No 'tipping point' for Arctic sea ice

[BethesdaWX]

Seems to confirm what stellarfun was saying about it being frozen in winter and them coming up through some thinner areas in the ice. It's a little unclear though.

I think stellarfun and I were arguing different things, which after reading it over, I can see where I diverged....I actually agree with him in regards to the surfacing of the submarine This doesn't change the 3 ft max in the 1950's.

[BethesdaWX]

Sure you can if you know what you're doing.

I don't think they do though Arctic temps were cooling significantly from mid 1940's thru mid 1970's, then had another huge spike from 1993, and they are Still warming today.

[stellarfun]

caption: USS Skate surfaced in ice near the North Pole 1959 Photo courtesy of Ray Fritz

Ray Fritz was aboard the USS Skate SSN-578 that historic day in March of 1959. ........

"I grew up in upstate New York farm country," Fritz says. "It was like New York. Ice everywhere. A huge expanse of it, and the sun was really low on the horizon." He says they all had an opportunity to go out when the sub surfaced through the ice. Some of us made movies out on the ice, others just walked around. .. ," Fritz remembers.

Unknownst to Fritz, while one chapter in sub-arctic navigation was on the forefront, another was coming to a close. The ashes of polar explorer Sir George Hubert Wilkins were scattered across the ice during a candlelit ceremony.

Continue reading on Examiner.com: Submarine veteran remembers first polar surface - Charlotte Military News | Examiner.com http://www.examiner....3#ixzz1Eq2GZmQj

So someone with no ice to grind with regard to climate change.

Fritz appears in an incomplete crew list, but not Hester.

http://www.hullnumbe....php?cm=SSN-578

Polyanyas do not exist near the pole in winter so new tactics were required for a winter operation. Taking their clue from beluga whales, the sub was modified and tactics for winter arctic operations were developed during the 2nd cruise discussed. During this trip the USS Skate became the 1st ship to surface at the North Pole by breaking through the relatively thin ice that occurs when ice flows crack forming "leads". In the winter these leads immediately start to re-freeze but the ice remains thin enough for a sub (modified for this task) to break through for over a week.

From a review of the book "Surface at the Pole"

[BethesdaWX]

How does this differ from what I posted earlier? Its basically restating what was said.

[skierinvermont]

How does this differ from what I posted earlier? Its basically restating what was said.

The obvious implication of you posting an image of a sub surfaced at the north pole in winter 1959 with your statement "North Pole March 1959... Gee!"

was that somehow the picture implied that it was warm. In reality it implies nothing of the sort. As we can see from other pictures of the trip, the north pole was solidly frozen and the first picture you posted was water that had been cleared by the sub.

So you may no longer be arguing that the picture you posted meant that it was warm, but that was clearly what you were originally implying with your statement "North Pole March 1959... Gee!" followed by a picture of a sub and some open water.

You can deny that you were implying that it was warm, but everybody would know you were lying.

[BethesdaWX]

No, it was warm, and there was thin ice...but it had been cooling for over a decade....arctic temps cooled for 30yrs (mid 1940's thru 1970's)

Depends which picture it is, he cherry-picked a few of them that still showed thin Ice pack.......When the avg Ice thickness at the N pole is 6-8 feet, and you see this, it don't cut it, sorry dude.

Wait, are we talking about subs surfacing through ice or the ice surrounding the subs? I'm getting confused. Anyway...

March

Other pictures of the North Pole in various instances...

[skierinvermont]

No, it was warm, and there was thin ice...but it had been cooling for over a decade....arctic temps cooled for 30yrs (mid 1940's thru 1970's)

Depends which picture it is, he cherry-picked a few of them that still showed thin Ice pack.......When the avg Ice thickness at the N pole is 6-8 feet, and you see this, it don't cut it, sorry dude.

Wait, are we talking about subs surfacing through ice or the ice surrounding the subs? I'm getting confused. Anyway...

March

Other pictures of the North Pole in various instances...

Well then you are wrong, as stellfun has already explained. The open ice in that picture was formed by the sub maneuvering. It is cold enough up there in winter that any open water quickly freezes.

Regardless, it certainly doesn't prove that the arctic was warm or that there was less ice. Even if it surfaced through a patch of no ice, it would have just been two ice flows that were separated by wind before quickly refreezing in between.

[BethesdaWX]

Well then you are wrong, as stellfun has already explained. The open ice in that picture was formed by the sub maneuvering. It is cold enough up there in winter that any open water quickly freezes..

No, it was a break in the ice, the sub cannot create 100yrds of open ice width wise from the sub.

