Arctic Ice Discussion (The Melt)

[jethro]

But as it's all just a natural system working exactly as it should, there's no need to worry about it. The time to start panicking is when the world is warming and nature's thermostat doesn't work.

Have they yet found an answer to the riddle of whether or not open water up there allows more heat to escape, than would be reflected from ice cover?

[laserguy]

But as it's all just a natural system working exactly as it should, there's no need to worry about it.

Been following this thread with incredulity, knowing that the main contributors of late attribute things to a greater or lesser degree to CO2, in a barely veiled manner. Bonkers. Other than that,jolly good stuff. Be interesting to see how things pan out over time.

[jethro]

It may be as a result of CO2, some of the melt, or all of the melt may well be directly attributable to us, that's a riddle we're a long way from answering. It doesn't alter the fact that varying ice levels is what is supposed to happen, it's not known as the Earth's thermostat for nothing.

It's a natural system doing exactly what it's supposed to do.

[songster]

That's a remarkably teleological argument. "Supposed" by whom/what - was the polar ice cap designed? Self-evidently not. But if you strip away the spurious imputation of purpose, what are you left with? Are you just stating that when things get hotter, ice melts, and thus absorbs some of the heat? Thanks, but I think we all know that already. Attributing purpose to physical law is a stretch too far. The question is when the downward trend is going to stop, and how. After all, using your false language of purpose, the ice cap is "supposed" to get bigger again when the climate gets cooler. What's going to bring that about?

Have they yet found an answer to the riddle of whether or not open water up there allows more heat to escape, than would be reflected from ice cover?

It doesn't. This too is self-evident. You just have to think about what the language of "heat escaping" actually means in physical terms.

Heat doesn't escape during the summer - that's the melt season when there is heat input into the ice. Heat escapes during the re-freeze. It's true that increased ice loss (lower summer minimum) leads to increased heat escape (more ice formed during re-freeze). This means that the annual cycle gradually gets wider, with more ice loss in the summer followed by more ice re-forming in winter. But these effects are not equal and opposite. If they were, then the winter maximum would stay constant. It hasn't: there is a downward trend in the maximum as well as the minimum - for volume in particular as MYI gets replaced by first-year ice, but also for extent and area.

[4wd]

It's one of the physical properties of our waterworld.

It doesn't require a supreme being to direct it.

It's not entirely a chance, but we wouldn't be here to ponder it were it not for the millions of years of relative stability which the mass of water and it's state changes have allowed.

Edited June 14, 2012 by 4wd

[Gray-Wolf]

Jethro? Is not the icoming radiation directly reflected into space by the high albedo snow and ice cap? If dark water does this not absorb over 80% of the incoming solar and then re-emit it as 'heat' into the atmosphere above?

As such would some of this warmth not be re-used to delay /melt out ice formation on the ocean it sits above? would this warm air not lead to fog across the ocean surface above (Arctic Sea Smoke). Does fog/low cloud speed heat loss into the atmosphere above or trap it in the fog/cloud layer?

As for the planet 'doing the natural thing' I think you are right. I just think you omit the fact that our world can have many climates with the same amount of heat entering the system. For instance Magically expand the ice to the extent of the height of the last ice age. Would global temps be warmer or cooler? Again magically remove all the ice and ask the same question.

You will find that the planet is quite able to be 4c (or so) hotter than present if we remove the cooling influence of the ice (that is a global average increase not the large increase ice loss would drive in the polar regions) with no changes needed to the incoming solar.

We are seeing the ice reducing and dark water replacing it over summer months. The fact that instead of reflecting 90% plus of the energy per sq m it is now accepting 80% plus of the incoming energy.

Do you really think that this will drive no changes in the local, and hence Global, climate???

No matter, this years losses will once again bring the Arctic into the media spotlight. this time we will not have a 'perfect storm' to blame losses on. We will also have further Methane studies bringing forward data.

Whether you feel us foolish/hasty in voicing our concerns over the changes we see being wrought across the polar region you will eventually share them with the rest of humanity......you will just need sit and wait for data enough to satisfy your own mind on the subject.

Should the governments of the world, via their proffesional advisors, demand as much time before accepting the clear and present danger we highlight on these threads I fear we will have waited far too long. By that time we will see the full impact of Mother Natures own Methane agenda and bring down GHG's will no longer be an option for us.

Laser. This energy that Dark waters now absorb over summer. If year on year we have more GHG's in the atmosphere above them what will happen to a proportion of the summers heat when it is re-emmitted at summers end?

[jethro]

And I'm reminded all over again why I can't be bothered entering into anything here....

