Arctic Ice Discussion - 2010 Freeze Up

[knocker]

Don't get me wrong Dev, it shouldn't be that way but that's what science is up against. The sooner that these bodies of people open up to inspection by the people (I suppose you could call it open education. Make the science behind it all simple and interesting.) the better it will be for everyone. At the moment it's at a kind of stalemate though improving slightly...

JS.. It isn't point scoring, it's just a case of pointing out that there is no definite answer to what is causing the melt.. It's either one or the other or both.. Nobody knows for definite. If you find that arguing a point about melting arctic ice a problem then you're in the wrong place. It's called debate..

Then my definition of debate is different to yours. Mine contains words such as argue in detail. Yours apparently doesn't. To repeat that there is no definitive answer is blindingly obvious and the point of the debate in the first place. Having made that obvious point you then talk about proof which is a tad contradictory.

[knocker]

You're making the assumption that a theory about CO2 adversely warms the atmosphere is true.

A reasonable assumption based on historical data using Oxygen Isotope Stratigraphy and small pockets of air trapped in ice pores that reflect reflect the atmospheric composition at the time of entrapment. Observations from ice and sediment cores demonstrate that large -scale changes in atmospheric CO₂ levels occurred over geological time and are correlated with atmospheric temperature changes over the past 160,000 years.

Edited October 30, 2010 by weather ship

[Gray-Wolf]

Here's yesterdays Wokingham offering showing the 'peel away' of ice along the coast of Ellesmere Island. As time goes on (for those who looked st the other images) you can see the amount of open water that is now being exposed and that the fractures are 'twisting' (breaking the ice into Nares sized chunks?).

In the past (1900) the whole of that north shore was an expanse of shore ice/shelf which helped 'trap the ice' and so this 'rapid transport' did not occur. In fact ice would ride over itself and proce the 10 to 40m chunks of 'ridge ice'.

http://www.woksat.in...39-g-grn-n.html

Edited October 30, 2010 by jethro
Give it a rest.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Less than 11,000km2 above 2007 now after a provisional gain of just under 10,000km2.

What can we blame this on then?

[The PIT]

A reasonable assumption based on historical data using Oxygen Isotope Stratigraphy and small pockets of air trapped in ice pores that reflect reflect the atmospheric composition at the time of entrapment. Observations from ice and sediment cores demonstrate that large -scale changes in atmospheric CO₂ levels occurred over geological time and are correlated with atmospheric temperature changes over the past 160,000 years.

So what caused the large changes of co2 when man wasn't a factor. Okay from ice ball earth we've got the idea that huge volcanic eruptions increased the co2. Against that we got arguments that ice increases the pressure of magma chambers preventing eruptions. The other side of this eruptions increase when ice melts as the pressure isn't enough to hold the magma chambers back. Also today's volcano's don't produce enough co2 to effect climate. Anyone know of any projections about the amount of gas produced by flood basalt eruptions????

[Thundery wintry showers]

I think the problem we always run into there is an argument that Pete Tattum often refers to- if non-anthropogenic CO2 can warm the planet then why would anthropogenic CO2 be any different?

[weather eater]

I think the problem we always run into there is an argument that Pete Tattum often refers to- if non-anthropogenic CO2 can warm the planet then why would anthropogenic CO2 be any different?

And a sound point it is. Of course the phrase anthropogenic CO2 is really only a way of saying natural CO2 that been locked in the earth in the form of oil, coal, etc for billions of years. That CO2 was removed from the atmosphere over a very long period of time. Given that we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that we are releasing it back into the atmosphere over a very short period of time, it would be very surprising if it was not having an effect.

Reading the Pits post earlier really stuck a cord with me, not because it was contentious in any way, but because it struck me just how much we treat scientific theory’s as being credible. The Pit talked about snowball earth theory as if it was an established fact, however it is not an established fact, its just a theory. Also how we emerged from that snowball earth is also just a theory not a fact. The point of this, is that what we see on these pages time and time again is theory’s from both sides of the debate presented as facts, for want of a better phrase, its cherry picking. All that we know about past climate has come from the work of pale climatologists. What we see on these pages is huge credibility given to their work until such time as they propose a theory that one side or the other does not agree with. Then we see allegations of misconduct, the taking of bribes, or just the science doesn’t know everything line.

