Arctic ice

[jethro]

I give up with this, I'm obviously not communicating in a way that is understood and Paul is right, it's going round and round and round.

I'm happy to wait for further studies to be done.

[Paul]

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.

Because not everyone will or wants to think like you - rightly or wrongly, people will make their own minds up based on what they see - going over and over the same point is unlikely to change their minds..

[Thundery wintry showers]

Well, to try and save this argument going around, I'll try to provide a probabilistic assessment of the situation, rather than a "one is right, another is wrong".

It's possible that if there are enough volcanoes that erupt strongly enough, it could contribute to some of the ice melt. The reason is that if ice fragments then it changes the surface albedo and makes it easier for surrounding ice to melt- and this has a catch-22 knock on effect. However, it can't be the main reason for the ice melt as there are many other factors that we know are contributing- changes in albedo caused by less ice extent, thinner ice, prevalence of warmer synoptics plus warmer global average temperature.

Thus, volcanic activity could indeed be one of the many factors behind the melt, but not the primary factor.

Which side is "right" or "wrong" will, in reality, depend on how much volcanic activity there is now, relative to how much there was when the Arctic ice sheet was in a relatively stable state, i.e. before around 2002-ish.

[SnowBear]

Hmmm, I have just looked up the location of the Gakkel Ridge, a couple of things strike me as to pointers to a possible influence on the what seems to be unaccounted melting of the ice cap. There are those here who may say the volcanoes could not have that much influence, due to the maths, thermodynamics or whatever, but lets look at the topography as well.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...CAO_betamap.jpg

The images I saw last year of the ice melt extent of the North Polar ice cap was very much on the side of the Kara, Laptev and East Siberian Seas. The orientation of the ridge extents into this area. The whole basin is created by the continental shelves and the ridges with only a narrow channel in oceanic terms between Greenland/Iceland and Svalbard/Norway where the returning deeper cold water flows back into the Atlantic Ocean. The thermohaline currents take the gulf stream up into the North Atlantic waters to become the Norwegian Current and into the Arctic ocean, where its starts to sink and returns down through the gap in various ways. that is simplified but essentially all we need to know at this point.

http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/rapid/sis/popups/gulf_stream.php

http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/rapid/sis/popups/thc_nadw.php

The study in the article posted by I think Jethro, was over such a small area it is hard to tell exactly what the extent of the volcanic activity is at this moment. I think it is quite possible the activity is a fair bit higher than we know at the moment. Being as the area is akin to a basin with a "pouring lip" (Greenlnd/Icelnd/Nor/Salv gap) it could be that the deeper waters between the ridges have been heated by increased volcanic activity for some years now, and as the deeper water is under higher pressure those waters have been trapped in that basin for some time. A little like a pressure cooker. At some point though, the energy of the water will increase to point where the pressure cooker will "blow", spilling warmer water into the normally colder deep level flowing waters into the Northern Atlantic and also warmer water into the land locked side of the Arctic ocean ( the Russian side) whereby it cannot escape into a larger body of water so rises at the continental shelves and starts to melt the ice cap from the edges and from underneath. This would effect the heat carrying capacity of the Gulf Stream as it would not have the colder water it normally operates on, raises sea surface temperatures, thus climate and temperatures altered by those systems which rely on the Gulf Stream as a regulator. Even a 1c temperature rise in the deep sea water flows could make a lot of difference to the Gulf Stream as it would be 1c higher before the effects of the tropical sun get to work on it. It does seem interesting how most of the warming on Earth is in the Northern Hemisphere.

Possible?

Edited July 1, 2008 by SnowBear

[Iceberg]

Possible and an interesting theory. I am sure one of the reasons why the WHOI is looking into that section of the Arctic is to get a better understanding of the THC and the NADW production and flow.

I would say that the principle scientist in this is from the WHOI, one of the world leading institutions IMO in ocean research and the THC in particular. He's prepared to go on record to say that it would have very little effect on Arctic Ice.(As near to a NO as you get from a scientist in Climate Change), they tend not to work with absolutes due to the unknown, unknowns.

