There is an argument that good levels of sea ice create a more "normal" pattern in our locale as I am concerned that big changes (reductions) disrupt usual patterns. Best not flagged this to the CC deniers!

Yes. I too contend that if big reductions of sea ice disrupt usual patterns as claimed by climatologists and I agree*, then the converse must be true.

So....... in terms of temperature, more sea ice should lead to a colder NH winter.

A zonal circulation pattern maybe the more recent 'normal' pattern and this was the experience of most of the 20th Century - but I understand that this system of a very cold Arctic with extensive ice cover and strong zonal winds was just that - mostly a 20th century experience.

Lets see what this winter brings as a result? of much increased ice cover in October: increased ice cover all winter and next summer and/or increased NH snow cover/or not.

---

 

It is explained and demonstrated in the research below, that the position of high and low pressure systems play an important role in controlling the 'anomalous advection' of Atlantic and Pacific waters into the Arctic Basin.

see - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2020.00491/full  

The Title and a few passages below....

Borealization of the Arctic Ocean in Response to Anomalous Advection From Sub-Arctic Seas

Selected passages….

An important yet still not well documented aspect of recent changes in the Arctic Ocean is associated with the advection of anomalous sub-Arctic Atlantic- and Pacific-origin waters and biota into the polar basins, a process which we refer to as borealization.

and later,

The role that oceanic warmth penetrating the Arctic Ocean from the lower latitude regions with major oceanic currents plays in the state of polar ocean and sea ice was realized over a century ago

followed later by….

The front between PW and AW roughly tracks the Transpolar Drift which moves ice and cold fresh upper ocean waters from the Siberian shelf across the central Arctic toward Fram Strait (e.g., Mysak, 2001). However, there are extended time periods when the AW/PW front and Transpolar Drift are shifted toward the Makarov Basin, reducing the PW domain so that AW spreads farther into the Arctic interior (McLaughlin et al., 1996; Morison et al., 2012). The major drivers of these pathway variations of currents and sea ice drift are alternating anticyclonic and cyclonic local atmospheric circulation regimes (Proshutinsky and Johnson, 1997; Mysak, 2001; Morison et al., 2012). The atmospheric Arctic Oscillation dominates large-scale changes in wind pattern causing shifts (strengthening or weakening) of the upper ocean circulation and ice drift in the BG (e.g., Petty et al., 2016; Armitage et al., 2018). Sometimes, in summer months, the BG has been reversing directions probably changing upwelling/downwelling and accumulation of surface heat (Proshutinsky and Johnson, 1997).

etc, etc.

.......................

In my view, the last couple of years has seen the synoptics in the North Atlantic becoming a little more like the 60's, 70's and early 80's, when high pressure more often dominated the North Atlantic giving rise to more frequent NW winds and less SW winds reaching into the Arctic Basin. The lessening of the SW winds across the North Atlantic and into the Arctic would mean that advection of 'warmer water" (less cold than Arctic waters) would naturally see an increase of ice cover. Is this the reason for the suggested 30% increase of ice cover this year as compared with previous years? Have the Arctic pressure systems decreased the advection of Atlantic waters into the Arctic?

If so, an interesting outlook is on the cards - maybe?

 

 

---

Theres a couple of ways to look at this. Its quite easy to get caught up in the acceleration of ice forming. But its quite rare to see, so im going to waffle on...

Nature balances things out overall , so we potentially could end up seeing a slowdown of freeezing, with a net overall position on slightly higher than weve seen over the past decade, which would mean we could still be in an ice deficit when compared to longer historical average comparisons.

What I am excited to see, is how shutting out access to "warmer energy" of liquid sea water will affect polar cold generation. In recent years theres been this argument that the cold air that reaches our shores, just isnt cold enough (which I agree with. It always seems marginal and with every year seems more so)

So with Polar region continents effectively locked and a massive land mass (Of sorts) to generate the deep deep cold we always ask for, could we potentially be in store for a colder than average N.pole this year - and therefore How does that affect us in the British isles? Could that ramp up storms? or will that tend to create more Cold blocking.?

