Northwest Passage

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by conachair

As far as global temperatures goes, yes.

July looks set to follow June.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/surfac...ture-june-2019



Better to look to science rather than some lone voices completely lacking evidence on the web for what's happening in a warming planet. There is no alternative hypothesis, the planet is heating u and the only smoking gun is humans releasing greenhouse gasses. Nothing else fits.

really the fact that we are just conning off of the near 100 years of the most active the sun has been in well over 1500 years has nothing to do with it . But our .04% of co2 does???
Sorry but the math just doesn't cut the mustard on that one .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

That's one scientific opinion, from a guy with an advanced degree in astrophysics (according to his Wiki).





Got it, thanks. All too clear what's going on here (once again). So much for trying to keep these threads about transiting the NWP.

as to piers Corbin well I personally have to go with the man with the degrees .

His explanations from several years ago do seem to be exactly what we are seeing happening . ( proof is in the pudding so to speak.)
as to the thread title I do try to steer it back that way posting about the ice conditions in the archipelago.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You have a "fast ice" fixation.

How did you miss more open water and melting of of your beloved fast ice.

You just told us (and cited a source) that Arctic ice distribution is primarily wind driven. But now you're arguing the additional open water is due to melting, presumably on account of AGW. Which is it? How does each factor interact? At this point you should be more than capable of explaining in your own words rather than just providing selective links.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

as to piers Corbin well I personally have to go with the man with the degrees .

Plenty of qualified scientists with degrees who arrive at different conclusions. That's to be expected (and healthy) with any science that remains uncertain. What's unhealthy are the attacks on people advancing some theories over others instead of challenging the theories themselves.

His explanations from several years ago do seem to be exactly what we are seeing happening . ( proof is in the pudding so to speak.)

Not sure we can draw any such conclusions as of yet, especially given that the cooling doesn't appear to be uniform around the world. The impacts of reduced solar output also remains highly controversial.

as to the thread title I do try to steer it back that way posting about the ice conditions in the archipelago.

Yes you do, as do others. But with all the focus of the impact of CC on the Arctic, we now have cruising yachts citing efforts to document the effects of AGW as part of their motivation to attempt the NWP. Please donate to our Patreon account and we'll send you updates a week early. So I suppose the linkage in these threads is inevitable. It's all good, so long as people aren't misled by non-expert, selective use of legitimate science to advance personal agendas.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

You just told us (and cited a source) that Arctic ice distribution is primarily wind driven. But now you're arguing the additional open water is due to melting, presumably on account of AGW. Which is it? How does each factor interact? At this point you should be more than capable of explaining in your own words rather than just providing selective links.

Fast ice is not wind driven, by definition.

"fast ice
ice that is anchored to the shore or ocean bottom, typically over shallow ocean shelves at continental margins; fast ice is defined by the fact that it does not move with the winds or currents."

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glossary/term/fast-ice

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Pete7

Watched a video last night of an ice breaker stuck just north of Svalbard unable to go further due to 3m of first year ice mixed with multi year ice that they didn't expect to find at this time of year.

No shortage of ice.

Pete

Had they made the attempt from Alaska they may have been more successful.



Also

The first half of July is generally the period of most rapid ice loss. As averaged over the 1981 to 2010 period, extent drops 80,000 square kilometers (30,900 square miles) per day in the 1981 to 2010 climatology over this period. In recent years, daily loss rates have been higher. This year, most days during the first half of July had rates exceeding 100,000 square kilometers (38,600 square miles) per day, which is similar to what has been observed over the past several years.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Pete this is just a posting to forestall the usual cherry picking by jack considering sources .

https://resett.no/2019/07/15/norsk-i...enn-forventet/

https://dagens.klassekampen.no/2019-...tanset-av-isen

Notoriously left leaning pro agw sources . They are reporting the same 3 meter thick sea ice at svalbard.

The amount and timing of ice surrounding Svalbard is HIGHLY dependent on ocean currents.

Drift ice, pack ice and fjord ice in Spitsbergen

The drift ice distribution in Spitsbergen is controlled by two oceanic currents: the West Spitsbergen Current keeps the west coast and, to a varying degree, the north coast ice free, while the colder East Spitsbergen Current brings a lot of drift ice from the Arctic Ocean to eastern Svalbard. The central west coast (Kongsfjord, Isfjord) is mostly accessible for smaller ships more or less year round; the inner branches are usually frozen, though. On the north coast, it chances from year to year. In some years, the whole north coast to Amsterdamøya in the west is blocked with dense drift ice. In other years, Sjuøyane or even Kvitøya are accessible in late June or early July. On the contrary, in 2014 the eastern part of Nordaustland did not become ice free at all.