A link in geological times possibly, links today very unlikely other points to consider are a), If the warm water rose to the surface it would contain trace elemenets of volcanic related isotopes(not have been found to my knowledge), :o The THC currently is in a healthy state except for possible reduced NADW production between Greenland and Norway. c), ARGO bouys routinly drop 1000m down to collect measurements and temperatures are very stable down there.

[Gray-Wolf]

Morning all! another Chinook of a day at the pole (and not a volcano spewing obsidian in sight! )

I still can't believe that your looking for anything other than what your seeing today (and the past 3 days).

Don't be fooled into thinking that this will be a 2 dimensional event with the snow/ice ablating from the top alone. Already melt will have peculated through to the base forming a freshwater shroud across the base melting it upwards. The cracks utilised by the meltwater on the way down are now making 'perforated edges' throughout the pack and now the slightest swell/tidal bulge will start to fracture the sheet. The larger 'rucked up' multiyear ice on the horizon will then be free to 'sail' like a crazed icebreaker through the lot further reducing the size of floes.

And no need for some insidious warm water plume above a spreading centre which would obviously show a nice 'ice thickness anomaly' over winter with a thin strip of sea ice (relatively) running along the ridge line.

With the new sats and attention to ice thickness this winter don't you think any such would have been 'jumped on' at NASA/NSIDC/NOAA?

EDIT: on the web image it may be as well to note the position of the orange buoy (left side of image) in relation to the web platform as one ,other,both will eventually move so you can spot the movement.

Edited July 1, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[Filski]

Calculations of how much energy it would take to warm the Arctic ocean to account for the melt are spurious IMO.

No! Time to put an end to this. (In my own particular way) I've tried to demonstrate that very small pockets of heat will do little compared to the effects of the sun during summer. We are talking about geothermal energy inputs to give temperature rises of <0.0005°C per year to the bottom of the arctic sea. That is not even taking into account that these energy sources have remained more or less constant below the arctic for eons.

[Gray-Wolf]

No! Time to put an end to this. (In my own particular way) I've tried to demonstrate that very small pockets of heat will do little compared to the effects of the sun during summer. We are talking about geothermal energy inputs to give temperature rises of <0.0005°C per year to the bottom of the arctic sea. That is not even taking into account that these energy sources have remained more or less constant below the arctic for eons.

As I've said above any such phenomina would interfere with 'normal' ice formation an lead to thinning over the source. All the sats that have gone up over the past 5 years specifically for ice thickness (like quikscat) would have had 4 or 5 years of anomalous ice thickness' over a 4 or 5 year period. Would we expect to have heard from them do you think?

[Admiral_Bobski]

Where has it been said at any point on this thread (or any other) that current volcanic activity is entirely responsible for the currently observed melting? The sarcastic incredulity is really rather uncalled for.

CB

[Filski]

Where has it been said at any point on this thread (or any other) that current volcanic activity is entirely responsible for the currently observed melting? The sarcastic incredulity is really rather uncalled for.

CB

Or even slightly. I was happy to entertain the thought and did a fair bit of reading in the last couple of days. Geothermal energy inputs are insignificant compared to the sun, action of the tides, ice breakup, atmospheric conditions, etc.

Perhaps all that is required for the thread to move on is aknowledgement of that fact from those still questioning it as being significant.

[SnowBear]

GW, I am close to putting you on ignore for your comments and lack of willingness to explore all possibilities in this subject. Not so long ago we had a thread on respect on these threads and still you take snipes at anyone who takes a serious look at the subject and puts theories or possibilities into the melting pot.

Yes your pictures show a pool at the North Pole, yes it means there is melting there, but there are many other areas to look at than one webcam image for the causes!

There are systems and cycles such as the THC, unexplored ridges, topographical effects etc that we cannot say for certain anything, and it is foolish not to cover all areas.