You could argue that the footprint we see today is that of a normal looking polar region... but is it normal so early? its still October.

---

Theres a couple of ways to look at this. Its quite easy to get caught up in the acceleration of ice forming. But its quite rare to see, so im going to waffle on...

Nature balances things out overall , so we potentially could end up seeing a slowdown of freeezing, with a net overall position on slightly higher than weve seen over the past decade, which would mean we could still be in an ice deficit when compared to longer historical average comparisons.

What I am excited to see, is how shutting out access to "warmer energy" of liquid sea water will affect polar cold generation. In recent years theres been this argument that the cold air that reaches our shores, just isnt cold enough (which I agree with. It always seems marginal and with every year seems more so)

So with Polar region continents effectively locked and a massive land mass (Of sorts) to generate the deep deep cold we always ask for, could we potentially be in store for a colder than average N.pole this year - and therefore How does that affect us in the British isles? Could that ramp up storms? or will that tend to create more Cold blocking.?

You could argue that the footprint we see today is that of a normal looking polar region... but is it normal so early? its still October.

 

Yes, your post describes the position and possibilities well.

Quote:     "But its quite rare to see"

Indeed it is 'rare to see'. But it is 'real',... isn't it? So why is this so? It's certainly not a consequence of CO2 and not forecast in any material I've read.

What this says to me is that natural drivers of Arctic Ice extent would appear to play a bigger part than allowed for in the math of climate change and this factor seems to depend on ocean currents as influenced by the pressure system synoptics and the dominance of the associated wind directions. Weather patterns as forced by Arctic warming are, it would it seem in this instance, being overridden by natural processes.

And as you say '......s it normal so early? its still October'

 

---

 

 

Every year i watch the sea ice situation develop as a means to see impact on the models

I would always compare this year vs last year as a quick comparison

Ive never seen a year of ice growth quite like this  Today vs the same date last year

Must be an extra 30% easily 

That's huge , so big you'd  question the authenticity of the most recent image , but no doubt its accurate . 

---

Strong parallels between 2021 and 2013.

I wonder if there is a link between a very low sea ice year and 'recovery' the following year. Perhaps the low sea ice creates particularly favourable synoptic conditions the following winter/summer in some kind of negitive feedback.

Then again maybe its just a coincidence.

 

---

Strong parallels between 2021 and 2013.

I wonder if there is a link between a very low sea ice year and 'recovery' the following year. Perhaps the low sea ice creates particularly favourable synoptic conditions the following winter/summer in some kind of negitive feedback.

Then again maybe its just a coincidence.

 

There is bound to be some kind of feedback..... but, its a huge feedback needed, imo, at the 30% increase level we are seeing here. And it's presently not in plain sight which it would be, if the feedback was part of the Arctic Ice science that plays such a significant role in the global warming scenario. Having said that weather can and always does come up with unusual and unexpected extreme events sometime, somewhere.

And from the little I've read, the 30% increase in Arctic Ice this year at this time, as compared with previous years is not unsupported by other pointers going in the same direction.

 

 

 

---

There is bound to be some kind of feedback..... but, its a huge feedback needed, imo, at the 30% increase level we are seeing here. And it's presently not in plain sight which it would be, if the feedback was part of the Arctic Ice science that plays such a significant role in the global warming scenario. Having said that weather can and always does come up with unusual and unexpected extreme events sometime, somewhere.

And from the little I've read, the 30% increase in Arctic Ice this year at this time, as compared with previous years is not unsupported by other pointers going in the same direction. 

 

No it doesn’t; it is a minor part. But you know this.

---

 

No it doesn’t; it is a minor part. But you know this.

I don't know this. It has been often presented by climate scientists that the first effects of global warming is first felt in the polar regions and this has a big knock on effect. So which part of what I said do you take issue with?

