Top climate story of 2008: Arctic sea ice loss

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 4:03 PM GMT on January 12, 2009

Share this Blog
4
+

The top climate story of 2008, as it was in 2007, was the extraordinary summertime sea ice retreat in the Arctic. For the second consecutive year, we experienced the opening of the fabled Northwest Passage through the Canadian Arctic waters. Explorers have been attempting to sail the Northwest Passage since 1497, and 2007 and 2008 are the only known years the passage has been ice-free. In addition, 2008 saw the simultaneous opening of the Northeast Passage along the coast of Russia. This meant that for the first time in recorded history, the Arctic ice cap was an island--one could completely circumnavigate the Arctic Ocean in ice-free waters. Although the summer ice extent in 2008 finished 9% higher than 2007's record minimum, it was still an extraordinary 34% below average, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Furthermore, the ice was thinner at the September 2008 minimum compared to 2007, so the total ice volume (thickness times area) was probably at its lowest point in recorded history in 2008.


Figure 1. Daily arctic sea ice extent for September 12, 2008. The date of the 2008 minimum (white) is overlaid on September 16, 2007--last year's minimum extent (dark gray). Light gray shading indicates the region where ice occurred in both 2007 and 008. Image credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center.

The Arctic "perfect storm" of summer weather in 2007 did not repeat in 2008
The summer of 2007 saw a "perfect storm" of weather conditions favorable for ice loss. Unusually strong high pressure over the Arctic led to clear skies and plenty of sunshine. Arctic winds, which usually blow in a circular fashion around the Pole, instead blew from the south, injecting large amounts of warm air into the Arctic. How unusual were these conditions? Well, at last month's meeting of the American Geophysical Union, the world's largest scientific conference on climate change, J.E. Kay of the National Center for Atmospheric Research showed that Arctic surface pressure in the summer of 2007 was the fourth highest since 1948. Cloud cover at Barrow, Alaska was the sixth lowest. This suggests that once every 10-20 years a "perfect storm" of weather conditions highly favorable for ice loss invades the Arctic. The last two times such conditions existed was 1977 and 1987.

The 2008 melting season began in March with slightly greater ice extent than had been measured in previous years, thanks to a relatively cold winter during 2007-2008. However, since so much ice had melted during the summer of 2007, most of the March 2008 ice was thin first-year ice, which extended all the way to the North Pole. The total ice volume in the Arctic in March 2008 was lower than what the record-breaking year of 2007 had seen. This led to speculation that a new record minimum would be set in 2008, and Santa's Workshop would plunge into the ocean as ice melted at the North Pole. However, the "perfect storm" of summertime weather conditions did not materialize in 2008. From May through July, cooler temperatures and winds less favorable to ice loss occurred. When very warm temperatures moved into the Arctic in August, the ice loss rate accelerated to levels higher than in 2007. However, with sunlight waning, ice loss was not able to reach the levels seen in 2007. Arctic temperatures in the summer of 2008 were up to 4°C cooler along the Siberian coast than in 2007 (Figure 2).


Figure 2. Difference in surface temperature (°C) between the summer of 2008 and the summer of 2007. Blues and purples indicate areas where is was cooler in 2008. The biggest change was over the Bering Sea between Alaska and Russia, where exceptionally sunny weather with southerly winds in 2007 caused record-breaking warmth. Image credit: NOAA/ESRL.

The future of arctic sea ice
Climate models have done a poor job predicting the recent record loss of arctic sea ice (Figure 3). None of the models used to formulate the official word on climate, the 2007 United Nations IPCC report, foresaw the shocking drop of 2007-2008. At the December 2008 AGU meeting, Wieslaw Maslowski of the Navy Postgraduate School hypothesized that the reason for this was the models' improper handling of ocean currents and how they transport heat. He blamed 60% of the melting during the past decade on heat brought in by ocean currents, and projected that summertime arctic sea ice would completely disappear by 2016. Dr. Jim Overland of NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory was more conservative, projecting a 2030 demise of arctic sea ice. He thought we would be "hanging around where we are for a while", and thought it would take two more unusual summers like the "perfect storm" of 2007 to push the system to an ice-free state. He further noted that while summertime air temperatures have been near record levels the past few years in the Arctic, there has been one period of comparable warmth, in the 1930s and 1940s. The year 1941 still ranks as the warmest year in the Arctic, though 2007 was virtually tied with it. However, the warmth of the 1930s and 1940s was different than the current warming, and was caused by the Siberian High moving unusually far east over Europe, driving warm, southerly winds over Greenland. The warmth in the past decade, in contrast, is associated with a warming of the entire planet, and is not due to an unusual pressure pattern driving warm air into the region. This means that the current warming is accompanied by much warmer ocean waters, which have helped caused much of the arctic sea ice loss the past two years by melting the ice from beneath.