If anyone of you can show me a peer reviewed paper which shows conclusively that we understand (and have evidence for our understanding) what the radiative budget is for the Arctic region, then I'll happily eat my words. I admit I haven't paid much attention to the debate for some time now but the last time I looked no one had figured out the huge conundrum of albedo, radiative cooling, open water and cloud production (more or less, whether positive or negative feedback), small particle pollution, ocean cycles, atmospheric pressure patterns etc etc etc.

Greywolf - "Whether you feel us foolish/hasty in voicing our concerns over the changes we see being wrought across the polar region you will eventually share them with the rest of humanity......you will just need sit and wait for data enough to satisfy your own mind on the subject."

Should I laugh or cry at your presumption? You're missing one vital component when trying to predict my behaviour, actually make that two, starting with you don't know me, you could pass me in the street and not be aware, secondly and probably the most relevant here, I don't share your hankering for the world to be a static, passive thing. Change is normal, change brings opportunity, for every negative thing which happens, there is a positive if you're willing to look for it. And before you launch into the "thousands will die" sermon, we have the capability to house and feed the Earth's population, we just lack the will to do so and focus instead on keeping things for ourselves.

[Gray-Wolf]

Oh Dawn please, you need think a little larger on this (broader brush strokes?).

I do not think any one of us believes climate to be static.

I do not believe any one of us denies the evidence that ,since the end of the last glaciation, parts of the Arctic basin have reacted (by sea ice reduction) to local warm drivers.

if you step back far enough though those climate 'wiggles' become part of the average 'line' (broader brush strokes).

What some of us are concerned about is an alteration to that line whach is plainly visible when your 'climate wiggles' are not.

The 'decimation' of the Arctic ice would sound , to some, 'extreme' but would only suggest a 10% reduction in the ice mass across the Arctic. This type of adjustment probably fits your understanding of the dynamism built into the system.

We are closer to having lost over 80% of the ice mass we had entering the 20th Century.This ice is now forced to spread itself so thin across the basin (loss of the structural integrity that the old arctic once displayed) that it is ever more prone to the type of melt out/ship out that we are seeing so far this year. If we take an 'average' for the rest of the season this would bring us a new ice min in both Extent and Area (overall ice mass is a given).

When the scale of the changes are so extreme and all evidence points this to being 'novel' in the arctic since the end of the last ice age why do you continually insist that it is nothing more than the type of 'wiggle' that the science has been telling us it is not since the 07' crash? I just do not get it and would ,personally, be a lot happier if i did and could embrace your lack of concern (honest!).

As for the ice today? well another big drop (and by big I mean beyond what has become 'average' for the time of year since the 07' crash). With only the tiny strip north of Greenland/C.A. holding onto proper thick (ridged and over-ridden/slabbed ice) ice it will be down to the vagaries of local weather as to whether any other ice survives the melt this year. Of course those same whims of the weather could lead to the only ice left being this thicker ice and I do not know whether this adds up to over 1 million sq km of ice (the seasonal level) or not?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Anywho, as GW mentioned, the high melt rates continue.

On the IJIS extent data, the last reliable days melt was over 130,000km2 and takes us to within 100,000km2 of being lowest on record.

Cryosphere today continues in a similar fashion, with the last loss being around 150,000km2, so we're still lowest on record by over 400,000km2.

Conditions do look like improving a lot over the Arctic ocean though as a more +ve AO pattern becomes established. It will be interesting to see how much this slows the losses by over the coming days.

[Gray-Wolf]

We still have ice, outside of the basin, yet to melt out and so this would infer that 'inside the basin' we have more dark water than seen before at this time of year?.

No matter what temps are the energy this dark water amasses will still be above that of previous years meaning more ability to melt out ice later on in the season?.

We will also keep on losing the ice outside of the basin even if we do see reductions in the melt rate inside the basin so we may find us still keeping to an 'average' ice loss each day.

[BornFromTheVoid]

It's only just Hudson Bay and the Baffin sea that have any significant amount of ice remaining outside of the Arctic basin, with both combined having about 1.1 million left to lose, and both already in rapid decline. By mid July, both areas should be largely ice free.

If nothing more was lost from the Arctic ocean, and only ice was lost from both Baffin and Hudson, we be a little over average in a months time. That would be assuming and end to ice export and sub 0 temperatures across the entire Arctic ocean, which seems impossible unfortunately.

[Gray-Wolf]

Ideed BFTV, indeed. I have seen a little debate about the potential for the open water off Alaska (in the Beaufort sea area) to actually be already aiding basal melt (static buoy data) as the gyre draws the sun warmed waters under the remaining ice in that area?

Depending on wind/currents i could imagine similar going on around our side of the basin.

