Looks like we've caught up with last year

[XemaSab]

[XemaSab]

1. A lifelong walk to the same exact spot....

[Dogmudgeon]

2. There is more "noise" in the graph now

That's about what I would expect from a) thinner ice, and b) more changeable weather.

The anomaly still isn't too bad, but the very character of the ice has changed, and it's still difficult to quantify. The main concern I have is the warm, high-pressure cells that form over Siberia in the summer that pump warm air into the Arctic. For the last several years, they have been extremely strong, with air temperature anomalies upwards of 8-10C.

The Siberian and North American tundras are now extremely active contributors of greenhouse gases, perhaps more so than the contributions we humans make through burning organic fuels.

So we have to ask: "what have we started?"

--p!

[tom_paine]

3. A general (and perhaps oversimpified) observation

OK, check that...it's definitely an oversimplified observation from a climatological layperson, and given the "mega-complexity" of the climate, I don't know how relevant this is, but I will say it anyway.

It seems to me in a general way, there is a general relationship between massive above-normal yearly ice-melt and cooler springs the year after said massive ice-melt.

In 2002, when those massive ice shelfs in Antartica broke off, Larsen B, etc., spring 2003 was a very cool one in the N. Hemisphere, relatively-speaking.

With last years' massive artic ice melt, losing an area the size of California + Texas, it seems the spring of 2007-8 in the N. Hemisphere is also very cool.

Antarctica and the Arctic are connected via the global ocean conveyor currents, and it is a fact that most of the Earth's landmass is in the N. Hemisphere.

It's just a theory of mine, and I am certainly not married to it, but it certainly makes intuitive sense, like sweating temporarily cools your brow in the summer heat.

Anyone with some professional climatological knowledge want to chime in? I would certainly welcome the input.

[bhikkhu]

4. I have wondered the same thing, though I am probably no more knowledgable

The transition of water from liquid to solid is fairly energy intensive - that is, the transition to ice represents "coldness" chemically stored (removed from atmosphere), and the transition of ice to water represents "heat" absorbed.

If that makes any sense.

There are likely solid figures and so forth demonstrating the effects upon atmospheric climate of the melting freezing of surface ice, but I haven't seen them.

[XemaSab]

5. "Coldness" is not stored... heat is stored

and it's stored in water.

[bhikkhu]

7. I know its a screwy way to phrase it

But if you look at a closed system of air and water of a balanced temperature, to change that system to one of ice and water without subtracting energy you get colder water - ice - and warmer air. The transition point where water turns to ice will be reflected by a more rapid change in air temperature.

[Viking12]

6. Just a smidge behind last year

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html