Polar Ice sets new minimum

[Guest Mike W]

A somewhat worrying situtastion is that scientists are saying that we could ahve alreaedy passed the point of no rerturn i.e runawayay warming as they say that we have already gone past 400 ppm of Co2 which they suspect will trigger runaway warming. Tehy hey claim that the amount of methane in the atmosphere is more than previously thought and that it is ATM the equivilant of 40 ppm combined wwith the last offial measurment of 380 ppm would come to 420 ppm, a figure that they say is rising.

[Devonian]

A somewhat worrying situtastion is that scientists are saying that we could ahve alreaedy passed the point of no rerturn i.e runawayay warming as they say that we have already gone past 400 ppm of Co2 which they suspect will trigger runaway warming. Tehy hey claim that the amount of methane in the atmosphere is more than previously thought and that it is ATM the equivilant of 40 ppm combined wwith the last offial measurment of 380 ppm would come to 420 ppm, a figure that they say is rising.

Not heard this, where did you read it?

[Iceberg]

The theory of a near time(next 100 years) reversal is rather lacking in evidence. Yes the field has weakened but this isn't the same in any way.

[Gray-Wolf]

The theory of a near time(next 100 years) reversal is rather lacking in evidence. Yes the field has weakened but this isn't the same in any way.

I've posted before on reversals but I'll repeat;

How do we know that reversals are not a 'frequent' event and that the reversals that we note from ocean magnetometer plots of the sea floor don't reflect the 'abnormal' state when a reversal 'sticks' and isn't instantly flipped back in the course of one solar event? For the geological records to show the reversal the poles have to have stayed reversed for long enough for it to imprint on the magnetite within the lava as it solidifies, and for long enough for this to leave a 'measurable' stripe of normal or reversed polar orientation in the ocean floor.

In the days before satellites and power grids would a reversal (or the size of Solar storm to promote one more importantly) have mattered/been noteworthy? Different world today (well, in the developed world at least), lots of things could happen within our society if we underwent such a 'novel' event.........or not?

[The PIT]

I've posted before on reversals but I'll repeat;

How do we know that reversals are not a 'frequent' event and that the reversals that we note from ocean magnetometer plots of the sea floor don't reflect the 'abnormal' state when a reversal 'sticks' and isn't instantly flipped back in the course of one solar event? For the geological records to show the reversal the poles have to have stayed reversed for long enough for it to imprint on the magnetite within the lava as it solidifies, and for long enough for this to leave a 'measurable' stripe of normal or reversed polar orientation in the ocean floor.

In the days before satellites and power grids would a reversal (or the size of Solar storm to promote one more importantly) have mattered/been noteworthy? Different world today (well, in the developed world at least), lots of things could happen within our society if we underwent such a 'novel' event.........or not?

Well since the polarity is set when the Lava is cooled and the Mid Atlantic ridge is fairly active any such constant flipping rapid I would think would be shown.

[Gray-Wolf]

Well since the polarity is set when the Lava is cooled and the Mid Atlantic ridge is fairly active any such constant flipping rapid I would think would be shown.

But that is just the point! The Basalt 'striping' is within the Ophiolite Complex of sheet dykeing and not the surface erupted pillow lava's (as they squirm around like toothpaste squeezed from a tube leading to multiple,3 dimensional magnetic orientations). As you know dyke magma's are slower cooling (as shown from the size of the component Chrystal's) and so would need the reversal to last longer to 'imprint' any sudden reversal/switch back. If it was a single 18hr solar storm then the Pole could be driven over (as with any magnet, push it too far and it will flip) and back during the event without enough time for the event to be recorded in the spreading centre.

Edited September 7, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Chris Knight]

It aint fast:

http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/reversals_e.php

[Gray-Wolf]

It ain't fast:

http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/reversals_e.php

But this is how science explains the 'data ' it has at it's disposal. We see time and again within 'climate change' that the 'best models' are superseded by events on the ground. We then note another driver or feedback loop and amend the model.

What I am proposing is a fairly 'common' (in geological terms) period of extreme solar activity coinciding with the type of polar 'wandering/weakening' that we seem to be experiencing at present. The larger 'reversals' that stick and leave their record in the striping only occur if the solar activity and mantle heat flux 'rearrangements' coincide.

If you only believe in current 'thinking' then you may need to wait a few years (2012?) to see science adopt a different 'understanding' of the phenomena as cycle 24 draws to it's peak activity and gives us more 'facts' to play with.

[Chris Knight]

I was pointing out that earthly geomagnetic change timescales don't happen overnight - like ice ages, but on an even much longer scale. Unless you are living on the sun where there are regular reversals which take on average 11 years to flip. But they are different phenomena, with different influences. Just because the next earthly magnetic pole reversal is long overdue on historic data doesn't mean it's imminent. Records are broken every year, but not all records are broken, some may never be!

