Hudson Bay Winter of 2011-2012 Tracking Thread

[The_Global_Warmer]

http://dynaweb.cis.e...zey=600〈=en

Shows a very strong trend for early December ice extent - in spite of the noise.

Very powerful signal of uneven energy distribution going on the area during this period. Temperatures alone have not risen enough to account for the rise in heat content of the Hudson bay. this also doesn't account for an even more important factor. Just like with the arctc sea ice. Many who want to cover up the "climate" change" excuse the period where the water is packed with to much heat to grow ice, even in the face of no sun. by saying "yup, the ice is back to normal in November". This is evident with the Kara sea ice hole we saw in October. We reach a certain point where the heat is forced out by the lack of thermal radiation. raditional cooling takes over 24/7 like finally spilling the bottle. It took until the Sun was emitting next to nothing for the Northern Hudson to grow ice and then it still wasn't good enough. With temps well below frezing for a longer period.

This clearly indicated a lot more heat being stored in the Bay during the ice free period. November averaged -3 to -8C.

[dabize]

Very powerful signal of uneven energy distribution going on the area during this period. Temperatures alone have not risen enough to account for the rise in heat content of the Hudson bay. this also doesn't account for an even more important factor. Just like with the arctc sea ice. Many who want to cover up the "climate" change" excuse the period where the water is packed with to much heat to grow ice, even in the face of no sun. by saying "yup, the ice is back to normal in November". This is evident with the Kara sea ice hole we saw in October. We reach a certain point where the heat is forced out by the lack of thermal radiation. raditional cooling takes over 24/7 like finally spilling the bottle. It took until the Sun was emitting next to nothing for the Northern Hudson to grow ice and then it still wasn't good enough. With temps well below frezing for a longer period.

This clearly indicated a lot more heat being stored in the Bay during the ice free period. November averaged -3 to -8C.

The Western Kara has shown a very definite tendency to later freezup over the past 30 years - much more so than HB, it seems to me.

Seeing as the Western Kara is at the tail end of the main tropical inflow to the Arctic, and that HB is isolated, this is very likely due in part to changes in waterborne heating patterns with AGW.

I was looking at the raw ice extent cycles since 1979 for HB, which to my untrained eye, did not show nearly as much progression as the Western Kara has......hence my comment above.

[tacoman25]

explain your self in detail please?

I already have. I'm just not sure how meaningful Hudson Bay is as a global climate indicator. As is being demonstrated this year vs. last year, the state of the NAO in late fall/early winter plays a huge role in how quickly it freezes over. And if you read dabize's comment that I was responding to, he was basically saying the same thing.

[tacoman25]

This clearly indicated a lot more heat being stored in the Bay during the ice free period. November averaged -3 to -8C.

The Western Kara has shown a very definite tendency to later freezup over the past 30 years - much more so than HB, it seems to me.

Seeing as the Western Kara is at the tail end of the main tropical inflow to the Arctic, and that HB is isolated, this is very likely due in part to changes in waterborne heating patterns with AGW.

I was looking at the raw ice extent cycles since 1979 for HB, which to my untrained eye, did not show nearly as much progression as the Western Kara has......hence my comment above.

Or it could be in large part due to natural oceanic cycles, as there was -AMO from 1979 -1995, and then a flip to +AMO.

[skierinvermont]

And this is exactly why I questioned how relevant it is to climate change.

Just because the HB doesn't store a lot of heat and there is a lot of yr-yr variability due to weather doesn't mean it is a poor indicator of climate change.

It is an excellent indicator of climate change. Despite the yr-yr variability the long-term trend has been steadily and exceptionally downwards in response to the rapid warming of the arctic.

[tacoman25]

Just because the HB doesn't store a lot of heat and there is a lot of yr-yr variability due to weather doesn't mean it is a poor indicator of climate change.

It is an excellent indicator of climate change. Despite the yr-yr variability the long-term trend has been steadily and exceptionally downwards in response to the rapid warming of the arctic.

There are much better ones, that are less influenced by regional weather patterns.

[dabize]

Or it could be in large part due to natural oceanic cycles, as there was -AMO from 1979 -1995, and then a flip to +AMO.

Except that the failure of the West Kara to freeze started showing up in the mid '80s.

[tacoman25]

Except that the failure of the West Kara to freeze started showing up in the mid '80s.

Do you have a graph so we can see this?

[dabize]

Do you have a graph so we can see this?

Go to the Arctic Ice extent site (National Snow and Ice Center, I think) that you, Friv and many others are always linking.

Inspect the historical record.

I did that and the changes in the Western Kara caught my eye as being particularly marked.

It is also (like HB and the Baltic) shallow and very fresh due to drainage from the big Siberian rivers (Ob/Irtysh, Yenisey)

[TerryM]

Conditions still look far different than the norm.