Not forgetting the big rise in Arctic temperatures, a warmer Arctic as we have seen, also leads to warmer temperate areas, especially in winter and the effect of these areas on the average global temp is not minor imo, 

You've got a different understanding of this matter - so how do you see it? And the 30% increase of Arctic Ice this year at this time, compared with previous years is caused by what ?- because it's not CO2 is it? In present day terms its an 'extreme' event but you wouldn't put it down to Global warming would you? Or would you?

 

---

I don't know this. It has been often presented by climate scientists that the first effects of global warming is first felt in the polar regions and this has a big knock on effect. So which part of what I said do you take issue with?

Not forgetting the big rise in Arctic temperatures, a warmer Arctic as we have seen, also leads to warmer temperate areas, especially in winter and the effect of these areas on the average global temp is not minor imo, 

You've got a different understanding of this matter - so how do you see it? And the 30% increase of Arctic Ice this year at this time, compared with previous years is caused by what ?- because it's not CO2 is it? In present day terms its an 'extreme' event but you wouldn't put it down to Global warming would you? Or would you?

 

 

I think the short(er) answer is, some experts will probably a decent idea, but will most likely need another couple of years for study and releasing some sort of paper.

 

Either way, to draw conclusions before we even know what is actually going on is naieve (no slight intended)

 

For now observe, discuss, enjoy

---

I don't know this. It has been often presented by climate scientists that the first effects of global warming is first felt in the polar regions and this has a big knock on effect. So which part of what I said do you take issue with?

Not forgetting the big rise in Arctic temperatures, a warmer Arctic as we have seen, also leads to warmer temperate areas, especially in winter and the effect of these areas on the average global temp is not minor imo, 

You've got a different understanding of this matter - so how do you see it? And the 30% increase of Arctic Ice this year at this time, compared with previous years is caused by what ?- because it's not CO2 is it? In present day terms its an 'extreme' event but you wouldn't put it down to Global warming would you? Or would you?

 

Well, firstly, you said, “the Arctic Ice science that plays such a significant role in the global warming scenario.”  That isn’t correct: the predictions, which have proved accurate, were that the Arctic would warm faster.  But that doesn’t mean it plays a significant role; you’ve got the cart ahead of the horse here. The warming in the Arctic is a consequence of climate change; it doesn’t ‘play a significant role’.

As for your focus on a single year’s apparent anomalous growth, we’re only part of the way into the growth cycle and it is just one year. There has always been natural variation.

 

---

 

Well, firstly, you said, “the Arctic Ice science that plays such a significant role in the global warming scenario.”  That isn’t correct: the predictions, which have proved accurate, were that the Arctic would warm faster.  But that doesn’t mean it plays a significant role; you’ve got the cart ahead of the horse here. The warming in the Arctic is a consequence of climate change; it doesn’t ‘play a significant role’.

As for your focus on a single year’s apparent anomalous growth, we’re only part of the way into the growth cycle and it is just one year. There has always been natural variation.

 

I agree, but there are other considerations.

One difference revolves around the meaning of 'significance' and the relative importance of positive feedbacks.

This is from Wiki.....

Ice–albedo feedback is a positive feedback climate process where a change in the area of ice caps, glaciers, and sea ice alters the albedo and surface temperature of a planet. Ice is very reflective, therefore some of the solar energy is reflected back to space. Ice–albedo feedback plays an important role in global climate change.[1] For instance, at higher latitudes, warmer temperatures melt the ice sheets.[2] However, if warm temperatures decrease the ice cover and the area is replaced by water or land, the albedo would decrease. This increases the amount of solar energy absorbed, leading to more warming.[3] The effect has mostly been discussed in terms of the recent trend of declining Arctic sea ice.[4] The change in albedo acts to reinforce the initial alteration in ice area leading to more warming. Warming tends to decrease ice cover and hence decrease the albedo, increasing the amount of solar energy absorbed and leading to more warming. In the geologically recent past, the ice–albedo positive feedback has played a major role in the advances and retreats of the Pleistocene (~2.6 Ma to ~10 ka ago) ice sheets.[5] Inversely, cooler temperatures increase ice, which increases albedo, leading to more cooling.

etc...