Figure 3. Arctic sea ice extent from observations (thick orange line) and 13 model forecasts used to formulate the 2007 IPCC report (light lines). The thick black line is the multi-model ensemble mean, with the standard deviation plotted as a dashed black line. Image has been updated to include the observed 2007 and 2008 measurements. Image credit: Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast by Stroeve et al., 2007.

The impact on the jet stream
The unprecedented melting of arctic sea ice the past two summers has undoubtedly had a significant impact on the early winter weather over the Northern Hemisphere. Several modeling studies presented at the December AGU meeting showed that sea ice melt on this scale is capable of injecting enough heat into the atmosphere to result in a major shift in the jet stream. Dr. Overland remarked that the early cold winter over North America this winter, and the exceptionally cold and snowy early winter in China last winter, were likely related to arctic sea ice loss. The sea ice loss induced a strong poleward flow of warm air over eastern Siberia, and a return flow of cold air from the Pole developed to compensate. Thus regions on either side of eastern Siberia--China and North America--have gotten unusually cold and snowy winters as a result.

The impact on sea level rise
The loss of arctic sea ice will have little impact on sea level rise over the next few decades. Since the ice is already floating in the ocean, melting it does not change sea level much--just like when ice melting in a glass of water will not change the level of liquid in the glass. In the case of sea ice, there is a slight sea level rise, since the fresh melt water is less dense than the salty ocean water it displaces. If all the world's sea ice melted, it would raise global sea level by only 4 mm. This is a tiny figure compared to the 20 feet of sea level rise that would occur from complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet--which is on land.

The impact on melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet
The big concern with arctic sea ice melt is the warmer temperatures it will bring to the Arctic, which will bring about an accelerated melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet. As the sea ice melts, the resulting warmer average temperatures will increase the amount of dark, sunlight-absorbing water at the pole, leading to further increases in temperature and more melting of sea ice, in a positive feedback loop. As temperatures warm, partial melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet will raise global sea levels. While no one is expecting 20 feet of sea level rise from the total melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet for many centuries, even one meter (3.3 feet) of sea level rise due to the partial melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet can cause a lot of trouble. The official word on climate, the 2007 IPCC report, predicted only a 0.6-1.9 foot sea level rise by 2100, due to melting of the Greenland ice sheet and other factors. These estimates did not include detailed models of ice flow dynamics of glaciers, on the grounds that understanding of the relevant processes was too limited for reliable model estimates. The IPCC estimates were also made before the shocking and unexpected loss of arctic sea ice of the past two summers. In light of these factors, a large number of climate scientists now believe the IPCC estimates of sea level rise this century are much too low. The most recent major paper on sea level rise, published this month by Grinsted et al., concluded that there was a "low probability" that sea level rise would be in the range forecast by the IPCC, and predicted a 0.9 - 1.3 meter (3 - 4.3 feet) rise by 2100. Pfeffer et al. last month concluded that a "most likely" range of sea level rise by 2100 is 2.6 - 6.6 feet (0.8 - 2.0 meters). Their estimates came from a detailed analysis of the processes the IPCC said were understood too poorly to model--the ice flow dynamics of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica. The authors caution that "substantial uncertainties" exist in their estimates, and that the cost of building higher levees to protect against sea level rise is not trivial. Other recent estimates of sea level rise include 1.6 - 4.6 feet (0.5 - 1.4 meters) by Rahmstorf (2007).

