Arctic ice

[jethro]

Dev, you and I had a similar conversation a few months back about Cirrus clouds. Spencer had collated some new information which found, via empirical observation, that instead of heat trapping clouds forming in the Tropics due to the extra heat generated by AGW; Cirrus clouds were forming allowing heat transfer to the atmosphere, thus cooling.

You argued then, as now, that I personally show evidence to support this, that this was contrary to all expectations, the expectations were right, Spencer's data and myself were wrong. Until and unless I could provide evidence (of studies, as yet not done) that things had changed, then I was wrong.

That was new information then, my viewpoint at the time was it was foolish to dismiss something just because it went against the knowledge to date; further studies were required before dismissal could be made. Further studies have now confirmed (via the Aqua satellite) that Spencer was right.

Now, as then, we are dealing with new knowledge based on empirical observation. The fact that it goes against what we know so far, is not reason for dismissal. Only by observing and studying the real world and not some model representation, can we hope to further our knowledge - that's how science progresses.

I have no doubt that further studies, explorations and analyses of data will proceed in the future; as and when that happens, as and when that becomes available to us mere mortals; then I'll be more than happy to continue our conversation upon this topic.

Until then, I reiterate, it is not only unwise but not sound scientific practise, to dismiss this new information.

[Devonian]

Dev, you and I had a similar conversation a few months back about Cirrus clouds. Spencer had collated some new information which found, via empirical observation, that instead of heat trapping clouds forming in the Tropics due to the extra heat generated by AGW; Cirrus clouds were forming allowing heat transfer to the atmosphere, thus cooling.

You argued then, as now, that I personally show evidence to support this, that this was contrary to all expectations, the expectations were right, Spencer's data and myself were wrong. Until and unless I could provide evidence (of studies, as yet not done) that things had changed, then I was wrong.

That was new information then, my viewpoint at the time was it was foolish to dismiss something just because it went against the knowledge to date; further studies were required before dismissal could be made. Further studies have now confirmed (via the Aqua satellite) that Spencer was right.

News to me. Where was this? OT, but I'd read this RC article?

Now, as then, we are dealing with new knowledge based on empirical observation. The fact that it goes against what we know so far, is not reason for dismissal. Only by observing and studying the real world and not some model representation, can we hope to further our knowledge - that's how science progresses.

I have no doubt that further studies, explorations and analyses of data will proceed in the future; as and when that happens, as and when that becomes available to us mere mortals; then I'll be more than happy to continue our conversation upon this topic.

Until then, I reiterate, it is not only unwise but not sound scientific practise, to dismiss this new information.

Again, I AM NOT dismissing it! I am saying, imo, that the effect of undersea volcanoes on the ice of the Arctic is tiny.

I will stick to that view (a view based on mathematical calculations I've seen) until someone presents some evidence, not speculation, not assertion, that I am wrong.

I'm also getting rather sick of being called wrong without a jot of evidence to show that. I can see I'll have to do the maths myself because no one else is going to B)

Edited June 29, 2008 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

I'm also getting rather sick of being called wrong without a jot of evidence to show that.

Me too, strangely...

CB

EDIT: Just found this article about the Gakkel ridge:

http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDoc...0718/index.html

Edited June 29, 2008 by Captain_Bobski

[Devonian]

Me too, strangely...

CB

Good, then we're agreed evidence is the way forward?

[Admiral_Bobski]

Not sure exactly how (or, indeed, if) this relates to the matter in hand, but this abstract talking about ice flow over geothermal heat sources mentions a heat flux of a whopping 280 W/m2. I'll do some reading up and see if I can work out if it has any relevance...

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JF000540.shtml

Dev: Of course the use of evidence is the way forward, but assertions such as "the heat output from the Earth is 0.061 W/m2" are not evidence because they don't relate to local phenomena (and the melting of Actic ice is a local phenomenon).

You said earlier, "for the nth time, let's see some figures." Do you need figures to show that 0.061W/m2 as a global average has no bearing on local heat output?

CB

Edited June 29, 2008 by Captain_Bobski

[jethro]

Again, I AM NOT dismissing it! I am saying, imo, that the effect of undersea volcanoes on the ice of the Arctic is tiny.

I will stick to that view (a view based on mathematical calculations I've seen) until someone presents some evidence, not speculation, not assertion, that I am wrong.

I'm also getting rather sick of being called wrong without a jot of evidence to show that. I can see I'll have to do the maths myself because no one else is going to B)

Dev, go back to my original post on this topic. You appear to be interpreting this as a personal dig against you, it is not. I said in that original post and again in subsequent ones, IMO opinion it is wrong for scientists to dismiss this, make decisions on this new info before further studies have been made. They cannot say it's having no effect without first studying what effect it may or may not be having.

