Complete hype. I don't know where to begin. Islands of older ice amidst newer ice, being stressed and strained, and breaking up, is not news. This would be akin to saying "Fissure in Iceland!" - alluding to a plate tectonics analogy.

In some respects the story of this ice island seems inconsequential. However, it also illustrates how quickly sea ice is moving.

As most people realize, arctic sea ice suffered a dramatic reduction this past year. The reduction was much greater than could be explained by warming alone. Therefore, there must be other mechanisms at work that are somehow facilitating the reduction.

One theory is that the currents have become stronger for some reason and are pushing sea ice out of the arctic faster. However, I'd like to point out that because the sea ice is melting, the ice water mixture may be much more fluid than before and therefore more responsive to the existing currents. Not saying that the currents are not enhanced. Just pointing out that even without enhanced currents it could be possible for the ice to move quicker.

Also, I will contend that the behavior of the arctic sea ice the past 2 years is probably representative of the near term future. That is sea ice will continue to retreat at its accelerated rate.

Sea Ice is an important part of the climate. It reflects sunlight during the summer and also keeps humidity (water vapor) levels down. Water Vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. So, the reduction of sea ice provides 2 feedback mechanisms for enhanced warming.

What does this mean?

Going forward Global Warming of the Northern Hemisphere will be enhanced compared to the past 30 years.

No mention of the winds we've been reading about up there this summer.I wonder if this would be the reason it has moved so far. Also, a higher ground speed would certainly be a factor if part of it ran aground, causing the split. It surely looks close to that island where it split.

Chris,

It does not appear from the pictures that the ice island ran aground; it is still some two or three miles from shore at the time it split in two. Still, this does not rule out the possibility that it may have ran aground on a shallow spot in the water. I don't know the topography of the sea floor in that part of the Arctic. The sea floor would have to be less than 25-35 meters deep since the ice island is between 30 and 40 meters thick.

So far as winds go, they did play some role according to the site linked in the BBC article.

http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/app/WsvPageDsp.cfm?id=11835&Lang=eng#current

The ice island apparently calved off from the Ayles Ice Shelf because of anomalously warmer temperatures and persistent offshore or along shore winds. The sea ice that normally presses along the north coast of Ellesmere Island, even in summer, was replaced by an open water lead in the days leading up the August 13th 2005, which allowed the shelf to slip into the water and drift rapidly to the west.

This site also gives more maps like the ones Brett posted and some background information and analysis.

As an aside.... what will people say if The artic has a record maximum ice extent this winter? Highly unlikely but possible?

This topic splices in nicely with the topic from October 5 about polar melting.

An interesting discussion during that thread involved solar irradience. The NASA chart is found at

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif

This chart shows solar irradience reaching current levels around 1950. If you average out the saw-tooth pattern created by the sunspot pattern, irradience is basically flat since 1950.

This created two opposed views (as usual.) Because the line is flat since 1950 it is taken by alarmists to show irradience can't be used to explain recent warming. However, because irradience reached unprecidented heights in 1950, and stayed at those heights, deniers use the same data to say the seas are gradually warming due to irradience. (When you turn up the heat it takes time for the teapot to heat up on the stove.)

In order to see how the seas actually responded I sought a paper with AMO and PDO graphs in it

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/More_on_The_Great_Pacific_Climate_Shift_and_the_Relationship_of_Oceans_on_Global

Two things became apparent. First, there is no obvious corralation between the graphs descibing irradience and the AMO. In fact, any scientist who can figure out the connection (for it seems one must exist) deserves an award.

Second, because both graphs are at high levels, their combined effects likely contribute to the melting at the pole.

The degree of freezing that occurs this winter ought be interesting to watch, for I've heard La Ninas tend to lock the cold up at the poles, which might increase the ice pack.

On a lighter note: Nasa finally concedes sun has some effect on climate
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17460
Also some support for Mr Durkin' assertion's (Global Warming Swindle) by a British judge:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm
Wonder if because it was shown on mainstrain news if it will have major impact?

Vincent,

As an aside.... what will people say if The artic has a record maximum ice extent this winter? Highly unlikely but possible?

I'd say it must have been an awfully cold fall and winter in the Arctic, and I would be very surprised, but I would also say "let's see if it comes close to happening again next year." One year can be an aberration. Two years isn't necessarily a trend, but it does usually mean that there's something going on.