What would 3 feet of sea level rise mean?
Rising sea levels will lead to permanent and intermittent flooding in low-lying coastal areas across the world. A global sea level rise of .9 meters (3 feet) would affect 100 million people worldwide, mostly in Asia. The impact of hurricane storm surges will significantly increase as a result of sea level rise. Given a 3 foot rise in sea level, Hurricane Ike's storm surge would have overwhelmed the levees in Port Arthur, Texas, flooding the city and its important oil refineries. Galveston's sea wall would have been overtopped and possibly destroyed, allowing destruction of large portions of Galveston. Levees in New Orleans would have been overtopped, resulting in widespread flooding there, as well. I'll have a full analysis of who's at risk, and what the risks are, in a series of forthcoming blog posts this year.

What can we do?
One reasonable suggestion, presented by Trish Quinn of NOAA at the December 2008 AGU meeting, would be to limit the amount of crop residue burning that goes on in Eastern Europe and Asia each year. These fires generate large amounts of black soot that blows into the Arctic. These black particles on the white ice leads to a significant amount of warming during the summer months, when the black particles absorb sunlight.

For more information
The wunderground sea level rise page has detailed background info on sea level rise.
The wunderground Northwest Passage page is also a good reference.
realclimate.org has a nice post summarizing the recent sea level research.

I'll have a new blog post Wednesday or Thursday.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 169 - 119

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11Blog Index

Bush On Katrina: Don't Tell Me The Federal Response Was Slow

From Thinkprogress.org

During his final press conference this morning, Bush defended his response to Katrina. He said he has %u201Cthought long and hard about Katrina and admitted that things [could] have been done better but denied any problem with the federal response to the disaster, insisting, dont's tell me the federal response was slow!%u201D:
The federal response to Katrina was nothing short of a disaster. A 2006 report compiled by House Republicans slammed what it called failure of leadership, saying that the federal government blinding lack of situational awareness and disjointed decision making needlessly compounded and prolonged Katrina%u2019s horror. The report specifically blamed Bush, noting that earlier presidential involvement could have speeded the response because the president alone could have cut through bureaucratic resistance.
There is no question that the federal response was slow deadly slow. Katrina made landfall on Monday, Aug. 29, 2005, and the New Orleans levees were breached that morning. Despite the numerous warnings he had received about the storms severity, Bush spent that Monday traveling to Arizona and California to promote his Medicare drug bill. It was characteristic of the entire federal response: National Guard troops did not arrive in the area until two full days after the levees were breached. Bush did not leave his vacation home or assemble a task force until Wednesday, two days after the hurricane made landfall and the levees were breached.
By Thursday, three days after landfall, FEMA had yet to set up a command and control center.
FEMA Director Michael Brown said he had not heard about the more than 3,000 evacuees stranded in the convention center until Thursday. Many evacuees had been there since Tuesday morning.
On Friday morning, Bush praised Brown: Brownie, your'e doing a heckuva job. He also said he was satisfied with the response.
FEMA did not finalize its request for evacuation buses until Sunday, six days after Katrina hit. The buses trickled into New Orleans, with only a dozen or so arriving the first day, noted the Wall Street Journal.
The Superdome was finally evacuated on Sunday, a full seven days after 30,000 evacuees had arrived there.
Despite a FEMA official eyewitness accounts of breaches starting at 7 p.m. on Aug. 29,the Bush administration %u201Cdid not consider them confirmed until 11 hours later. In fact, FEMA did not order the evacuation of New Orleans until 1:30 a.m. on Aug. 31, two full days after Katrina made landfall.
In one area, however, the Bush administration did move quickly: pinning the blame for Katrina on its political opponents.
Update Following today's press conference, Karl Rove appeared on Fox News to join in absolving the Bush administration of any blame regarding the Katrina response. "The federal government is in charge of writing checks. It's not in charge of the action itself," Rove said.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Isnt GW almost finished as the Prez...?

Snicker,slink,slide...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
To my way of thinking, Americans who live outside the big cities could easily adapt to an alternative energy solution that is energy / climate based. I'm thinking using local resources - wind, solar, water - to power small areas. Places like Wyoming could convert from heavy dependency on foreign oil in 10 years, if the technology is available quickly enough. More metropolitan areas like FL might call for some more creative thinking, but it can be done.