I stand by that view and it's a view upon scientific rigour, not your views.

[BARRY]

I'm no mathematician, but just a thought, if your hot water tank is heated from a element at the bottom of your tank, why is it always hot at the top first. B)

[laserguy]

I'm no mathematician, but just a thought, if your hot water tank is heated from a element at the bottom of your tank, why is it always hot at the top first.

Erm,um,let's apply some advanced physics in the two minutes I have spare before work. The direct application of considerable heat at the bottom of a liquid and the rapid relay via convection of said heat through said liquid might,just might be a tad more efficient than warming of said body of liquid than is the contact of the liquid's surface with air that has allegedly warmed by as much as one full degree! The heat from that has no problem defying the laws of physics and happily makes it's way downwards. Easy! Gotta go now,but first I'll make a cuppa by training the missus' hairdryer over the water in the kettle. Much more efficient,y'know... :lol:

[Iceberg]

Speculation is all well and good. But the chief scientist involved rather supports Dev's Views.

See below there has been no eruptions(that they have found since 1999). The last eruption produces 10cm on deposits so hardly large. The release of CO2 into the water is though to have more effect than heating effect on the ice.

It's amazing though how this has been treated and manipulated by the rightwing press and co2 sceptic sites.

I am sure that people will still argue against it but there seems no reason currently to believe that this is causing the masive ice melt currently.

The last two posts above seem to miss the point and lack of understanding about how the ocean and laws of thermodynamics work. If they want to ask a serious question then please do so Particularly if you don't understand why the slightly heated water wouldn't float to the top.

"We don't believe the volcanoes had much effect on the overlying ice," Robert Reeves-Sohn WHoI

The probes, one of which "flew" just two to five metres above the sea floor, gathered samples and images that point to remarkable under sea eruptions. In the valley where the two crustal plates are coming apart, which is about 12 kilometres across, they found dozens of distinctive flat-topped volcanoes that appear to have erupted in 1999, producing the layer of dark, smoky volcanic glass on the seabed.

"The scale and magnitude of the explosive activity that we're seeing here dwarfs anything we've seen on other mid-ocean ridges," says Sohn, who studies ridges around the world. The volume of gas and lava that appears to have blasted out of the Gakkel volcanoes is "much, much higher" than that seen at other ridges.

Sohn says it would have been "spectacular to witness" the eruptions, but he says it is a good thing there is four kilometres of seawater on top of the Gakkel Ridge as the eruptions would have been "highly problematic" had they occurred on dry land.

The scientists say the heat released by the explosions is not contributing to the melting of the Arctic ice, but Sohn says the huge volumes of CO2 gas that belched out of the undersea volcanoes likely contributed to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. How much, he couldn't say.

There are no volcanoes exploding in the area right now, but they scientists say there appears to still be a lot happening on the sea floor. "I had the impression this whole central volcano area was oozing warm fluid," says Henrietta Edmonds of the University of Texas, who was on the expedition tracking the plumes of warm waters rising from the spreading ridge. She says they point to the presence of "gushing black smokers" as well as microbial and other forms of life that can thrive in scalding, mineral-rich waters that percolates out of spreading ridges.

The scientists say they have explored just one small stretch of the Gakkel Ridge and hope to return in a few years.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...be-f48c0dc90304

or

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&t...4586&ct=162

[Gray-Wolf]

Another lovely day at the pole. Stretches of meltwater pools now apparent in the middle distance and the little pool in front is now a pond! It happens fast doesn't it?

EDIT: Is the 'post' that marks the pole leaning a bit today?

Edited June 30, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[johnholmes]

I'm no mathematician, but just a thought, if your hot water tank is heated from a element at the bottom of your tank, why is it always hot at the top first.

convection currents?

[Filski]

I think people need to take a step back and think about this logically. Comparisons to the water heater in your home is plain ludicrous.

The arctic ocean is 14,056,000 km² in surface area, it is in excess of 5000m deep in places. The area discussed in this latest finding is only 10km² in area - and that's the debris zone not the actual volcano itself. There are less than a dozen such sites in the arctic from my understanding of what I've read so far.

To say that these sporadic volcanic episodes are responsible for heating the arctic waters is like trying to heat your boiler to a comfortable temperature by stirring it with your finger.

[Gray-Wolf]

As I said at the start of this little interlude I think someone has got their 'scales' messed up. A good analogy by the way Filski!

[Thundery wintry showers]

It's certainly looking bad for the chances of survival of the ice at the North Pole, judging by that sequence! Could be all gone by August if this keeps up, it appears that the pole is currently under the influence of a fairly warm anticyclone, like last summer.