[The_Global_Warmer]

No one is disputing that local factors play the largest role in the Hudson's freeze over date. That is a given. Local factors play that role in any area that there is ice. What has happened is that Climate Change is taking place causing a rapid arctic climate shift. The Bay is in the arctic and both the sub arctic. The most affected region of the world from climate change is the arctic because of the massive increase in solar energy caused by the loss of arctic sea ice. I think we all agree on the nature of the change. One can not deny present reality. We are not here to debate the cause.

During peak solar insolation the Hudson Bay is getting more and more sun over less and less ice. It's overall impact is hard to quantify this far.

And is freezing up slower and later than before.

[TerryM]

Friv.

Interesting that the trend line is even steeper in November than June/July - Proves your point that the increasing summer heat is being retained.

Even in a shallow body, unaffected by Atlantic currents, increasing summer insolation due to albido effects is enough to measurably retard winter freeze up,

Extrapolating this over the Arctic would indicate that even without other factors coming into play, lower ice extent alone will retard ice formation the following fall. Add the changes in MTI and ice volume and we are faced with the prospect of an ice free Arctic summer in the not too distant future.

[WeatherRusty]

Friv.

Interesting that the trend line is even steeper in November than June/July - Proves your point that the increasing summer heat is being retained.

Even in a shallow body, unaffected by Atlantic currents, increasing summer insolation due to albido effects is enough to measurably retard winter freeze up,

Extrapolating this over the Arctic would indicate that even without other factors coming into play, lower ice extent alone will retard ice formation the following fall. Add the changes in MTI and ice volume and we are faced with the prospect of an ice free Arctic summer in the not too distant future.

But you know what skeptics will say if and when the rate of arctic sea loss slows due to natural variability. Maybe Hudson Bay, being largely isolated from much of the same natural variability, will display characteristic changes unique to the background warming trend?

P.S.

Icy matters are not my strength in these discussions.

[The_Global_Warmer]

There is definitely a correlation. This may not be a lot in a direct sense. The Max Solar output where the Hudson is on a yearly level is in the 420 W/M2 range if it was clear all year. At the Summer Solstice the Sun us above the horizon for a little over 19-20 hours per day on the North shores of the Bay. And around 17 on the south shores. The main point is. This region gets more energy during this period than any other time of the year So the ice is now thinning out earlier during peak solar insolation.

This does not account for clouds or anything in the way of max insolation. But on average the extra insolation per year during this period goes up by default.

This is pretty obvious when SST anomalies in the far SE area were 7-10C above normal at one point. And well above normal for most of the summer. The central to North central part of the bay was cooler. This part of the bay is up to 300 meters seep with a decently wide channel leading out to colder waters in the Atlantic and Arctic, my guess is waters come from there to here, which is part of why the salinity in the northern third is so much higher and the southern part of the bay is much much lower.

For the next week or two the conditons around the bay will be near normal cold and snowy so I would expect ice to keep growing fast for now.

[Jonger]

Conditions still look far different than the norm.

How do you define normal? In a period of non glaciation... What is normal. Normal to me are declines in glaciers and gradual earth temp rise. 1 degree over 100 years is normal.

[TerryM]

Jong

'How do you define normal? In a period of non glaciation... What is normal. Normal to me are declines in glaciers and gradual earth temp rise. 1 degree over 100 years is normal.

So you believe that temperatures are now 10 degrees warmer than the Viking Era?

Or is it that we'll die out as a species in 1000 years?

Think first - then type

BTW What is a 'period of non glaciation'

[tacoman25]

Jong

'How do you define normal? In a period of non glaciation... What is normal. Normal to me are declines in glaciers and gradual earth temp rise. 1 degree over 100 years is normal.

So you believe that temperatures are now 10 degrees warmer than the Viking Era?

Or is it that we'll die out as a species in 1000 years?

Think first - then type

BTW What is a 'period of non glaciation'

Nothing in his/her post indicated this. Just because temperatures warmed 1 degree in 100 years during a period of non-glaciation does not mean he/she believes temperatures have warmed 10 degrees over the last 1000 years. That is a silly assumption on your part.

[skierinvermont]

There are much better ones, that are less influenced by regional weather patterns.

Just because a phenomenon is heavily influenced by regional weather patterns in the short-term doesn't mean it is a poor indicator in the long-run.

In the long-run, the decline of sea ice in the Hudson Bay is one of the most dramatic symptoms of climate change.

[tacoman25]

Go to the Arctic Ice extent site (National Snow and Ice Center, I think) that you, Friv and many others are always linking.

Inspect the historical record.

I did that and the changes in the Western Kara caught my eye as being particularly marked.

It is also (like HB and the Baltic) shallow and very fresh due to drainage from the big Siberian rivers (Ob/Irtysh, Yenisey)

It has accelerated since the mid 1990s, as I suspected. This is the overall picture with Arctic ice/temperatures that many people fail to acknowledge...despite the globe warming for decades, the Arctic temps/ice didn't really start seeing major changes until after the AMO flip of the mid 1990s.