And no need for some insidious warm water plume above a spreading centre which would obviously show a nice 'ice thickness anomaly' over winter with a thin strip of sea ice (relatively) running along the ridge line. doh.gif

No, because the warmer water wouldn't necessarily rise in a thin strip, pressure could have kept a cap on the water in the basin, and currents and circulations at deeper level meant it mixed with the returning THC into the North Atlantic and also into the land locked areas around the Russian continental shelf which would explain why the ice melting seems to be mainly on the Russian side.

Infact, have you even looked at what I have put forward? Or just dismissed it without even looking at it.

I am not saying it is fact, I am saying its a possibility, and that possibility cannot be dismissed when we know so damn little about the area!

Iceberg, I think there could be something in it, maybe not the main system effecting the ice, but combined with other factors, it could be producing the melt we see.

I do find it interesting why the warming we see is mainly in the Northern Hemisphere, the problem is we know so little about the fluid cycles and systems in the deep oceans that its hard to tell.

Filski, I was under the impression the scientists had found the ridge actually was more active than it had been and possibly over quite a large area. If the ridge has been active along its length, which is some 1800km?

This is new research and lots to learn about this area and should not be dismissed out of hand.

[VillagePlank]

Well, I've got to be honest, on reading the points (rather than diatribe) on this thread my first thought was - if there is an increase in local salinity would it increase ice melt, and thus underwater activity could affect melt disproportionatley? Simple question - but can't find the answer, though.

As Jethro said. Probably best we wait for more studies to be done.

[SnowBear]

As Jethro said. Probably best we wait for more studies to be done.

Agreed there VP, its an interesting area too, and as I have found over time, always expect the unexpected when it comes to nature and the universe as a whole as it does tend to show a big ability to throw in surprises and quite often.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Or even slightly. I was happy to entertain the thought and did a fair bit of reading in the last couple of days. Geothermal energy inputs are insignificant compared to the sun, action of the tides, ice breakup, atmospheric conditions, etc.

Perhaps all that is required for the thread to move on is aknowledgement of that fact from those still questioning it as being significant.

The simple fact is that heat emitted from anywhere is significant. Lots of small effects, added together, create large effects. The point with underwater volcanicity is that the effect is unquantified, and that is what we have been discussing. To disregard an unquantified effect as "not significant" is foolish in the extreme.

Hear, hear, Snowbear

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

Where has it been said at any point on this thread (or any other) that current volcanic activity is entirely responsible for the currently observed melting? The sarcastic incredulity is really rather uncalled for.

CB

Bob, the horse is far too tall for you! dismount and save yourself eh?

No sarcasm intended, sadly some interpreted. Would we not feel that the most sophisticated yet instruments for measuring ice thickness would have picked up on such a feature over the years they have been in service?.......serious question, especially for those who feel they have a driver worthy of note in the current arctic disaster.

The simple fact is that heat emitted from anywhere is significant. Lots of small effects, added together, create large effects. The point with underwater volcanicity is that the effect is unquantified, and that is what we have been discussing. To disregard an unquantified effect as "not significant" is foolish in the extreme.

CB

Surely within the context of the current discussion that is nothing more than pedantry? The turning of the screws of a coastgaurd ship off banks island probably has it's impact too but would folk seriously take that onboard over a 6 week 'high melt' season?

Do we ever wonder why we end up with such circumlocutional natters?

Edited July 1, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

Look anything of around 0.06% or less is insignificant. Why can't anyone understand that?

Edited July 1, 2008 by VillagePlank

[Filski]

Again I see what I say has been ignored.

We are talking about geothermal energy inputs to give temperature rises of <0.0005°C per year to the bottom of the arctic sea.

I suggest reading some of the links you will discover here

http://www.whoi.edu/search.do?q=arctic+geo...ature&g=ext

This in particular

http://www.whoi.edu/beaufortgyre/pdfs/timm...ics_jpo2007.pdf

You will also find that temperature increases with depth but it also increases with density/increased salinity. But we are talking about really really tiny changes in temperature. Why so tiny? Because the heat sources is so small compared to the size of the arctic ocean. This is what I and a few others have said all along, it's backed up by observations too. There's no sudden increase in volcanic activity - that would have been picked up on the observations. There's nothing that would back up the theory put forward by sceptics world wide as soon as they discovered another possible scape goat.