[knocker]

So what caused the large changes of co2 when man wasn't a factor. Okay from ice ball earth we've got the idea that huge volcanic eruptions increased the co2. Against that we got arguments that ice increases the pressure of magma chambers preventing eruptions. The other side of this eruptions increase when ice melts as the pressure isn't enough to hold the magma chambers back. Also today's volcano's don't produce enough co2 to effect climate. Anyone know of any projections about the amount of gas produced by flood basalt eruptions????

I think one thing that’s slipping peoples mind here is that the oceans play an important role in the climate system by regulating the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere. It is a good reason why it is important to understand thoroughly the workings of the marine carbonate system, which controls the movement of CO₂ between the ocean and the atmosphere. (No need to go into it here or the carbon cycle as my point doesn’t require it)

In my previous post I mentioned that there is a correlation between atmospheric CO₂ and temperature change. Cold temperatures (during glacial periods) appear to be associated with low levels of CO₂. The deglaciation events of about 140,000 years and15, 000 years ago are particularly obvious with concentrations between 180 and 200 parts per million rising rapidly (in geological terms) to around 280!

This is to be expected as CO₂ is more soluble in cold than in warm water, and its atmospheric concentration should therefore be less during glacial (lower mean temperatures) than interglacial periods. It follows from this that CO₂ concentrations are not the driver of temperature fluctuations but the result caused by natural cycles such as orbital variations, sun activity, etc.

Thus we have a conundrum. We now have record levels of concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere almost certainly due to the reintroduction of CO₂ sequested during the carbon cycles and carbonate systems millions of years ago. This is accompanied by rising temperatures particularly in certain areas of the globe. Plus the Atlantic has warmed 1 deg C in the last 30 years. This is a reversal of events in the past. It is distinctly possible that other factors are playing a part so what can we conclude? Possibly that it is reasonably certain that varying levels of CO₂ are not the main cause of temperature fluctuations – but once established they are likely to reinforce climatic changes, not initiate them.

We are perhaps then in the middle of a global experiment in which several geochemical cycles are being perturbed and probably what we are seing in the Arctic is just the beginning.

Edited October 31, 2010 by weather ship

[4wd]

New paper casts doubt on claims that current ice levels are unprecedented.

Via WUWT

Direct link

Watts also has an interesting read about methane levels.

Very little evidence that any signoficant increase is coming from permafrost.

In fact not really any increase going on at all.

Methane is present in huge quantities around the galaxy, some planets are practically made of it.

However in earth's atmosphere it's a few parts per billion - because it's greedily devoured by microbes.

[Gray-Wolf]

8 million looks like the 26th? (maybe we'll have losses and slow it to Nov 1st?)

Once the 'basin is 'full' (4 mill, area, not extent?) that's when the 'guessing' will be involved methinks?

Hmmmmm, I'm a prophet now!

4wd, seeing as you haven't looked over there I'll post it here for you too!

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/oce/mholland/papers/Polyak_2010_historyofseaiceArctic.pdf

Edited October 31, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

Finally,

these new data imply a major mid-Piacenzian reduction in

sea ice similar to what has been observed in recent summers,

strengthening the idea that the anomalous sea ice melting we

have observed in the Arctic Ocean in recent years may be an

early warning for significant global warming.

============================================

My goodness! Has Mr Watts finally seen the light?

http://micropress.org/stratigraphy/papers/Stratigraphy_6_4_265-275.pdf

[jethro]

What's that got to do with Mr. Watts?

[Gray-Wolf]

What's that got to do with Mr. Watts?

Nice try J'! (LOL) not that you wouldn't be familiar with his site or latest 'revalations' .

If not then it's a paper he's recently linked to to show how 'normal' things are oop north!

EDIT: Hey! why didn't anyone tell me of the 1104 Hekla eruption that wasted most of the Viking settlements there? There was I thinking it was the cold that ruined their farms?

Edited November 1, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[BornFromTheVoid]

Nice to see a some stronger gains over the last few days. Provisionally today we've gained about 74,000km2, which keeps us about 35,000km2 above 2007.

2007 though, made the jump from 8 million to 9 million in just 9 days, so we have to maintain gains of at least 100k/day for the next 8 days just to avoid going lowest on record.

A quick look at the last 2 days on the concentration images shows quite good growth across the Arctic, and the main pack finally reaching the northern Alaskan coastline. No reason why we shouldn't see another >100,000km2 today.