Again, I'm not saying the need for oil will be completely eliminated, but if 2/3 of your energy needs could be met in these ways, the dependence on fossil fuels is decreased, meaning global supplies can be made to last longer.
Member Since: October 25, 2005 Posts: 19 Comments: 22727
then what will we do?

blame it on GW?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
If the MJO is influenced by the PDO and the NHC dosent see the PDF on the TWO..and then the JTWC dosent understand the POD from the HH,..then what will we do?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Question on energy and fuel:

How long have US residents depended on fuel / energy that they didn't produce themselves? It seems only 100 years ago that people in the US provided their own fuel - wood - and their own transportation - horses, run on biofuel. Why is it that so many Americans suddenly believe that tomorrow's energy must come from some centralized "company" that makes a continuous profit off them? In the old days, profit off of fuel / energy purchase was considered a one-shot deal.
Member Since: October 25, 2005 Posts: 19 Comments: 22727
and oh yeah, if your house is on fire, please don't call the fire department. Put it out yourself!

if you live in Southern California, you can count on doing that yourself, Republican or not....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Stanb999:



If one admits to the fact that a -PDO could cool the planet. Pray tell what would you imagine would happen with a +PDO. Maybe a slight warming of +1C?

So maybe we were coming out of a cool period(the little Ice age) for the last 100 years.
Then we had a bit of an anomalous reading due to a weather phenomenon that appeared to show casual warming noted above. With the added emphasis of the EL-Nino years of the late 90's with 98 being the hottest.

Yep, sounds about right.

Maybe it's all just weather.
IIRC, we were + PDO until about two years ago. I've never heard of PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation, I think is the correct phrase) affecting the entire planet, but I do know that it's supposed to mean cooler waters near the US coast during negative sessions and warmer waters near the US coast during the positive ones. They last about 25 to 40 years. IIRC there seems to be some correlation between increased ATL hurricane activity and negative PDO phases, but I'll have to verify that. The thing is, -PDO is supposed to mean warmer waters in the WPAC, which I would think would align more with warmer winters in the the Orient. (I'm still not sure I have all the connections completely clear in my mind.) But that doesn't mean I'm thinking it corresponds to a cooler planet overall.

My point about the PDO is that it is an observed weather pattern that should affect specific areas in certain ways. If we are seeing major anomalies, perhaps there is some other, as yet unexplained, factor at work.

Member Since: October 25, 2005 Posts: 19 Comments: 22727
161. Inyo
Quoting atmoaggie:


Better than some senators and a president deciding how far from my job I can live, what I can drive, the settings on my thermostat, and who makes a profit? Yes, although just slightly.

Alternative energy that is feasible and effective will be profit driven. Alternative energy that is not feasible nor effective will be tax-break and government grant driven.

Until viable alternatives are developed by those that can compete with petroleum, how about we start making good use of our resources in the US? We have a lot here that hasn't been drilled for.
Do California, Florida, and the rest think that "relying on the politically unstable middle east for our very survival is somehow better?"


wait so you trust extremists in the middle east more than you do our own government? I thought you republicans were supposed to be patriotic.. i guess that only lasts until it affects your pocketbooks!

And it's been shown time and time again that drilling for more oil in the US is going to benefit the oil companies but have a rather small effect on our supply, while meanwhile trashing the environment and causing untold other social problems.

so yeah, if developing our own infastructure rather than pumping money into Saudi Arabia and Iran makes me a socialist, than I guess I am one!

Here's an idea: if you insist on doing the drilling, do so under strict environmental oversight, etc, tax it, and use the taxes to work towards transitioning to more renewable energy sources.

"OH NO, TAXES!!!!"

Well guess what, you might not like taxes, but if you are so opposed to them, please stop using highways that were paid for by taxes and oh yeah, if your house is on fire, please don't call the fire department. Put it out yourself!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Stan, Stan, Stan...off to the re-education camp with you!

LOL

:)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BahaHurican:
Afternoon everybody.

I have a hard time seeing anybody outside of the OPEC countries as being wise and forward-thinking if they continue to support the financial blackmail being "sold" as fossil fuel energy. Just look at it; 6 - 8 months ago these guys were acting like there were only 100 barrels of oil left so they could charge $150 a barrel - and make scared people pay. Today gas at the pump is the lowest it's been in years. In Nassau, gas hasn't been this low in more than 15 years. If prices can be this low now, why couldn't they have been lower last summer? Seems like greed to me. And it was the fuel prices last summer that were the final prick in the finacial bubble.