Then we have the ice already drawn down the East coast of Greenland. this ice is always set to melt out (along with Hudson/Baffin) so even with sub zero temps throughout the basin for the next month we would still see some losses continue.

We both know that in all probability we will continue to see major losses in both Beaufort and East Siberian Seas.

I think it might be an interesting exercise to try and foresee what will occur (beyond what we see presently) once we have an established seasonal pack across the Arctic?

Will it impact our seasons directly? Will it be another major driving force in global temp rises? how fast will the permafrosts be impacted and what of their cargo of GHG's?

By now i think most folk accept that we are headed in this direction and so it would be interesting (for me at least) to hear how folk appreciate such a major alteration to the planet and it's climate?

Edited June 15, 2012 by Gray-Wolf

[BornFromTheVoid]

I hadn't really considered that effect of the open Beaufort sea, but the DMI ssts show it's already widely above 0C, so it's quite likely that basal melt is occurring under the Chukchi and Pacific side of the Arctic Basin.

Despite the change to a +ve AO over the coming days, the warm uppers remain over the Beaufort and Kara seas, so we'll likely see high melt rates continuing in these locations, though between them they've only about 600,000km2 left, so their large loss contributions can't continue for too much longer.

I suppose there would be many unpredicted changes brought about to the northern hemisphere by consistently seasonal ice. Based on the paper discussed a few weeks here I guess we may see a continuation of that trend. A reduced thermal and thickness gradient between the Arctic and equator resulting in a slower and more meandering jet stream and the weather effects associated with that.

The influence on brine production and it's effects on the thermohaline circulation would be another interesting area, perhaps a negative feedback helping to recover ice loss?

[BornFromTheVoid]

An interesting read, published online just last week.

The Arctic’s rapidly shrinking sea ice cover:

a research synthesis

http://www.springerl...w3/fulltext.pdf

[Gray-Wolf]

I keep wondering about ocean transport and seem dragged one way and then another by folks theories and evidence that then pops up to the contrary? In the end i think that ,much like the atmosphere, transport will continue to allow the planet to try and 'balance' it's heat budget? One way or another heat will seek out cold and cold will seek out heat. i'm sure we will never reach that point of perfect balance but if I'm right then we will continue to see warmer waters (as we have been seeing from the atlantic side for decades now?) moving ever further north.

This raises another question. What of Greenlands melt? Once the cold and ice allowed the top of greenland to be an ice desert with dry air masses in place. Are we now to see ever moister air encroaching into the upland region (and the melt such moisture will bring?)?

Again i would think it a big error to think greenland will melt in a slow 'drip, drip' fashion. I tend towards large collapses intersperced with a slw increase of the 'drip, drip' type melt? Surely the warming of the Arctic regions will have major impacts on this part of the world?

EDIT; thanks for the read BFTV. Seems common sense to me. how I wish some of my detractors had read the synopsis of the 07' to 2010 seasons!

Edited June 15, 2012 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

Oh Dawn please, you need think a little larger on this (broader brush strokes?).

I do not think any one of us believes climate to be static.

I do not believe any one of us denies the evidence that ,since the end of the last glaciation, parts of the Arctic basin have reacted (by sea ice reduction) to local warm drivers.

if you step back far enough though those climate 'wiggles' become part of the average 'line' (broader brush strokes).

What some of us are concerned about is an alteration to that line whach is plainly visible when your 'climate wiggles' are not.

The 'decimation' of the Arctic ice would sound , to some, 'extreme' but would only suggest a 10% reduction in the ice mass across the Arctic. This type of adjustment probably fits your understanding of the dynamism built into the system.

We are closer to having lost over 80% of the ice mass we had entering the 20th Century.This ice is now forced to spread itself so thin across the basin (loss of the structural integrity that the old arctic once displayed) that it is ever more prone to the type of melt out/ship out that we are seeing so far this year. If we take an 'average' for the rest of the season this would bring us a new ice min in both Extent and Area (overall ice mass is a given).

When the scale of the changes are so extreme and all evidence points this to being 'novel' in the arctic since the end of the last ice age why do you continually insist that it is nothing more than the type of 'wiggle' that the science has been telling us it is not since the 07' crash? I just do not get it and would ,personally, be a lot happier if i did and could embrace your lack of concern (honest!).

As for the ice today? well another big drop (and by big I mean beyond what has become 'average' for the time of year since the 07' crash). With only the tiny strip north of Greenland/C.A. holding onto proper thick (ridged and over-ridden/slabbed ice) ice it will be down to the vagaries of local weather as to whether any other ice survives the melt this year. Of course those same whims of the weather could lead to the only ice left being this thicker ice and I do not know whether this adds up to over 1 million sq km of ice (the seasonal level) or not?