Additionally, reduced ice extent, leads to reduced snow cover in the temperate lands - which we have all noticed and is obvious to any reasonable observer . This adds to the positive feedback.

So........      how do you differentiate between the words 'importance' and 'significance'? 'Importance' to me suggests 'significant'?

Another positive feedback relating to ice extent, I think, is the connection with water vapour, Less ice, more open and warmer waters, lead to increased water vapour and less heat loss through radiation and higher temperatures. Do you think that plays an important part?

Over and above the direct CO2 causes of global warming, Arctic Ice loss feedbacksl lead to less snow cover and melting permafrost in temperate lands and this releases methane, which as you know is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. How important is this in Global warming?

It appears that you consider these factors insignificant in the global warming scenario? Is that right?

 

 

---

 

Well, firstly, you said, “the Arctic Ice science that plays such a significant role in the global warming scenario.”  That isn’t correct: the predictions, which have proved accurate, were that the Arctic would warm faster.  But that doesn’t mean it plays a significant role; you’ve got the cart ahead of the horse here. The warming in the Arctic is a consequence of climate change; it doesn’t ‘play a significant role’.

As for your focus on a single year’s apparent anomalous growth, we’re only part of the way into the growth cycle and it is just one year. There has always been natural variation.

 

Chicken and egg? Or if you prefer, a positive feedback loop, surely not entirely insignificant?

---

30% increase seems like a huge rebound in 1 year doesn't it, of course it remains to be seen if this trend continues. Imagine the headlines if it has gone 30% the other way.

---

Theres a couple of ways to look at this. Its quite easy to get caught up in the acceleration of ice forming. But its quite rare to see, so im going to waffle on...

Nature balances things out overall , so we potentially could end up seeing a slowdown of freeezing, with a net overall position on slightly higher than weve seen over the past decade, which would mean we could still be in an ice deficit when compared to longer historical average comparisons.

What I am excited to see, is how shutting out access to "warmer energy" of liquid sea water will affect polar cold generation. In recent years theres been this argument that the cold air that reaches our shores, just isnt cold enough (which I agree with. It always seems marginal and with every year seems more so)

So with Polar region continents effectively locked and a massive land mass (Of sorts) to generate the deep deep cold we always ask for, could we potentially be in store for a colder than average N.pole this year - and therefore How does that affect us in the British isles? Could that ramp up storms? or will that tend to create more Cold blocking.?

You could argue that the footprint we see today is that of a normal looking polar region... but is it normal so early? its still October.

 

'But its quite rare to see,' ...................I don't believe we've seen an increase like this before, have we?

'What I am excited to see, is how shutting out access to "warmer energy" of liquid sea water will affect polar cold generation.'......... The question for me and anyone interested in Arctic Ice science, is whether this has been the cause of this years 30% increase of ice extent as compared with previous years? This is followed by the obvious follow up - How did this come about - by what means? The science I quoted in an earlier post indicates that its the wind patterns associated with synoptics -....... anyhow, that's how I read it.

What we are hearing now from climate scientists is how global warming is likely to see us getting colder winters, which is in sharp contrast to not long ago, when we were told that snow in GB would soon be a thing of the past in GB. Maybe, what we are seeing with this increase of Arctic ice extent is a confirmation of such colder winter claims? - which if true and regular, will have negative feedbacks on temperatures. It will be a check on rising temperatures.  And if it's a natural negative temperature forcing, then we'll have a similar response and global temperatures will start to level off and over several years start to drop.

Isn't climate science and its contradictory forecasts interesting?

 

 

---

Well, speaking of 2013, according to the BBC there was supposed to be no Arctic ice left by then…

https://twitter.com/Fludded/status/1454438047043530752?s=20 

Well, speaking of 2013, according to the BBC there was supposed to be no Arctic ice left by then…

https://twitter.com/Fludded/status/1454438047043530752?s=20

Well, clearly not the BBC, as the tweet makes very clear. Plus, it was one prediction; I assume that you wouldn’t pick one outlier ensemble run and then rubbish weather forecasting if it was wrong? Or perhaps you would? 