Their quote says, of Stellarfuns picture:

“the Skate found open water both in the summer and following winter. We surfaced near the North Pole in the winter through thin ice less than 2 feet thick. The ice moves from Alaska to Iceland and the wind and tides causes open water as the ice breaks up. The Ice at the polar ice cap is an average of 6-8 feet thick, but with the wind and tides the ice will crack and open into large polynyas (areas of open water), these areas will refreeze over with thin ice. We had sonar equipment that would find these open or thin areas to come up through, thus limiting any damage to the submarine. The ice would also close in and cover these areas crushing together making large ice ridges both above and below the water. We came up through a very large opening in 1958 that was 1/2 mile long and 200 yards wide. The wind came up and closed the opening within 2 hours. On both trips we were able to find open water. We were not able to surface through ice thicker than 3 feet."

Likely, it being March, and arctic temps being quite warm, Ice was likely thin.

[skierinvermont]

Well either way, and I don't really care, they are caused by wind and have nothing to do with temps.

[BethesdaWX]

Well either way, and I don't really care, they are caused by wind and have nothing to do with temps.

I'm not asking you if you care, but that is not true.

It was 3 things: Warm +AMO waters, Warm Temperatures, and unfavorable wind patterns, today is no different. -PDO/+AMO sucks for arctic ice, crazy wind patterns commence during these times of rapid change.

Skier, when the AMO goes cold sometime in the next decade, what do you think will happen in the arctic? I want to know this for future reference.

[skierinvermont]

I'm not asking you if you care, but that is not true.

It was 3 things: Warm +AMO waters, Warm Temperatures, and unfavorable wind patterns, today is no different. -PDO/+AMO sucks for arctic ice, crazy wind patterns commence during these times of rapid change.

Skier, when the AMO goes cold sometime in the next decade, what do you think will happen in the arctic? I want to know this for future reference.

Your post is irrelevant to whether a sub surfacing = warm arctic. The sub surfaced between ice that was blown apart by the wind. This could happen whether the arctic were brutally cold, or brutally warm. It says nothing of temperature.

I think the arctic might stabilize around 2008/2009/2010 levels for a while but as long as the earth keeps warming due to AGW, it will decline further over the next 30 years.

[stellarfun]

Bethesda, I don't care about pictures of subs at the North Pole in May or June or July or August with open water, I expect that there may be open water at the Pole during that time of year.

I am interested in subs at the North Pole in March with open water, which is peak ice time for the Arctic.

The only picture of a sub being at the Pole in March are those of the USS Skate.

To lend support to the open water proposition, you linked to Watts who linked to John Daly.

Daly seems to be the original source for the quote in an email from a seaman named Hester.

http://www.john-daly...olar/arctic.htm

I can't find Hester on a crew roister, but perhaps he was on the Skate.

But for you, Watts, and Daly, there was a better source for information about the Skate's trip to the Pole: a book written by her commanding officer.

Why not buy the book?

http://www.amazon.co...98554561&sr=8-3

Well, why buy the book if it doesn't support your argument that there is naturally occurring open water at the Pole in March?

So I'll put my money on what the commanding officer of the Skate says with respect to conditions at the Pole and the capabilities of his submarine.

[Clifford]

The point is that they took subs to the North Pole because they couldn't get there with an ordinary ship.

When we think of an ice sheet, that isn't a good representation of the actual ice. The North Pole is pummelled by polar storms that tears up the ice, piling it into mounds, and leaving patches of open water.

In recent history, there has not been an "ice shelf" covering the Arctic Ocean that one would expect to slowly build and expand. Rather we have sea ice that gets torn to bits every summer, and perhaps even torn up in the winter too.

One of the papers that I cited earlier suggested that back in the 90's that the Arctic Storms were getting more severe. If there is an effect of warming on sea ice, I'd look at the severity of the polar storms.

It was noted in the sub records that the arctic had been particularly stormy when they made their trek north in the 50's. And most of the cruising was underwater because of the ice.

In fact, I saw notes of a failed Diesel sub expedition because they couldn't surface frequently enough.

[Hambone]

Your post is irrelevant to whether a sub surfacing = warm arctic. The sub surfaced between ice that was blown apart by the wind. This could happen whether the arctic were brutally cold, or brutally warm. It says nothing of temperature.

I think the arctic might stabilize around 2008/2009/2010 levels for a while but as long as the earth keeps warming due to AGW, it will decline further over the next 30 years.

The earth is alway warming or cooling. It has been warming since the last ice age. It was as warm or warmer during the MWP. Give us the smoking gun that AGW is the primary driver. You can't, We may never be able to resolve this because all money goes to support the liberal agenda and not enough goes to research the sun, oceans etc.

As a skeptic, it is not my intent to risk the planet. It is my position to remove the politics and find a truly balanced analysis of the situation.

Prove to me that AGW is real and I'll support drastic efforts to affect a cure.