[Gray-Wolf]

With the unholy alliance between Canada and Russia, and Russia's recent news that they are to build the biggest Nuclear ice breaker yet, you have to wonder just how advanced the polar carve up is. If we have single year through ,and across, the pole are we about to see them both exploiting the vast mineral reserves up there 12 months a year? A nice route into the Pacific for Russian Timber too!

[laserguy]

I think people need to take a step back and think about this logically. Comparisons to the water heater in your home is plain ludicrous.

The arctic ocean is 14,056,000 km² in surface area, it is in excess of 5000m deep in places. The area discussed in this latest finding is only 10km² in area - and that's the debris zone not the actual volcano itself. There are less than a dozen such sites in the arctic from my understanding of what I've read so far.

To say that these sporadic volcanic episodes are responsible for heating the arctic waters is like trying to heat your boiler to a comfortable temperature by stirring it with your finger.

Similarly,for anyone to infer that a tiny rise in air temps has the capacity to warm oceans more effectively than ocean floor volcanoes (the number and magnitude of which is not known),is really beyond ridiculous. The arguments in support of AGW are so desperate it's become quite ridiculous. By the way,dipping my finger in a cup of cold water would indeed cause it to warm faster than increasing the temperature of the air in contact with the surface of it by a degree or two!

GW,why would Russia need/want the 'biggest icebreaker yet' if there's hardly any ice left or not expected to recover? Perhaps they're one step ahead of the game?

[Thundery wintry showers]

It's not a tiny rise as far as the Arctic is concerned, though. Temperatures in the Arctic region have shown a particularly rapid rise since around 2002. Even last winter, widely referred to as a "cold Arctic winter", temperatures were merely slightly above the long-term mean, rather than a good few degrees above.

It is certainly over-simplistic to blame the warming on AGW or even just GW. Changes in synoptics have brought the Arctic into a warm phase (previously it had been in a cool phase) and some of the warming is self-reinforcing, with reduced ice cover changing the albedo and causing enhanced warmth. But the general warming trend across the globe can't be helping matters.

Filski's argument compared the Arctic basin with dipping a finger into a boiler system not cold water. Dipping a finger into cold water would be more analogous to having a volcano one-tenth of the size of the entire Arctic Circle. On the volcanic eruptions point see Iceberg's post.

[Filski]

To continue the analogy just a tad further.

The boiler is now sitting out in the sun, during a heatwave and it's surface is painted black.

Air temps alone are not sufficient, significant though the rises are. Also of importance are the increased exposure which enhances it's ability to directly absorb warmth from the sun, the exposure to external currents which move the ice around and the thickness of the ice along with the size of the pieces. All this contribute to the melt we see.

[Gray-Wolf]

GW,why would Russia need/want the 'biggest icebreaker yet' if there's hardly any ice left or not expected to recover? Perhaps they're one step ahead of the game?

Not even the mightiest ice breaker ever conceived could have dealt with old 'multi-year' pack. Not so single year ice. If you can rely on your equipment to plough through the 24hr dark and know you're not going to do a 'Titanic' then you can ply your trade 12 months a year and not just for 8 weeks over summer (and re-supply rigs and drilling/mining platforms). Nice route ,across the pole to Bering and beyond dontcha think?

So far as U.S. 'security' is concerned the prospect of folk popping in through the 'back door' may have the Pentagon a little 'jumpy'.......

Just look at the meltwater pool now!!!, you can see just how 'slumped' the whole landscape is looking as the snow melts back.

[BARRY]

Erm,um,let's apply some advanced physics in the two minutes I have spare before work. The direct application of considerable heat at the bottom of a liquid and the rapid relay via convection of said heat through said liquid might,just might be a tad more efficient than warming of said body of liquid than is the contact of the liquid's surface with air that has allegedly warmed by as much as one full degree! The heat from that has no problem defying the laws of physics and happily makes it's way downwards. Easy! Gotta go now,but first I'll make a cuppa by training the missus' hairdryer over the water in the kettle. Much more efficient,y'know...

thats like reading the small print in insurance policies,you assume that every body understands advanced physics

Edited June 30, 2008 by BARRY

[Filski]

I think the mistake is beleiving the example given by Laserguy has anything to do with advanced physics...

Was watching the gadget show tonight. They feature one of dem thingies called a solar shower. In 3hrs it'll heat tap juice to over 40'C just from sitting it in the sun. No volcanoes. Just the air around it. And the sun.

Of course you could choose to heat the water using the equivelant of a single match once every 5mins...

