meteorologist Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 http://www.staplenews.com/home/2012/9/19/nasa-arctic-cyclone-breaks-up-sea-ice.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 The ice was already broken up in June. http://lance-modis.e...12174.terra.4km It was spread out letting insolation through into the water all through July. http://lance-modis.e...12204.terra.4km This was the ice melt the week before the storm. This is the ice melt the week of the storm. How can you break up ice that has already melted? Did the storm cause a worm hole in the space-time continuum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 The ice was already broken up in June. http://lance-modis.e...12174.terra.4km It was spread out letting insolation through into the water all through July. http://lance-modis.e...12204.terra.4km This was the ice melt the week before the storm. This is the ice melt the week of the storm. How can you break up ice that has already melted? Did the storm cause a worm hole in the space-time continuum? Yes, the ice was already fragmented before the storm. But the storm exacerbated the situation and caused further damage to the pack than more normal conditions would have. Especially on the North American side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Yes, the ice was already fragmented before the storm. But the storm exacerbated the situation and caused further damage to the pack than more normal conditions would have. Especially on the North American side. What are "normal conditions" in the Arctic now. The patterns prevelent prior to 2007 no longer apply, and things have been all over the board since. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 What are "normal conditions" in the Arctic now. The patterns prevelent prior to 2007 no longer apply, and things have been all over the board since. Terry Well, the storm was basically unprecedented for that time of year, so it was certainly pushing the boundaries of however you want to define normal. And there is no way to say if that storm wouldn't/couldn't of happened pre-2007. It's not like we've had storms like that every summer since 2007...it was a very unusual event no matter how you want to look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Well, the storm was basically unprecedented for that time of year, so it was certainly pushing the boundaries of however you want to define normal. And there is no way to say if that storm wouldn't/couldn't of happened pre-2007. It's not like we've had storms like that every summer since 2007...it was a very unusual event no matter how you want to look at it. Yeah I'm just saying that everything has been unusual for at least the last 5 years in the Arctic. Remember last years "ice hurricane", the AD patterns that come and go and the Arctic high, that used to be the norm. It's hard to point at any one of these and say this was abnormal when in reality everything is abnormal. The strangest thing to me has been the hot spot north of the Yukon, that even now, by some indications is keeping a small part of the Arctic Ocean as warm as the English Channel, but again it's just one more strange piece in a very strange puzzle. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Yes, the ice was already fragmented before the storm. But the storm exacerbated the situation and caused further damage to the pack than more normal conditions would have. Especially on the North American side. You said the storm and it's cold air would slow the melt and help preserve ice. Now you have flipped to the opposite saying the storm caused more damage than if it never happened? what is normal? a dipole anomaly? the ice up there was already almost gone. I think this storm is being blown out of proportions for the final of 2012 like Stroeve thinks and others in the field. The people who think the storm did the most damage are the same ones who said it would help the ice right before it hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 You said the storm and it's cold air would slow the melt and help preserve ice. Now you have flipped to the opposite saying the storm caused more damage than if it never happened? what is normal? a dipole anomaly? the ice up there was already almost gone. I think this storm is being blown out of proportions for the final of 2012 like Stroeve thinks and others in the field. The people who think the storm did the most damage are the same ones who said it would help the ice right before it hit. Yes, I initially thought the storm would slow ice melt because that is what has usually happened with large storms in the past, and because I didn't know just how strong it would get. I was wrong about that. It's not flipping, it's acknowledging the actual effect the storm had on the ice. And several "experts in the field" have stated they believe the storm was very influential in further damaging the ice pack and hastening ice melt, which it clearly was. Why the hesitancy by some here to acknowledge the obvious: this storm hurt the ice pack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Taco In 2007 we lost all the ice because there were no storms - This year we lost all the ice because there was a storm. Is it possible that we lose all the ice no matter what the weather does? Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Yes, I initially thought the storm would slow ice melt because that is what has usually happened with large storms in the past, and because I didn't know just how strong it would get. I was wrong about that. It's not flipping, it's acknowledging the actual effect the storm had on the ice. And several "experts in the field" have stated they believe the storm was very influential in further damaging the ice pack and hastening ice melt, which it clearly was. Why the hesitancy by some here to acknowledge the obvious: this storm hurt the ice pack. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Taco In 2007 we lost all the ice because there were no storms - This year we lost all the ice because there was a storm. Is it possible that we lose all the ice no matter what the weather does? Terry 2012 would most likely have set a record low without the storm. 2007 set a record low for entirely different reasons. All I'm saying is that the storm was damaging to the ice pack and made a bad melt worse in 2012. The exact weather that does occur does matter for the exact result we get in the ice melt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rygar Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Taco In 2007 we lost all the ice because there were no storms - This year we lost all the ice because there was a storm. Is it possible that we lose all the ice no matter what the weather does? Terry Taco is not saying there wouldn't have been ice loss without the storm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 There is no doubt that the storm had the short term effect of dispersing and melting ice in the Beaufort Sea area. Whether this had an effect on the overall loss of ice for the season is questionable. Without the storm, we'd have had more insolation during a period when solar radiation was near it's peak, so although we would have lest ice lost over a two or three week period, we would have had higher temperature waters to contend with later in the season. To lose the most ice in a season you'd want clear skies (high pressure systems) to dominate until at least mid August, then heavy cloud cover to seal that heat in until the following melt season. The storm and the following lows, coming as early as they did, effectively halted insolation at that point. This year there was already sufficient heat to cause the melt that we witnessed. If the storm had come even a week later, we'd have had more melt, and each week thereafter would have increased Arctic SST's even more. Those thinking the storm would curtail ice loss were half right. While it chewed up the pack for a short while, it also allowed a lot of radiation that would otherwise have been absorbed in the Arctic Ocean to be radiated back into space. The disturbance of thermo haline stratification in the Beaufort Sea caused additional ice loss, but whether this outweighs the loss of insolation is a matter of conjecture. My quess is that the storm increased the ice loss, but only by a small amount. Most of the damage caused by the mixed stratification won't be felt until later during re freeze. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 There is no doubt that the storm had the short term effect of dispersing and melting ice in the Beaufort Sea area. Whether this had an effect on the overall loss of ice for the season is questionable. Without the storm, we'd have had more insolation during a period when solar radiation was near it's peak, so although we would have lest ice lost over a two or three week period, we would have had higher temperature waters to contend with later in the season. To lose the most ice in a season you'd want clear skies (high pressure systems) to dominate until at least mid August, then heavy cloud cover to seal that heat in until the following melt season. The storm and the following lows, coming as early as they did, effectively halted insolation at that point. This year there was already sufficient heat to cause the melt that we witnessed. If the storm had come even a week later, we'd have had more melt, and each week thereafter would have increased Arctic SST's even more. Those thinking the storm would curtail ice loss were half right. While it chewed up the pack for a short while, it also allowed a lot of radiation that would otherwise have been absorbed in the Arctic Ocean to be radiated back into space. The disturbance of thermo haline stratification in the Beaufort Sea caused additional ice loss, but whether this outweighs the loss of insolation is a matter of conjecture. My quess is that the storm increased the ice loss, but only by a small amount. Most of the damage caused by the mixed stratification won't be felt until later during re freeze. Terry Terry think 2007 was driven by extreme Dipole. Think 2012 was driven by an extreme storm. Think 2007 and 2012 are outliers. Get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Friv Think I heard that it might take decades before we get back to 1970's ice, got to wait for the AMO, the PDO, Solar Maxinum and 3 other "secret forcings" known only to Watts Goddard and Lord Monkton to allign. The oldest MYI will be back by next spring so don't worry 'bout a thing. - Course, when the Arctic freezes up again, the Antarctic will melt away for sure. - they work like a teeter totter. If I'm wrong, we can pray for the Flying Spagetti Monster to create another ice cap. Ramen Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.