---

 

 

'But its quite rare to see,' ...................I don't believe we've seen an increase like this before, have we?

'What I am excited to see, is how shutting out access to "warmer energy" of liquid sea water will affect polar cold generation.'......... The question for me and anyone interested in Arctic Ice science, is whether this has been the cause of this years 30% increase of ice extent as compared with previous years? This is followed by the obvious follow up - How did this come about - by what means? The science I quoted in an earlier post indicates that its the wind patterns associated with synoptics -....... anyhow, that's how I read it.

What we are hearing now from climate scientists is how global warming is likely to see us getting colder winters, which is in sharp contrast to not long ago, when we were told that snow in GB would soon be a thing of the past in GB. Maybe, what we are seeing with this increase of Arctic ice extent is a confirmation of such colder winter claims? - which if true and regular, will have negative feedbacks on temperatures. It will be a check on rising temperatures.  And if it's a natural negative temperature forcing, then we'll have a similar response and global temperatures will start to level off and over several years start to drop.

Isn't climate science and its contradictory forecasts interesting?

 

 

It feels like you’re trying to reopen the arguments in the old Climate Forum; it’s not going to end well since you appear not to have shifted your opinions at all despite the evidence.

Science doesn’t work as your last sentence suggests; but then you also know that.

---

Well, speaking of 2013, according to the BBC there was supposed to be no Arctic ice left by then…

https://twitter.com/Fludded/status/1454438047043530752?s=20

It didn't say that...

---

 

It feels like you’re trying to reopen the arguments in the old Climate Forum; it’s not going to end well since you appear not to have shifted your opinions at all despite the evidence.

Science doesn’t work as your last sentence suggests; but then you also know that.

....................

 

Why don't you answer my earlier post responding to yours? To be clear I have highlighted the parts I agree with.

Here is my post again - we can move on after I get your response The key bit is at the end - this...

It appears that you consider these factors insignificant in the global warming scenario? Is that right?

Do you or don't you?

 One difference revolves around the meaning of 'significance' and the relative importance of positive feedbacks.

This is from Wiki.....

Ice–albedo feedback is a positive feedback climate process where a change in the area of ice caps, glaciers, and sea ice alters the albedo and surface temperature of a planet. Ice is very reflective, therefore some of the solar energy is reflected back to space. Ice–albedo feedback plays an important role in global climate change.[1] For instance, at higher latitudes, warmer temperatures melt the ice sheets.[2] However, if warm temperatures decrease the ice cover and the area is replaced by water or land, the albedo would decrease. This increases the amount of solar energy absorbed, leading to more warming.[3] The effect has mostly been discussed in terms of the recent trend of declining Arctic sea ice.[4] The change in albedo acts to reinforce the initial alteration in ice area leading to more warming. Warming tends to decrease ice cover and hence decrease the albedo, increasing the amount of solar energy absorbed and leading to more warming. In the geologically recent past, the ice–albedo positive feedback has played a major role in the advances and retreats of the Pleistocene (~2.6 Ma to ~10 ka ago) ice sheets.[5] Inversely, cooler temperatures increase ice, which increases albedo, leading to more cooling.

etc...

 

Additionally, reduced ice extent, leads to reduced snow cover in the temperate lands - which we have all noticed and is obvious to any reasonable observer . This adds to the positive feedback.

So........      how do you differentiate between the words 'importance' and 'significance'? 'Importance' to me suggests 'significant'?

Another positive feedback relating to ice extent, I think, is the connection with water vapour, Less ice, more open and warmer waters, lead to increased water vapour and less heat loss through radiation and higher temperatures. Do you think that plays an important part?

Over and above the direct CO2 causes of global warming, Arctic Ice loss feedbacksl lead to less snow cover and melting permafrost in temperate lands and this releases methane, which as you know is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. How important is this in Global warming?

It appears that you consider these factors insignificant in the global warming scenario? Is that right?

 

 

---