My instinct, MMGW or not, is that fossil-fuel dependent countries should cram the vast majority of their research dollars into alternative energy sources that don't create pollution nightmares or bad bio-feedback cycles. Let's think outside the box we're in, and find other ways to maintain a modern society. Then we can do more to control our "fate".

This doesn't mean we should ignore effects like the opening of the NW passage and increased ice buildup on Antartica. For global warming effects, let's see what Southern Hemisphere temperature anomalies are like this year; will we see abnormally warm summer / fall temps in the south? What about increased hurricane activity? It seems wiser to stay informed and keep hypothesising instead of getting caught up in all the u-say / I-say / hearsay going on.

BTW, something I read earlier suggests that increased ice buildup on the mainland of Antartica could be related to the loss of the Northern ice cap, but would not necessarily deter rapid GW. I also don't see a severely cold winter here (Nrn hemi.) as anomalous with the GW concept, since that is a concept of climate change, not simply a linear kind of warming. Most of what I've read about the theory suggests greater extremes of weather rather than no more cold. Also, we're supposed to be in a negative PDO period right now, which is supposed to indicate cooling temps in the NE Pacific (IIRC). If we continue seeing record highs there, there may be more to this GW thing than naysayers may think.

My thing is, do we really have information we need from the different parts of the globe? Are we using all of it, or only focusing on the parts that affect us more directly? Do we understand even partially the teleconnections that exist in our weather? It seems to me there is a greater interconnection among the climate zones of the different areas around the globe than people have been wont to accept in the past. For me that is the real lesson of GW and all this debate.



If one admits to the fact that a -PDO could cool the planet. Pray tell what would you imagine would happen with a +PDO. Maybe a slight warming of +1C?

So maybe we were coming out of a cool period(the little Ice age) for the last 100 years.
Then we had a bit of an anomalous reading due to a weather phenomenon that appeared to show casual warming noted above. With the added emphasis of the EL-Nino years of the late 90's with 98 being the hottest.

Yep, sounds about right.

Maybe it's all just weather.
Member Since: September 3, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 444
By KANTELE FRANKO,
AP
posted: 1 HOUR 2 MINUTES AGO
BISMARCK, N.D. (Jan. 12) — A fast-moving blizzard brought snow and high winds to North Dakota Monday, closing schools and causing more headaches for residents still trying to dig out from a record snowfall last month.
And, forecasters said a blast of cold air was on the way that could send the thermometer as low as 30 below zero.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Gulf - you are hilarious as USUAL. :)

Speaking of chablis...if it's not going to snow, I may as well pour a glass and go sit on the porch for a bit.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
More like 130. But it's close enough.
Member Since: August 18, 2007 Posts: 5 Comments: 1807
153. aren't you the one with the >140 IQ? LOL :p~
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BahaHurican:
Didn't he say he was from the Gulf coast? He's just spellin' em like he says em . . .

LOL

(Sorry, couldn't resist.. . .)


I need a good ribbing every once in a while. LOL.
Member Since: August 18, 2007 Posts: 5 Comments: 1807
Quoting FLWeatherFreak91:
I would like to let you all know that you now have a new meteorology student on the blog. I just received my acceptance letter into the Florida Institute of Technology, majoring in Meteorology! What a relief...
Like I expected any different . . . LOL

Congratulations!!!!
Member Since: October 25, 2005 Posts: 19 Comments: 22727
149. LOL! touche!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pearlandaggie:
Obviously, I can spell ....ginuine?? varibles??

just messin' with ya! :)
Didn't he say he was from the Gulf coast? He's just spellin' em like he says em . . .

LOL

(Sorry, couldn't resist.. . .)
Member Since: October 25, 2005 Posts: 19 Comments: 22727
145. Cancel that. I'm an idiot. Looks like we have a low of 31 when it's CLEAR...the rain will have passed. boooooooo.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
146. no problem...those darn chemical engineers are good for something after all! not much, mind you, but something :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Ah, thanks, Pearland. It just made more sense to me than cold, sludge-like heating oil that would be just as useless unles you had heated lines to maintain viscosity.
Member Since: August 18, 2007 Posts: 5 Comments: 1807
Oh my...do we have a chance of SNOW coming our way? NO WAY. could it BE?

Reminds me of the movie "year without a Santa Claus"...we live in Southtown. Maybe the freeze meiser will come for a visit...

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Afternoon everybody.