I must admit that I am a little tired of the sceptics ignoring the elephant in the living room while playing 'look over there' games. That's enough posting from me for a while.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I think that's enough posting from me for a while as well - I've got to go and bash my head against a brick wall for three or four months...

CB

[Chris Knight]

...

Would we not feel that the most sophisticated yet instruments for measuring ice thickness would have picked up on such a feature over the years they have been in service?

...

Do you have any good links to data for ice thickness, or measurement deployment programs, GW? Satellites seem to estimate the concentration, rather than thickness.

I had the impression that Arctic sea ice thickness data is sporadic and very incomplete, because it is hard, expensive and dangerous to do, and the ice is always in motion. Submarine measurements of ice draft have been published, but from very few runs under the ice, and nothing recently.

[VillagePlank]

Messing around, and humour aside, the old adage 'tiny pertubations of a butterflys wings might create a tornado in New York' Now, I am almost certain that a butterfly doesn't flap it's wing in a certain pattern in order to create the shear and storm system that creates the tornado. It's much more complex, I think. I can only, then, surmise that scale has nothing to do with it. And, it's not simple mathematics, either. Well, it might be for some, but it certainly ain't for me.

As for relevance - I have no idea, and I would wish to see further studies (more VP sitting on the fence, yes) Is this area saturated by research to exclude all reasonable hypothesis and ideas. I've no idea.

For all I know the atmosphere has changed it's weight, hence pressure, and therefore the melting point of ice.

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks V.P., eloquently put!

This not a 'slugging match' ,we may agree to differ on impact but we surely agree that the 'effects' we are all witnessing are caused by something far greater than what we have been discussing.

I'd like to venture that the rapid decline in sea ice, esp. perennial, over the last 8 years points to something other than volcanic,subterreanean eruptions throughout that period.

I have to believe the science that is, day upon day, laid out before me. My direction in youth and the study I did means that most of it is available to me and smacks of the grim facts.

[laserguy]

I think that's enough posting from me for a while as well - I've got to go and bash my head against a brick wall for three or four months...

CB

Well I often feel like that but my resolve is shattered on an almost daily basis when I read more nonsense in some form or another supporting the AGW hypothesis!

Anyway,more for the pot....

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/0..._be_due_to.html

Seems the recently discovered and much discussed (on here) spurt of volcanic activity 'up there' started in 1999 according to NOAA - just at the time the ice started to decline precipitously. See the link there,anyone? Note the comments after this article. Much sense spoken here.

[VillagePlank]

Well I often feel like that but my resolve is shattered on an almost daily basis when I read more nonsense in some form or another supporting the AGW hypothesis!

Anyway,more for the pot....

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/0..._be_due_to.html

Seems the recently discovered and much discussed (on here) spurt of volcanic activity 'up there' started in 1999 according to NOAA - just at the time the ice started to decline precipitously. See the link there,anyone? Note the comments after this article. Much sense spoken here.

For sure the hypothesis has merit, otherwise you'd have the smoking gun to show everyone. How much merit is precisely why I sit on the fence.

(and merit it not related to scientific competence of anyone involved, btw - before I get me bum spanked by Roo again - it's an abstract of likelyhood of future longevity of the theory, if you know what I mean)

[Iceberg]

Well I often feel like that but my resolve is shattered on an almost daily basis when I read more nonsense in some form or another supporting the AGW hypothesis!

Anyway,more for the pot....

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/0..._be_due_to.html

Seems the recently discovered and much discussed (on here) spurt of volcanic activity 'up there' started in 1999 according to NOAA - just at the time the ice started to decline precipitously. See the link there,anyone? Note the comments after this article. Much sense spoken here.

If you see my post talking to the actual scientist, the eruption happened back in 1999, there has not been one since. End of Story.

[VillagePlank]

If you see my post talking to the actual scientist, the eruption happened back in 1999, there has not been one since. End of Story.

Are you certain nothing has happened since?