[tacoman25]

Just because a phenomenon is heavily influenced by regional weather patterns in the short-term doesn't mean it is a poor indicator in the long-run.

In the long-run, the decline of sea ice in the Hudson Bay is one of the most dramatic symptoms of climate change.

Can you provide statistical proof of this statement?

Also, there is no doubt this thread was started in part because of the record late freeze over of HB last year...which was undoubtedly mostly due to the record early season west based -NAO. I see much less value in following Hudson Bay year to year than following Arctic ice overall, in relation to climate change.

[skierinvermont]

Can you provide statistical proof of this statement?

The freeze by date has shifted about 4 weeks later in the long-run. It's subjective, but that is pretty dramatic.

[tacoman25]

The freeze by date has shifted about 4 weeks later in the long-run. It's subjective, but that is pretty dramatic.

From when to when? How are you defining long run?

[SVT450R]

Nice one day gain.

[skierinvermont]

From when to when? How are you defining long run?

The long term trend from 1970-2002 was 2-3 weeks later depending on location. It's declined another 1-2 weeks since then.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/40513104

[tacoman25]

The long term trend from 1970-2002 was 2-3 weeks later depending on location. It's declined another 1-2 weeks since then.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/40513104

They reference the trend 1971-2003, but they don't show anything about when the freeze dates really began to change. Again, this could very well be a trend enhanced by the AMO flip.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Can you provide statistical proof of this statement?

Also, there is no doubt this thread was started in part because of the record late freeze over of HB last year...which was undoubtedly mostly due to the record early season west based -NAO. I see much less value in following Hudson Bay year to year than following Arctic ice overall, in relation to climate change.

GHGs increased since the 1970s, do you deny that GHGs are heat trapping gas? If So why? if not then you accept that increasing GHGs will increase the Earths energy budget.

The region of Canada that the Hudson Bay is in has warmed faster than the rest of the Globe, do you deny this statement?

It is a fact that Ice and Snow reflect solar energy back out better than Water. If there is thinner or less ice or no ice where there was before at early and earlier dates. The water there will increase it's absorption of energy from the sun. Do you Deny this? If so why?

This leads to an undeniable conclusion that climate change caused by humans has disrupted the natural events here. If you do not believe this to be so. please explain why?

If you are going to scream AMO again...please provide some yearly to year examples of how the AMO drove this process.

[dabize]

It has accelerated since the mid 1990s, as I suspected. This is the overall picture with Arctic ice/temperatures that many people fail to acknowledge...despite the globe warming for decades, the Arctic temps/ice didn't really start seeing major changes until after the AMO flip of the mid 1990s.

But it was also starting to freeze later by the mid '80s.

I'm not sure whether this matters at all, except that its hard to see why you insist on the mid 90s unless you are trying to shape the results to fit your predetermined cause.

[tacoman25]

GHGs increased since the 1970s, do you deny that GHGs are heat trapping gas? If So why? if not then you accept that increasing GHGs will increase the Earths energy budget.

The region of Canada that the Hudson Bay is in has warmed faster than the rest of the Globe, do you deny this statement?

It is a fact that Ice and Snow reflect solar energy back out better than Water. If there is thinner or less ice or no ice where there was before at early and earlier dates. The water there will increase it's absorption of energy from the sun. Do you Deny this? If so why?

This leads to an undeniable conclusion that climate change caused by humans has disrupted the natural events here. If you do not believe this to be so. please explain why?

If you are going to scream AMO again...please provide some yearly to year examples of how the AMO drove this process.

I'm not screaming anything. I'm insisting that natural oceanic influences not be ignored and dismissed. If you read up on the AMO, there is plenty of uncertainty about how it works, but there is also evidence that the North Atlantic thermocline is affected, allowing warmer water to flow further north. It would then make sense that the AMO trending positive sense the 1970s would lead to greater Arctic ice loss. And the correlation certainly is there. The previous +AMO phase also brought more ice loss to the Arctic.

[WeatherRusty]

Just as when we expect a new global high temp anomaly to occur during an El Nino year, so it seems reasonable to expect a decline in arctic sea ice during periods of favorable natural variability for loss of ice. However, the reason for the exceptionally warm N. Atlantic and sea ice at record lows is not due to AMO, but rather the general warming of the entire climate system. This AMO is working with the warmest SST's in recorded history.

[The_Global_Warmer]

this is about the hudson bay which is embedded pretty far into Canada. It is mostly in the subarctic.

The amo affects the Eurasian side of the arctic allowing warmer water to flow north of the Nordic region in to the barents. There is also a lot of nee evidence showing the amo can also be directly affected by the arctic not just the other way around.

please show how this has caused the Ice decline in the hudson.

This year is a +amo and the influx of water into the hudson was much colder than the in situ warming that took place over the NW, west, south, east areas while colder water flowed into the hudson from the Atlantic.

How does that contribute to the Ice decline?