That hasn't happened, so I will fight efforts to destroy our economy and industry in support of a liberal agenda, without proven science.

[stellarfun]

The earth is alway warming or cooling. It has been warming since the last ice age. It was as warm or warmer during the MWP. Give us the smoking gun that AGW is the primary driver. You can't, We may never be able to resolve this because all money goes to support the liberal agenda and not enough goes to research the sun, oceans etc.

As a skeptic, it is not my intent to risk the planet. It is my position to remove the politics and find a truly balanced analysis of the situation.

Prove to me that AGW is real and I'll support drastic efforts to affect a cure.

That hasn't happened, so I will fight efforts to destroy our economy and industry in support of a liberal agenda, without proven science.

If the earth has been warming since the last Ice Age. as you state, and if this warming is natural and not anthropogenic, would you be in favor of spending money to mitigate the effects of continued warming? Yes, or no. Would you be in favor of taking steps to slowing the rate of natural warming? Yes, or no.

If your answer to the first question was no, would you favor taking steps to mitigate the effects of earthquakes in a seismically active area, or should people just move out?

Are you in favor of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers currently spending $1.5 million to chop down trees near the government built levees along the Blackstone River basin to reduce the possibility of the levees failing? Should the Federal government have built these levess in the first place?

[Clifford]

If the earth has been warming since the last Ice Age. as you state, and if this warming is natural and not anthropogenic, would you be in favor of spending money to mitigate the effects of continued warming? Yes, or no. Would you be in favor of taking steps to slowing the rate of natural warming? Yes, or no.

If we had a Solar driven climate change, then there would be very little we could do about it here on the surface of the earth.

There are theories that over the next billion or few billion years that the sun will get significantly hotter to the point where it could cause significant damage to the earth. Certainly changes over the course of a billion years will creep in so slowly that the rate of change will be nearly undetectable (although it could happen in bursts).

If such a gradual creep in solar output should happen, I would hope that future humans will take actions to prevent it from destroying the planet, including space based climate mitigation.

However, over the last few million years, the overall trend seems to be more of a cooling trend than a warming trend.

One would have to ask if today's climate is "optimum", although change is always troubling. How the world would be different today if our ancestors had chosen the climate 15 to 20 thousand years ago as the "optimum", and had been able to take the necessary actions to prevent the extreme temperature change and sea level rise that occurred at the beginning of the Holocene.

I have no doubt that the next generation of climate scientists will be climate engineers, tasked with modifying the climate rather than just studying it. And there will be both winners and losers with such actions.

If your answer to the first question was no, would you favor taking steps to mitigate the effects of earthquakes in a seismically active area, or should people just move out?

Certainly Earthquakes are a natural part of the Earth. It is unclear if would be able to alter them, although it certainly is reasonable to use earthquake tolerant construction techniques in areas that are subject to earthquakes, or predicted to be subject to earthquakes.

In the USA, the West Coast sea level rise has been significantly less than the East Coast sea level rise, in part due to earthquakes and seismic activity.

And there may be other reasons why seismic activity as part of planetary evolution might not be bad.

Are you in favor of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers currently spending $1.5 million to chop down trees near the government built levees along the Blackstone River basin to reduce the possibility of the levees failing? Should the Federal government have built these levess in the first place?

Levies are certainly an East Coast thing and not a West Coast thing.

I would argue that they should not be maintained in rural communities, but rather the rural communities should be designed to deal with river level fluctuations.

It might be more difficult for Urban communities to deal with river level fluctuations, so those are different. And, new construction in rural communities as well as suburban spread... should also be flood tolerant.

I'm surprised they are removing trees... I thought trees along rivers were good, and that the trees help stabilize the soil. But, perhaps the question is whether they wish to speed up the water flow, or slow it down.

Now, I can't say that the West doesn't have flood control. We do... just not in the form of levies, and the methods here are still controversial.

The levies are just another method of the human attempt to conquer nature, rather than live in harmony with nature. And the needs to do so are driven in part by the massive urbanization, especially in areas that are prone to damage by natural forces.

I would also have to ask why the Federal Government should be tasked with what is so obviously a local construction project.

[stellarfun]

If we had a Solar driven climate change, then there would be very little we could do about it here on the surface of the earth.

There are theories that over the next billion or few billion years that the sun will get significantly hotter to the point where it could cause significant damage to the earth. Certainly changes over the course of a billion years will creep in so slowly that the rate of change will be nearly undetectable (although it could happen in bursts).

If such a gradual creep in solar output should happen, I would hope that future humans will take actions to prevent it from destroying the planet, including space based climate mitigation.

However, over the last few million years, the overall trend seems to be more of a cooling trend than a warming trend.