Looking a little further ahead with the models, I can see no reason why we shouldn't see large gains over the next 5 day. The cold upper air in sitting straight on top of the Arctic ocean where it's needed (for sea ice growth anyway). This doesn't change until next weekend when a large depression over Barents may start to shake things up a little. The only obstacle to some very high ice gains that I can see is the SSTAs, which are anomalously warm around the Chukchi sea still. On the Unisys is image here the is a large cold anomaly across much of the Barents and Kara sea while on the DMI image here the same area shows a large positive anomaly, so I really don't know what's going on there!

[Yorkshiresnows]

<br />There was I thinking it was the cold that ruined their farms?<br />

<br /><br /><br />

It was the cold, history has recorded it, you know it, I know it, the whole world knows it. Please lets move on !!

Y.S

[4wd]

Most of the stuff on WUWT refers to other research or papers which tend to be overlooked elsewhere (because they arent on message?)

I do find the sniffy mocking of the site at best rather misguided.

[weather eater]

Most of the stuff on WUWT refers to other research or papers which tend to be overlooked elsewhere (because they arent on message?)

I do find the sniffy mocking of the site at best rather misguided.

And they then overlook any research or papers that are not on their message, I call that pot kettle black.

<br /><br /><br />

It was the cold, history has recorded it, you know it, I know it, the whole world knows it. Please lets move on !!

Y.S

Actually it was a number of factors that put paid to the Viking settlements on Greenland, the winters getting colder was only part of the story. And history does not record what the final nail in the coffin was.

http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

Nice try J'! (LOL) not that you wouldn't be familiar with his site or latest 'revalations' .

If not then it's a paper he's recently linked to to show how 'normal' things are oop north!

EDIT: Hey! why didn't anyone tell me of the 1104 Hekla eruption that wasted most of the Viking settlements there? There was I thinking it was the cold that ruined their farms?

I agree with Jethro, and 4WD. WUWT, although a known sceptic site DOES publish stuff that shows research from both sides. Perhaps you ought to look at it without blinkers once in a while.

As for Hekla in 1104, it was probably both cold and volcanic effects. Remember, we are looking at it from a 20th century perspective, we could ride out a "summer without a summer" as we could import food from elsewhere, they had no supply chain to get those vital foodstuffs.

[jethro]

Nice try J'! (LOL) not that you wouldn't be familiar with his site or latest 'revalations' .

If not then it's a paper he's recently linked to to show how 'normal' things are oop north!

EDIT: Hey! why didn't anyone tell me of the 1104 Hekla eruption that wasted most of the Viking settlements there? There was I thinking it was the cold that ruined their farms?

I wasn't trying anything GW, merely asking a question. You posted a paper which didn't link through to Watts, I was a tad confused at your meaning. As it happens, I haven't a clue what goes on over at his site as the only visits I make are posts linked through from here or appear on climate daily.

I do however find your tone above rather condescending.

[weather eater]

I agree with Jethro, and 4WD. WUWT, although a known sceptic site DOES publish stuff that shows research from both sides. Perhaps you ought to look at it without blinkers once in a while.

As for Hekla in 1104, it was probably both cold and volcanic effects. Remember, we are looking at it from a 20th century perspective, we could ride out a "summer without a summer" as we could import food from elsewhere, they had no supply chain to get those vital foodstuffs.

If thats the case, lets see the links, because I have yet to see any pro AGW research on WUWT.

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

If thats the case, lets see the links, because I have yet to see any pro AGW research on WUWT.

well, at the risk of moving off topic, there's this for starters. He reports the first French report, then states that he doesn't believe it. BUT it is reported

Back on topic, the Sea Ice Page on WUWT is about as balanced as you can get, just pure data

[Gray-Wolf]

If thats the case, lets see the links, because I have yet to see any pro AGW research on WUWT.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/30/new-peer-reviewed-paper-says-there-appear-to-have-been-periods-of-ice-free-summers-in-the-central-arctic-ocean/

[knocker]

I think one thing that’s slipping peoples mind here is that the oceans play an important role in the climate system by regulating the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere. It is a good reason why it is important to understand thoroughly the workings of the marine carbonate system, which controls the movement of CO₂ between the ocean and the atmosphere. (No need to go into it here or the carbon cycle as my point doesn’t require it)

In my previous post I mentioned that there is a correlation between atmospheric CO₂ and temperature change. Cold temperatures (during glacial periods) appear to be associated with low levels of CO₂. The deglaciation events of about 140,000 years and15, 000 years ago are particularly obvious with concentrations between 180 and 200 parts per million rising rapidly (in geological terms) to around 280!

