.

 

Hi

I accept that the Arctic is a small(ish) area but it is known to be an important driver of weather and therefore by general consensus it 'punches above its weight' in terms of impact.

This is the Arctic Ice discussion and I was suggesting nothing more than the impact of AGW on the prospects for the Arctic.  I am not promoting any idea that isn't already in the mainstream scientific literature, am I?

Your point about the behaviour of the jet and impacts on local weather are clearly correct.  Whether this has any bearing on the Arctic or the impacts of AGW are other questions.  As you know the recent research suggested a link between a warming Arctic and increased incursions of cold air to mid-latitudes.

The climate models predict greater warming in the Arctic and high latitudes and this is what we are seeing.  Co-incidence or support for the existence of AGW?  That is the debate, is it not?  If it is the latter then the Arctic is the 'canary in the cage' and we ought to be taking note.

Let us also not forget that the changes we are now witnessing are not powerful enough (yet) to completely swamp other 'signals' and we are being constantly reminded exactly where we are in a number of these cycles over the past couple of years (and what to expect from these cycles?).

Obviously if we are constantly 'put on hold' about seeing the impacts, and the global cooldown, from this conbination of cycles then maybe we have been seeing them the past few years (or more?) and it is just that their impacts are now being muted by the background warming?

Should we see the PDO flip positive in the next 5 years (and end the current negative phase) I fear a lot of folk would be left no option than to accept that the Arctic is now impacting a larger sphere than even Mr Overland is willing to concede to?

I’m more interested in the debate for next season taking in consideration the actual sea ice trend then defending points of view favour or against GW.

There is a lack os couverage in the atlantic side, but dispite of that is very interesting that tongue between Greenland and Iceland

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

NSIDC view of October is now out.

This is obviuosly why though, not a great mystery...

"At the end of October, ice growth slowed, and at the end of the month extensive open water areas remained in the Beaufort, Chukchi, Kara and Barents seas. This region had the warmest ocean surface temperatures at the end of the melt season."

Still as GW said, at least the heat can radiate to the atmosphere allowing the seas to cool.

As can be clearly seen if you look, the Worlds Oceans are "Cooling" as we go into the negative cycles, the Arctic is one of the few places that had positive anomalies, but even here it has cooled down.

UNISYS Current Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly Plot - click to enlarge

 

I rather prefere this one shows a good anomaly in this case -tive arround USA East Coast and North sea, helping a possible rising pressure above 60º paralel, specially in Eastern Canada in the next few weeks

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2010/anomnight.11.1.2010.gif