Ian, you know full well that I'm not one of those folk who say "it's all natural" - never have, never will. My stance was, and is, that some of it is natural, some of it may not be, but the point is, and it's a very big and crucial point - we cannot ascertain how much can be ascribed to either cause.

My lack of concern? It's not really a lack of concern, more an absence of worry or panic.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Will be interesting to see when the Nares strait begins to break up again, as it's looked quite solid so far this summer. It was during the first week of July last year fully broke up I believe.

Lots of warmth forecast for the Baffin sea over the coming week, with temperatures in south west Greenland above 20C quite frequently from Monday onwards, so it might be worth while keeping an eye out for reports on more records being broken there. That warmth spreads towards the Nares strait later in the week too, so the first proper test for the ice bridge may be on its way soon.

Tuesday

Friday

[Methuselah]

Well done, BFTV, Ian and Jethro...this is one of the most constructive and informative discussions I've followed for a while...

[Devonian]

Will be interesting to see when the Nares strait begins to break up again, as it's looked quite solid so far this summer. It was during the first week of July last year fully broke up I believe.

Lots of warmth forecast for the Baffin sea over the coming week, with temperatures in south west Greenland above 20C quite frequently from Monday onwards, so it might be worth while keeping an eye out for reports on more records being broken there. That warmth spreads towards the Nares strait later in the week too, so the first proper test for the ice bridge may be on its way soon.

Tuesday

Friday

Perhaps this is a little OT but it's going to be extraordinary if Greenland sees 20C+ on several days this week while the UK looks unlikely to better that (or even achieve that)

Will these temperature be Fhoen assisted? Or perhaps it's WAA from the SW? And aren't those very high forecasted temperatures for the southern Greenland ice sheet?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Perhaps this is a little OT but it's going to be extraordinary if Greenland sees 20C+ on several days this week while the UK looks unlikely to better that (or even achieve that)

Will these temperature be Fhoen assisted? Or perhaps it's WAA from the SW? And aren't those very high forecasted temperatures for the southern Greenland ice sheet?

This area hit 24.8C last month, so it's not entirely unheard of, if quite unusual. I couldn't really say if is fohn influenced or not, though the one last month was.

The area of Kangerlussuaq, which is above 20C on the GFS charts, is the region where the all time record stands, at 25.5C. The average June max there is actually quite high though, at 15C.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://ocean.dmi.dk/.../qaanaaq.uk.php

Anyone wanting to check on the ice bridge should use the above link and click on 'Kane' area (about 10 to 10 if you use Greenland as a clock face)

Edit; Cheers Pete!

Edited June 15, 2012 by Gray-Wolf

[pottyprof]

This raises another question. What of Greenlands melt?

As Greenland keeps being mentioned, is it worth opening a separate thread for a more in depth discussion?

As Pete said, very informative discussion. I think I've earned a sleep now though..

[Gray-Wolf]

As Greenland keeps being mentioned, is it worth opening a separate thread for a more in depth discussion?

As Pete said, very informative discussion. I think I've earned a sleep now though..

I think that would prove useful P.P.! We have another big calve of petterson due this melt season and it may prove to be significant (beyond the natural variation we have seen of the ice front)

[knocker]

Regarding Greenland.

The ice sheet’s recent rate of loss-around 200 gigatonnes a year-represents a fourfold increase on a decade ago. Half of this melting is thought to be due to the warming atmosphere. The other half is due to warmer seawater, caused by global warming or a shift in Atlantic currents, or both. As a result, the sea is eating away the edge of the ice sheet at a faster rate. Between 2002 and 2007 the Jakobshaven Ishbrae, a big glacier in western Greenland, retreated by 3km a year, shedding a total of over 36 billion tonnes of ice.

If the climate stabilises soon, the ice cap might resettle at a slightly lower mass than it has now, raising sea levels by only a few centimetres. But if the warming continues, the ice cap will continue to melt. Sooner or later, it is thought a tipping point would be reached when the decline would become terminal. “How long will the ice cap last� asks Dorthe Dahl-Jensen of the University of Copenhagen, who has studied the subject in depth. “We don’t know because we don’t fully understand what determines the velocity of its ice streams.†But such a collapse has happened before. Around 15,000 years ago the Barents Sea ice sheet, which stretched from northern England to Siberia, disintegrated in perhaps less than 1,000 years, probably because of warming seas.

The Economist. June 16-22 2012.

[BornFromTheVoid]

I dunno, using the Jakobshaven Ishbrae glacier as an example of Greenland mass loss is a bit sneaky. The rate of retreat with that particular glacier has recently been extremely fast and highly anomalous. It would be like using the Karakoram glaciers as an indication of glacial change in the Himalayas (but I guess, for the opposite purpose).