One would have to ask if today's climate is "optimum", although change is always troubling. How the world would be different today if our ancestors had chosen the climate 15 to 20 thousand years ago as the "optimum", and had been able to take the necessary actions to prevent the extreme temperature change and sea level rise that occurred at the beginning of the Holocene.

I have no doubt that the next generation of climate scientists will be climate engineers, tasked with modifying the climate rather than just studying it. And there will be both winners and losers with such actions.

Certainly Earthquakes are a natural part of the Earth. It is unclear if would be able to alter them, although it certainly is reasonable to use earthquake tolerant construction techniques in areas that are subject to earthquakes, or predicted to be subject to earthquakes.

In the USA, the West Coast sea level rise has been significantly less than the East Coast sea level rise, in part due to earthquakes and seismic activity.

And there may be other reasons why seismic activity as part of planetary evolution might not be bad.

Levies are certainly an East Coast thing and not a West Coast thing.

I would argue that they should not be maintained in rural communities, but rather the rural communities should be designed to deal with river level fluctuations.

It might be more difficult for Urban communities to deal with river level fluctuations, so those are different. And, new construction in rural communities as well as suburban spread... should also be flood tolerant.

I'm surprised they are removing trees... I thought trees along rivers were good, and that the trees help stabilize the soil. But, perhaps the question is whether they wish to speed up the water flow, or slow it down.

Now, I can't say that the West doesn't have flood control. We do... just not in the form of levies, and the methods here are still controversial.

The levies are just another method of the human attempt to conquer nature, rather than live in harmony with nature. And the needs to do so are driven in part by the massive urbanization, especially in areas that are prone to damage by natural forces.

I would also have to ask why the Federal Government should be tasked with what is so obviously a local construction project.

How old are you?

> 1,100 miles of levees in just one system in California.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramento_%E2%80%93_San_Joaquin_River_Delta

> Part of the levee system protecting Portland

The Sauvie Island Flood Damage Reduction System includes 18 miles of levee along the Columbia River (3.2 miles), Willamette River (2.8 miles),

Multnomah Channel (7.0 miles), and Sturgeon and Steelman Lakes (5.1 miles). The system also includes four tide boxes and a pumping station. The system protects over 12,000 acres of primarily agricultural lands.

Why should taxpayers elsewhere in the U.S. subsidize the cost of your electricity?

Because BPA markets energy and transmission at cost, rather than at market prices, it has traditionally provided some of the lowest cost electricity in the nation. This low-cost power has been a cornerstone of the Northwest economy, stimulating growth and new jobs.

(For those elsewhere, BPA is Bonneville Power Administration.)

^^^^ This is all flood control.

Maybe, the people should have just been moved out.

[Clifford]

(sorry for the off topic police )

I didn't say that we didn't have any dams. And, some of the dams on the Columbia river were built in the 30's to facilitate interstate commerce. Transportation methods have changed since them, but they still provide a vital role in interstate commerce.

If we're looking at "renewable energy", one can not beat the power generation capacity of dams. But, the Dalles Dam, for example, destroyed one of the oldest communities in North America. And there is constant debate about fish habitat. If things were different, many of these dams just wouldn't be built today.

Capital costs, capital improvement costs, distribution costs, and maintenance costs are all built into the cost of our power. The major difference is that the capital costs are covered by government bonds rather than private banks, and the payoff time is longer than one might imagine.

And, I do believe that private companies should not be given monopolies over our utilities.

Do your electricity rates include the cost of water management and flood control?

As far as Sauvie Island...

Yes, you're right.

Should the government be required to forever maintain flood control on an island at the junction of two major rivers, and only a few feet above sea level? I'm not sure? I do think it should be a local issue. And, half of the island is a wildlife refuge. Should we pretend to improve upon Nature? I would hope land-use laws prevent urbanization and suburbanization of the area.

Part of what flood management does is it deprives the land of periodic silt deposits.

It also tends to channel the river water into tall narrow channels which can propagate and exacerbate the flooding problems.

I've never been in a major flood, but every couple of years, my parent's creek overflows its banks, up maybe 100 yards from the creekbed. Yet, it doesn't cause any major harm. The grass grows back when the water recedes.

Although, perhaps spring floods are different from summer floods.

I have seen larger rivers such as the Willamette river flooding. I'm sure it is traumatic for those living in the flood plains. But, they can design their lifestyle to deal with it should they choose to live in and farm a flood plain.

There is a section of Springfield off of South 2^nd street that is built in a flood plain. It was supposed to all be mobile homes. But, over time, the homes have become more and more built-in.

What should society's liability be to those individuals who moved trailer houses into a flood plain, then slowly took the wheels off and upgraded them to doublewides... still in the flood plain?