[Roger J Smith]

Just looking at the latest ice coverage update on the Environment Canada site, they show ice-free conditions as far north as 86N at 160E. They also show SST values as high as 7 or 8 C in the open waters between there and the Siberian coast (I think this part of the Arctic Ocean is known as the Chuckchi Sea). The ice only locks onto land near the northern tip of Siberia and one has to wonder, if the Atlantic warmth meets up with the presumably Pacific warmth entering the arctic basin, how long would the whole ice cap persist because then you could envisage warm currents flowing unimpeded into the heart of the Arctic Ocean from several entry points and forming a 2-4 C gyre near the North Pole. I think we may see this develop within 20-30 years the way things are changing (and I still think it's natural). However, just because all of that happens, Greenland itself might not necessarily continue to lose ice, the nearby open waters could lead to heavier snowfall and this could stabilize the glacial cover. It might even return land ice in the Canadian arctic to values seen a century or two ago, because one factor in glacial depletion there is very low precipitation in the modern climate.

Just to give some info for those unfamiliar with glaciation of the Canadian arctic, the far northern and eastern islands have considerable glacial cover. Ellesmere and Axel Heiberg are both about 70% glaciated today, and resemble Greenland although bare ground does protrude more widely, Devon Island to their south is about 40% glaciated, and Baffin Island has extensive but rather thin glacial cover both on its higher northern mountains and further inland (the Barnes Ice Cap) although I doubt that the total areal coverage is more than 15%. These glaciers are melting quite fast in comparison to other arctic regions. The rest of Baffin Island is basically frozen mud and rock with patches of permanent snow cover depending on exposure. This would apply in general to the central and western arctic islands to a lesser extent, 5-10% coverage would be about the maximum you might find, and there are small glaciers on some of the northwestern (Queen Elizabeth) island chain. Victoria Island has some inland snow fields in the northern third that do not melt in midsummer, and Banks Island has become entirely free from any permanent snow cover in recent decades.

[The PIT]

I was pointing out that earthly geomagnetic change timescales don't happen overnight - like ice ages, but on an even much longer scale. Unless you are living on the sun where there are regular reversals which take on average 11 years to flip. But they are different phenomena, with different influences. Just because the next earthly magnetic pole reversal is long overdue on historic data doesn't mean it's imminent. Records are broken every year, but not all records are broken, some may never be!

I think what Gray-Wolfe is trying to say that if there was any rapid switching this wouldn't be picked up. It would you would end up with fields of basalt with no particular polarity. You could say no ones looked for this which I doubt they have but anyway I'm pretty sure there hasn't been any rapid pole switching in the past.

[Stratos Ferric]

...However, just because all of that happens, Greenland itself might not necessarily continue to lose ice, the nearby open waters could lead to heavier snowfall and this could stabilize the glacial cover. It might even return land ice in the Canadian arctic to values seen a century or two ago, because one factor in glacial depletion there is very low precipitation in the modern climate.

...

It is an interesting argument Roger, and arguably corroborated by what I suspect are recent changes in Antarctica. At best, however, I think the 'dempening' effect would be short term and localised. There would continue to be depletion at the margins, leading to increased net received wattage at the surface, and so on ad infinitum.

[Gray-Wolf]

The updated 'Cryosphere today' movie shows clear water (no ice attachment) all along the Eurasian coastline now. You can see a direct route from the Pacific into the Atlantic both through the NW passage and along the Eurasian coast.

[Gray-Wolf]

Rats...edits gone!

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_bas/publ...paper.php?id=18

I found this and thought that it would help reinforce my stance on the 'floating' of ice shelves aiding their rapid disintegration.

The Ross is no different (in principle) to the Peninsula and so the 'lifting' of it off the sea bed (of the lower reaches of it's feed glaciers) does indeed allow faster drainage (collapse?) of the steeper, higher elevations of the glacier (esp. if 'thickened' by increased snowfall).

[Filski]

Well GW, the news I spoke of earlier seems to have arrived.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/whale-watch/mys...813.html?page=2

This is entirely in line with what I expected to be the first major tipping point. If the ocean loses the bottom rungs of the food chain it also loses the ability to absorb CO2.

The fat lady just sang.

[Devonian]

Well GW, the news I spoke of earlier seems to have arrived.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/whale-watch/mys...813.html?page=2

This is entirely in line with what I expected to be the first major tipping point. If the ocean loses the bottom rungs of the food chain it also loses the ability to absorb CO2.

The fat lady just sang.

How depressing

Of course we can't raise the alarm because the 'you're scaremongers or, indeed, alarmists' or 'it's just scientists on the make' or , (and I've seen these) 'who gives a **** about whales anyway?' types will be all over us

I think we live in times when concern for the environment is on the wane not the up. I really don't think 'save the whales' would work these days - too much 'Clarksonness' about.

Edited September 11, 2007 by Devonian

[Angel15]

How depressing

Of course we can't raise the alarm because the 'you're scaremongers or, indeed, alarmists' or 'it's just scientists on the make' or , (and I've seen these) 'who gives a **** about whales anyway?' types will be all over us

I think we live in times when concern for the environment is on the wane not the up. I really don't think 'save the whales' would work these days - too much 'Clarksonness' about.