I have a hard time seeing anybody outside of the OPEC countries as being wise and forward-thinking if they continue to support the financial blackmail being "sold" as fossil fuel energy. Just look at it; 6 - 8 months ago these guys were acting like there were only 100 barrels of oil left so they could charge $150 a barrel - and make scared people pay. Today gas at the pump is the lowest it's been in years. In Nassau, gas hasn't been this low in more than 15 years. If prices can be this low now, why couldn't they have been lower last summer? Seems like greed to me. And it was the fuel prices last summer that were the final prick in the finacial bubble.

My instinct, MMGW or not, is that fossil-fuel dependent countries should cram the vast majority of their research dollars into alternative energy sources that don't create pollution nightmares or bad bio-feedback cycles. Let's think outside the box we're in, and find other ways to maintain a modern society. Then we can do more to control our "fate".

This doesn't mean we should ignore effects like the opening of the NW passage and increased ice buildup on Antartica. For global warming effects, let's see what Southern Hemisphere temperature anomalies are like this year; will we see abnormally warm summer / fall temps in the south? What about increased hurricane activity? It seems wiser to stay informed and keep hypothesising instead of getting caught up in all the u-say / I-say / hearsay going on.

BTW, something I read earlier suggests that increased ice buildup on the mainland of Antartica could be related to the loss of the Northern ice cap, but would not necessarily deter rapid GW. I also don't see a severely cold winter here (Nrn hemi.) as anomalous with the GW concept, since that is a concept of climate change, not simply a linear kind of warming. Most of what I've read about the theory suggests greater extremes of weather rather than no more cold. Also, we're supposed to be in a negative PDO period right now, which is supposed to indicate cooling temps in the NE Pacific (IIRC). If we continue seeing record highs there, there may be more to this GW thing than naysayers may think.

My thing is, do we really have information we need from the different parts of the globe? Are we using all of it, or only focusing on the parts that affect us more directly? Do we understand even partially the teleconnections that exist in our weather? It seems to me there is a greater interconnection among the climate zones of the different areas around the globe than people have been wont to accept in the past. For me that is the real lesson of GW and all this debate.
Member Since: October 25, 2005 Posts: 19 Comments: 22727
141. there's a problem with LPG...it's mainly composed of propane and butane. the boiling point for butane is −0.5 °C and the boiling point for propane is −42.09 °C. at -49 °C, it would be hard to get meaningful vapor generation for a heating system without some sort of evaporator. all the of the propane would boil off first, leaving butane and heavier components and significantly reducing the amount of vapor available for heating.

(i know this because i tried to use an LPG gas grill in 0 °C weather and it didn't work too well. i did the research to find out!)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
You are ignoring major factors in the Arctic sea ice and snow loss in 2007. Much of the sea loss was due to older thicker ice flowing out of the Arctic through the Fram Strait. This movement allowed much warmer water to flow into the Arctic through the Bering Strait. At the end of August SST's were 3 - 7 C above normal

One factor I haven't seen mentioned is the use of ice breakers particularly by Russia attempting to keep the Northern Sea Route (Northeast Passage) open. Breaking up ice facilitates melting because more surfaces are open to the affect of water, air or direct exposure to the sun. Breaking ice up also allows more if it to flow out of the Arctic because a continuous sheet would have difficulty fitting through the Fram Strait.

Snow and ice melt has increased because of the presence of black soot from Asia mixed with the snow. the soot converts sunlight into heat and transfers the heat to the snow/ice. Opening the ground to sunlight increases warming in part because the heat is transferred through the ground to adjacent snow covered areas.

Opening Arctic water to sunlight won't cause much change in temperature because the angle the sunlight hits the water results in too much sunlight being reflected rather than passing through the surface.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:


That's getting down close to the point at which gasoline is too viscous to use in things that have fuel pumps. filters, and small tubing. Sounds like lots of fun! I wonder if they also have issues with heating oil when it's that cold. I expect they likely do.


Which always made me wonder why they don't use natural gas or LPG for heating up north.
Member Since: August 18, 2007 Posts: 5 Comments: 1807
Quoting pearlandaggie:
Slovenia with record low temperature -49

Slovenia registered the lowest temperatures ever. At the Bohin resort, a half frozen weatherman standing outside, reported minus 49C.