This is to be expected as CO₂ is more soluble in cold than in warm water, and its atmospheric concentration should therefore be less during glacial (lower mean temperatures) than interglacial periods. It follows from this that CO₂ concentrations are not the driver of temperature fluctuations but the result caused by natural cycles such as orbital variations, sun activity, etc.

Thus we have a conundrum. We now have record levels of concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere almost certainly due to the reintroduction of CO₂ sequested during the carbon cycles and carbonate systems millions of years ago. This is accompanied by rising temperatures particularly in certain areas of the globe. Plus the Atlantic has warmed 1 deg C in the last 30 years. This is a reversal of events in the past. It is distinctly possible that other factors are playing a part so what can we conclude? Possibly that it is reasonably certain that varying levels of CO₂ are not the main cause of temperature fluctuations – but once established they are likely to reinforce climatic changes, not initiate them.

We are perhaps then in the middle of a global experiment in which several geochemical cycles are being perturbed and probably what we are seing in the Arctic is just the beginning.

Just to put a bit more detail to this if anyone is interested.

Box 8.3 Oxygen Isotope Stratigraphy

Oxygen has three stable isotopes (¹⁶O, ¹⁷O, and ¹⁸O) with atomic mass numbers of 16,17, and 18:

•¹⁶O makes up 99.763% of natural oxygen.

•¹⁷O makes up 0.033% of natural oxygen.

•¹⁸O makes up 0.204% of natural oxygen.

Oxygen makes up 90% of water by weight; the ¹⁶O isotope is lighter than the ¹⁸O isotope. Therefore, ¹⁶O is preferentially evaporated relative to ¹⁸O.

During glacial periods, ¹⁶O-enriched water vapour is precipitated as snow which builds up to form glacier ice and ice caps. This ice is relatively depleted in ¹⁸O. The oceans, however, become relatively enriched in ¹⁸O, because of evaporation of ¹⁶O-enriched water vapour. The larger the ice caps, the larger the proportion of ¹⁶O removed from seawater, and the more the ,¹⁸O:¹⁶O ratio of the sea water increases.

Marine organisms, such as foraminifera, which form skeletons or tests of calcium carbonate, incorporate different proportions of ¹⁶O and ¹⁸O from the water, according to the temperature; but, more importantly, according to the background ratio of ¹⁸O:¹⁶O in the sea water, which reflects global ice volumes. Measurements of the small differences in the ¹⁸O:¹⁶O ratio in different samples using a mass spectrometer allow the sequence and age of warm and cold conditions to be determined.

The ¹⁸O:¹⁶O ratio of foraminifera, especially benthic species which live in low-temperature bottom water (and hence are not affected by temperature changes), can therefore be taken as a measure of the amount of water held in ice sheets at any given time, and hence also as an indicator of global sea level.

Description with diagram.

In polar regions, partial melting of surface snow and ice occurs during the summer months; refreezing in winter produces an ice layer on top of the old snow. Since snow is porous, small pockets of air are trapped in its pores when the surface layer of ice freezes. These 'bubbles' reflect the atmospheric composition at the time of entrapment. These annual markers, like tree rings, of ice and snow can be used to pinpoint the time of their deposition (see also Box 8.3). Observations from ice and sediment cores demonstrate that large-scale changes in atmospheric CO2 levels occurred over geological time and are correlated with atmospheric temperature changes over the past 160,000 years. The correlation between atmospheric [C02] and temperature change (AT) is clear. Cold temperatures (during glacial periods) appear to be associated with low levels of atmospheric CO2, The deglaciation events of about 140,000 years and 15,000 years ago are particularly obvious. These fluctuations are as expected -CO2 is more soluble in cold than in warm water, and its atmospheric concentration should therefore be less during glacial (lower mean temperatures) than interglacial periods.

Reference: Oceanography-An Illustrated Guide, C.P. Summerhayes and S.A. Thorpe 1996 © Manson Publishing Ltd. Used with permission.

[MR EXTREMES]

Nice try J'! (LOL) not that you wouldn't be familiar with his site or latest 'revalations' .

If not then it's a paper he's recently linked to to show how 'normal' things are oop north!

EDIT: Hey! why didn't anyone tell me of the 1104 Hekla eruption that wasted most of the Viking settlements there? There was I thinking it was the cold that ruined their farms?

mr watts is not on either side of the fence.

[barrel1234]

Still looks to me that its more likely that temp dirves C02 rather than it being the oher way around, also from that graph I think we are better off now rather than being a degree or two or more colder!