It's funny how the sceptics will seize upon something like volcanoes to explain the heating of a vast amount of water in the arctic when eruptions are fairly infrequent and geothermal vents are really few and far between in the grand scheme of things. Yet they won't entertain the thought of rising GHG, modified landforms and various pollutants having an effect when they've been pumped out globally on a vast scale for 200+yrs or even cetnuries when it comes to land clearing. Just a wee bit of selective application of critical review of the science?

Now... any chance we can get back to the topic?

[Gray-Wolf]

It seems strange to be having such a debate as we all look at real time images of +c temps and growing ice pools under clear blue skies at the pole!

Do we really need to look further than the evidence staring us straight in the face?

.........maybe it's like appollo and it's all staged in a shed in California

[jethro]

I think the mistake is beleiving the example given by Laserguy has anything to do with advanced physics...

Was watching the gadget show tonight. They feature one of dem thingies called a solar shower. In 3hrs it'll heat tap juice to over 40'C just from sitting it in the sun. No volcanoes. Just the air around it. And the sun.

Of course you could choose to heat the water using the equivelant of a single match once every 5mins...

It's funny how the sceptics will seize upon something like volcanoes to explain the heating of a vast amount of water in the arctic when eruptions are fairly infrequent and geothermal vents are really few and far between in the grand scheme of things. Yet they won't entertain the thought of rising GHG, modified landforms and various pollutants having an effect when they've been pumped out globally on a vast scale for 200+yrs or even cetnuries when it comes to land clearing. Just a wee bit of selective application of critical review of the science?

Now... any chance we can get back to the topic?

Speaking as the "fence sitter" who started all this I have to it's funny how pro AGW folk will not accept anything other than AGW.

At no point in any of this discussion have I said, or read from the sceptic side that underwater volcanoes are responsible for all the Arctic melt. My original point was and continues to be that dismissing any effect at all, on one cursory study is bad science.

The leap from contributing to warming, to being responsible for it all, has been made entirely by the pro side. Calculations of how much energy it would take to warm the Arctic ocean to account for the melt are spurious IMO.

On this thread and Carinthian's thread there has been numerous posts about Polynya's forming, creating weak points leading to further melting, edges, shelves collapsing, again weakening and leading to enhanced melt. It seems these are perfectly acceptable theories so long as they are caused by AGW and yet, the prospect that volcanic activity and geothermal vents creating "hot spots", thus contributing to melting and weakening is a positive no no. If a hot spot is down to us it has devastating consequences but if a hot spot is natural, it's not contributing? I'm not so sure the ice is that picky.

[Paul]

Good god, another circular debate, is it not possible for some of you to let go at any point rather than going backwards and forwards over and over again? (and yes this is a rhetorical question).

[Devonian]

Speaking as the "fence sitter" who started all this I have to it's funny how pro AGW folk will not accept anything other than AGW.

Not the case, this is about volcanoes and maths.

At no point in any of this discussion have I said, or read from the sceptic side that underwater volcanoes are responsible for all the Arctic melt. My original point was and continues to be that dismissing any effect at all, on one cursory study is bad science.

I, for one, have stressed that I'm not saying that and I'm sure no one has. But I do wonder why, given the maths, we have to focus in on what must be a tiny effects?

The leap from contributing to warming, to being responsible for it all, has been made entirely by the pro side. Calculations of how much energy it would take to warm the Arctic ocean to account for the melt are spurious IMO.

Why? It's fundamental! Take a large volume of water (it has to be at least several cubic Km) and, knowing it's specific heat capacity, work out how much energy is need to warm it even a tiny amount. It's not volcanoes that are melting the Arctic ice - it simply can't be.

On this thread and Carinthian's thread there has been numerous posts about Polynya's forming, creating weak points leading to further melting, edges, shelves collapsing, again weakening and leading to enhanced melt. It seems these are perfectly acceptable theories so long as they are caused by AGW and yet, the prospect that volcanic activity and geothermal vents creating "hot spots", thus contributing to melting and weakening is a positive no no. If a hot spot is down to us it has devastating consequences but if a hot spot is natural, it's not contributing? I'm not so sure the ice is that picky.

jethro, I don't know how many times I have to ask/say this. All, (That's ALL) anyone needs to do to refute this volcanoes having an effect on the ice (that isn't tiny) has to do is to do the maths. Why wont you??? How, on Earth, do you know it's 'spurious' maths when you wont even look at it??? How???

Good god, another circular debate, is it not possible for some of you to let go at any point rather than going backwards and forwards over and over again? (and yes this is a rhetorical question).

It's important. It's simply not possible that heat from undersea volcanoes are having more than a tiny effect on the Arctic ice (if that).

This isn't AGW or not, it's maths or not. I simply do not understand why people will not address the maths.

Edited June 30, 2008 by Devonian