Slovenian Media have reported recommendations of the meteorological institute of Germany, which alarms over the risks of having piercings %u2013 the metal earrings on people%u2019s body could cause dangerous freezing.

No metal objects attached to the body should be worn, warns the media, for people who must venture outside. For everyone else, Slovenian media urges its citizens to stay in their homes. //01.10.09


watch out for those piercings! LOL


That's getting down close to the point at which gasoline is too viscous to use in things that have fuel pumps, filters, and small tubing. Sounds like lots of fun! I wonder if they also have issues with heating oil when it's that cold. I expect they likely do.
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12463
Quoting pearlandaggie:
Slovenia with record low temperature -49

Slovenia registered the lowest temperatures ever. At the Bohin resort, a half frozen weatherman standing outside, reported minus 49°C.

Slovenian Media have reported recommendations of the meteorological institute of Germany, which alarms over the risks of having piercings – the metal earrings on people’s body could cause dangerous freezing.

No metal objects attached to the body should be worn, warns the media, for people who must venture outside. For everyone else, Slovenian media urges its citizens to stay in their homes. //01.10.09


watch out for those piercings! LOL


I can see the headline now: KID GETS TONGUE STUCK TO TONGUE RING. Other piercings not appropriate for blog material... LOL.
Member Since: August 18, 2007 Posts: 5 Comments: 1807
My Local Weather:

John Wayne-Orange County, California

87 °F
Partly Cloudy
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Hope y'all enjoyed the warmth since Christmas in Florida cause it's gonna get cold! With a powerful arctic high pressure digging far south into the GOM then east toward Florida. As a matter of fact, Orlando won't reach 70 for two weeks(if not longer)and if trends continue to go downward then daytime highs in the 40's with a nighttime hard freeze with suffice on Friday through most of Martin Luther King Jr. Day Weekend(Saturday maybe Sunday)! Daily and monthly records could be flirted with in the Sunshine State.

The only bad news I have for you cold lovers is there will be no onshore flow create snow flurries like last year(at least for the east coast of Florida).
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
uh huh...I want a recount....

( and back to Al Gore we go!!!!! )

;)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Slovenia with record low temperature -49

Slovenia registered the lowest temperatures ever. At the Bohin resort, a half frozen weatherman standing outside, reported minus 49°C.

Slovenian Media have reported recommendations of the meteorological institute of Germany, which alarms over the risks of having piercings – the metal earrings on people’s body could cause dangerous freezing.

No metal objects attached to the body should be worn, warns the media, for people who must venture outside. For everyone else, Slovenian media urges its citizens to stay in their homes. //01.10.09


watch out for those piercings! LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Also winner of the KILL THE BLOG WAR golden globe for this years best line ending a useless rehash...


Domo-kun loses again?!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
122 Excellent
128. thanks for the description! LOL

(actually, the white box lead me to think sarcasm at first which was also funny!)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
124. pearlandaggie 1:15 PM PST on January 12, 2009
121. i can't see the picture...blocked by the work net-nanny! LOL



Bigfoot...and Domo-kun...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FLWeatherFreak91:
I would like to let you all know that you now have a new meteorology student on the blog. I just received my acceptance letter into the Florida Institute of Technology, majoring in Meteorology! What a relief...


Awesome!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FLWeatherFreak91:
I would like to let you all know that you now have a new meteorology student on the blog. I just received my acceptance letter into the Florida Institute of Technology, majoring in Meteorology! What a relief...


Congrats! Hope you do well.
Member Since: August 18, 2007 Posts: 5 Comments: 1807
121. i can't see the picture...blocked by the work net-nanny! LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
NRAamy, where did you find that picture of Al Gore? LOL.
Member Since: August 18, 2007 Posts: 5 Comments: 1807
I would like to let you all know that you now have a new meteorology student on the blog. I just received my acceptance letter into the Florida Institute of Technology, majoring in Meteorology! What a relief...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:



NEWSFLASH!

the real perpetrators of Global Warming!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
LOL, GulfPoet. Good one.
Member Since: August 18, 2007 Posts: 5 Comments: 1807

Viewing: 169 - 119

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

Overcast
27 °F
Overcast

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Lake Effort Snow Shower Over Windsor, Ontario
Sunset on Dunham Lake
Pictured Rocks Sunset
Sunset on Lake Huron