The current that is slowly moving southwards on the eastern side of the archipelago brings a lot of drift ice well into the summer. The current is going around the south cape (Sørkapp) of Spitsbergen, then taking a northerly course again, following the southern west coast. As a result, the southern fjords like Hornsund and sometimes even Bellsund are often blocked by ice in the early summer, when the west coast further north is ice free. Some drift ice fields can drift further north and move around in Isfjord in July, but that does not happen too often.

Despite of these strong fluctuations from year to year, the current long-term trend is quite clear. It is now much easier to reach remote islands in northeastern Svalbard that used to be in ice most of the time as recently as 20 or even 10 years ago. In 2000, tour operators did not schedule circumnavigations earlier than mid July. By now, it is common to attempt circumnavigations in early July or even to start in late June, and chances for success are not that bad at all. Scientific data support this experience. Both the spatial and seasonal extent of sea ice and the average ice thickness have decreased. Whereas ice floes used to be 1.20 m thick in the Spitsbergen area in the past, they are rather near 0.80 m now.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Had they made the attempt from Alaska they may have been more successful.



Also



Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

in case you missed it they are Norwegian so your post there makes no sense

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

as to piers Corbin well I personally have to go with the man with the degrees .

OK - Piers Corbyn has an MSc, Mike Lockwood has a PhD. Lockwood's scientific papers are subject to peer-review, Corbyn's YouTube videos are not.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

in case you missed it they are Norwegian so your post there makes no sense

I am glad you picked up on that. Did you notice the lines showing median ice extent?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Fast ice is not wind driven, by definition.

"fast ice
ice that is anchored to the shore or ocean bottom, typically over shallow ocean shelves at continental margins; fast ice is defined by the fact that it does not move with the winds or currents."

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glossary/term/fast-ice

Understood. As is obvious melting this time of year, including a certain amount of fast ice. As is a longer-term warming trend which has been predictably amplified in the Arctic, resulting in some records being set. What's never been explained (or even acknowledged) is the graph presented by Judith Curry in other threads that show Arctic ice at a near all-time high in the middle part of the 20th century. Or other times -- pre-industrial age -- that the NWP opened up. In the absence of such historical comparisons, it's little wonder that so many have convinced themselves that the "evidence" points "only" to AGW.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

OK - Piers Corbyn has an MSc, Mike Lockwood has a PhD. Lockwood's scientific papers are subject to peer-review, Corbyn's YouTube videos are not.

What's more relevant is how many of Lockwood's peers who reviewed his work subscribe to Lockwood's same conclusions. And along the same lines, how many of those peers are willing to review works which reach contrary conclusions, like Corbyn's. This might be a more effective way to overcome institutional & personal bias (and/or the appearance thereof), regardless of which competing theories such efforts at objectivity it ultimately validates or dispels.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

What's more relevant is how many of Lockwood's peers who reviewed his work subscribe to Lockwood's same conclusions. And along the same lines, how many of those peers are willing to review works which reach contrary conclusions, like Corbyn's. This might be a more effective way to overcome institutional & personal bias (and/or the appearance thereof), regardless of which competing theories such efforts at objectivity it ultimately validates or dispels.

Corbyn does not submit to peer-review.

BTW - almost all of the flawed peer-review in climate science is from those who dismiss AGW.

Spencer and Braswell
Soon and Baliunas
The entire journal Pattern Recognition in Physics

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Exile

Understood. As is obvious melting this time of year, including a certain amount of fast ice. As is a longer-term warming trend which has been predictably amplified in the Arctic, resulting in some records being set. What's never been explained (or even acknowledged) is the graph presented by Judith Curry in other threads that show Arctic ice at a near all-time high in the middle part of the 20th century. Or other times -- pre-industrial age -- that the NWP opened up. In the absence of such historical comparisons, it's little wonder that so many have convinced themselves that the "evidence" points "only" to AGW.

And some two thousand years ago the Inuit culture evolved in the most northern part of Greenland which indicates there were open water during summer. Kudos to Curry but what she refers to "wicked problem" is not conclusive either way. To me more convincing of the climate change is the denialist claim of solar minimum cooling the earth instead of warming. So the question remains, why the the ice keeps smelting if we are in a solar minimum?
Besides why not to spare the coal untill we really need it when the next ice age begins?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Corbyn does not submit to peer-review.

BTW - almost all of the flawed peer-review in climate science is from those who dismiss AGW.

Spencer and Braswell
Soon and Baliunas
The entire journal Pattern Recognition in Physics

I don't understand what you mean by "flawed peer-review." The objectivity of the process itself (which many critics question) or the results in particular cases?

As you well know, there are few scientists who "dismiss AGW." The debate is instead about how much AGW is influencing warming.