It is depressing to read that .. it is even more depressing or rather unbelievable that some people just do not want to believe GW is/could be happening at all - but it is the same old story - too little done, too late. Perhaps when a tornado scours the face of Great Britain and then the sea rises up and covers the land mass that is left, it may get some attention.

[BrickFielder]

What struck me about this was the animation on the NSIDC site of the change in age of Ice.

NSIDC Changes in ice age and thickness

Clearly the wind fields across the north pole has changed over recent years and the cloud fraction chart clearly shows that as a result of ice melt there is less cloud and high pressure to the north of Alaska. This likely to have a significant affect on the Arctic Oscillation and so our winter weather.

[Stratos Ferric]

Well GW, the news I spoke of earlier seems to have arrived.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/whale-watch/mys...813.html?page=2

This is entirely in line with what I expected to be the first major tipping point. If the ocean loses the bottom rungs of the food chain it also loses the ability to absorb CO2.

The fat lady just sang.

Not sure that's true Filski. A lot of CO2 absortion in the ocean is, if I remember correctly from my distant first degree studies, chemical. In addition, warmer oceans absorb more CO2.

[Gray-Wolf]

Not sure that's true Filski. A lot of CO2 absortion in the ocean is, if I remember correctly from my distant first degree studies, chemical. In addition, warmer oceans absorb more CO2.

So the old wisdom told us S.F. ,until this year when NOAA/NASA published the paper showing that, over the past twenty odd years the 'great ocean carbon sinks' were'nt working at the rate they ought to be. We have missed an important link in the chain and are now finding that both Sea and land carbon sinks aren't functioning whilst more and more CO2 is being allowed to remain in the air....that's before we mention the melting of the tundra regions and the methane they are now releasing......

Edited September 11, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Chris Knight]

Not sure that's true Filski. A lot of CO2 absortion in the ocean is, if I remember correctly from my distant first degree studies, chemical. In addition, warmer oceans absorb more CO2.

Other way round I think - cooler oceans, more gas dissolved, thats why the arctic oceans can be so productive of plankton, lots more CO2 near the surface compared to the warmer tropics. Also a possible reason why atmospheric CO2 appears to increase with a lag following an episode of global warming, as the oceans outgas.

http://jcbmac.chem.brown.edu/myl/hen/carbondioxideHenry.html

Edited September 11, 2007 by Chris Knight

[Filski]

Toxic algae blooms are one of the risk factors of a warming arctic. Gaining an earlier start they outstrip the ability of zooplankton to control them. They can then form mats that prevent phytoplankton from photosynthesising and decrease the dissolved organic carbon in the oceans. Of course they are toxic to marine life too.

[Chris Knight]

Toxic algae blooms are one of the risk factors of a warming arctic. Gaining an earlier start they outstrip the ability of zooplankton to control them. They can then form mats that prevent phytoplankton from photosynthesising and decrease the dissolved organic carbon in the oceans. Of course they are toxic to marine life too.

Unless Darwin is a dirty word here, environment change challenges the biosphere to evolve the best adapted species for the status quo, even at the expense of the current champions of the food chain. It's tough at the top, and it's tough to claw your way up from the bottom, and keeping a low profile is sometimes a good survival strategy. I may regret the extinction or emergence of a species, but I cannot be sentimental about it. Thats what life is all about.

Toxic algal blooms utilise the carbon dioxide generated by the decay of (so called) "higher organisms" that they kill so that they can sporulate and leave their offspring waiting to capitalise on the next population explosion of swimming things. The organic remains of the dead then goes on to be recycled into the next population explosion of reef, lake or river life.

Edited September 11, 2007 by Chris Knight

[Devonian]

Unless Darwin is a dirty word here, environment change challenges the biosphere to evolve the best adapted species for the status quo, even at the expense of the current champions of the food chain. It's tough at the top, and it's tough to claw your way up from the bottom, and keeping a low profile is sometimes a good survival strategy. I may regret the extinction or emergence of a species, but I cannot be sentimental about it. Thats what life is all about.

It is, but it doesn't mean we have to impose it on life.

Why must we so exploit/despoil this planet that whales, whales those vast blubbery things, are thin because they can't fine enough food? Or that cod disappear from places they we once super abundant? Or that, yes do call me an alarmist, polar bears can't find ice? Or that etc etc.

No, you sit back and watch us play god by our careless way - I wont.

Edited September 11, 2007 by Devonian

[jethro]

It is, but it doesn't mean we have to impose it on life.

Why must we so exploit/despoil this planet that whales, whales those vast blubbery things, are thin because they can't fine enough food? Or that cod disappear from places they we once super abundant? Or that, yes do call me an alarmist, polar bears can't find ice? Or that etc etc.

No, you sit back and watch us play god by our careless way - I wont.

Think you might want to research the Polar Bear situation a bit, I did and what is portrayed in the media is a LONG way from the reality of those who observe real life as it is. For instance, all that scrabbling for ice malarky was filmed during melt season. Plankton or no plankton, AGW or no AGW, it'll take a lot to outstrip our predecessors in the demise of the Whale; Japanese still hunting them as we speak.