Caleb mentions that he's heard that La Ninas tend to lock cold up at the poles, which might increase the ice pack.

It seems this may have been true in the freezing season after 1988-1989, when we had the last strong La Nina. The max extent of the Arctic sea ice in 1990 was noticeably grater than the previous year, but was lower again the next year. On the other hand, sea ice minima were declining through that entire period. There were also La Ninas around 1995 and 2000, but again they didn't seem to produce a lasting effect.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg

Caleb,

I'd like to see the Icecap info on the AMO and PDO, but the link you gave doesn't seem to want to open for me. Did the last part of the url get cut off?

Vincent,

The sun obviously can have an impact on climate as it has in the past. However, the reason for the alarm over the global warming since 1975 is that there has been no significant trend in solar irradiance since the 1950s. If anything, over the last 20 years, the trend in solar irradiance has been in the wrong direction.

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

Also, on a lighter note, I agree with the judge on 2 the points listed in the link. However, why are only 3 points listed when there are supposedly 9?

Here are some links on polar bear drownings.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB113452435089621905-vnekw47PQGtDyf3iv5XEN71_o5I_20061214.html

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1367342006

I'm not usually the one to bring up these things, but the delayed freezing in the Arctic has led to a record negative sea ice anomaly.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg

Or for a more detailed view (click on image to zoom in):

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg

This isn't very surprising considering the record low extent last month and the resulting higher SSTs. It looks like Cryosphere is going to have to increase the range of the y-axis on these graphs soon. They had to do the same thing last month when Antarctic sea ice surpassed 16 million km.

Andrew, I checked out your bottom link about the polar bears and there's not much info there. They could have been blown out farther than normal by the wind, we don't know how or why they ended up there. Blaming global warming right off the bat is a stretch.
Here's a link with 11 of Al's "illusions".
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth

Travis,

Sorry. The correct link, (without the ending chopped off,) is:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/More_on_The_Great_Pacific_Climate_Shift_and_the_Relationship_of_Oceans_on_Global_Temperatures.pdf

The artical takes a denier slant, but the charts and graphs are accurate, I think.

The one graph which might suffer, under peer review, combines the AMO and the PDO. The devil is in the details, and, because the Pacific is so much larger than the Atlantic, I am sure some might object to a simple averaging of the two graphs. However the combination does show a strong corralation with the updated graph of surface temperatures.

Thanks for the links to the graphs showing the amount of arctic sea ice.

Thanks for the link, Caleb!

Pretty strong data, and good correlation in the graphs as one would expect (having said that, I wish the Arctic graph at the end went past 1995). I'm just not entirely sure about all of his conclusions. He makes a short statement about the non-correlation with CO2 levels (which I believe entirely...but that's another story), but doesn't present the corresponding graph, nor does he provide any explanation for the claim aside from referencing a study I don't have access to.

I might as well explain my non-surprise at the lack of CO2 correlation:

I have no doubts that natural forcing is the primary driver of climate. Changes in solar activity, earth's orbit, and ocean oscillations will (at this point) always have a bigger impact on global climate than we will. They will continue in their cycles, which in the short term explains the lack of strong correlation between CO2 and absolute global temperatures for the past 150 years. CO2 levels increase, but the global temperature still varies depending on a myriad of natural climactic factors. Thus even a simple temperature anomaly graph may not be enough to accurately describe the relationship between CO2 and global temperatures if it is not done in the context of natural variabilities.

On the other hand, increasing CO2 levels could be altering the characteristics of the AMO and PDO. For instance, the AMO has been settling at a warmer maximum for each subsequent cycle (graph, page 8), and the second minimum is much shorter than the first. The mean anomaly for the latest positive PDO period also seems to have a higher and longer positive 5-year mean (as I assume the black line represents) than the previous period from the 1920s through the 1940s (graph, page 2).

On the other hand, it is hard to make more than a speculative argument based on that particular graph because we don't see even two complete cycles worth of data. Yet I think this is the kind of analysis that must be done in order to accurately describe the relationship between CO2 and global temps. If it were done on a year-to-year basis over the course of the last century, I think we have enough data to establish whether or not such a correlation exists.

Thoughts?