Sea Ice North: The new field of ice-free Arctic Ocean science
Sea Ice North: The new field of ice-free Arctic Ocean science
I recently read a paper in Physics Today entitled The Thinning of Arctic Sea Ice by R. Kwok and N. Untersteiner. (Nice essay by Untersteiner) This paper was written for a general scientist audience, and provides a good summary of the state of the science. The primary focus of the article is on understanding the small change to the surface energy balance required to explain the increased rate of sea ice melt in the summer. Some time ago I wrote a few blogs on Arctic sea ice; they can be found here and this one is most relevant: Sea Ice Arctic.
When the IPCC Assessment Report was published in 2007 the Arctic sea ice was in visible decline. In the summer of 2007 there was a record decline that caught the attention of both climate scientists and the broader public. As suggested in Kwok and Untersteiner immediately following the release of the 2007 IPCC report papers started to appear about how the IPCC synthesis had underestimated the melting of both sea ice and ice sheets. Much of this underestimate could be summed up as simplistic representation of the dynamics of ice melting. For example, brine-laden sea ice floating in salty sea water turns over. Snow gets on the top. It melts, then there are puddles and ponds that can flow down into ice. Simplistically, and I am a simpleton, it’s like a pile of ice cubes sitting in a glass versus stirring those ice cubes, or blowing air over the ice, heat gets carried around and ice melts faster.
The presence of large areas of open ocean in the Arctic is new to us. It motivates new research; it motivates claims to newly accessible oil, gas, and minerals; it motivates new shipping routes; it suggests changes in the relationships of nations; it motivates the development of a military presence. (All things Arctic from the Arctic Council) The natural progression of scientific investigation starts to explore, describe, and organize what is to us modern-day humans: a new environment, new ecosystems, and new physical systems. For example, the Mackenzie River now delivers a massive pool of fresh water into the ocean. Fresh and salt – big differences to flow in the ocean because the density is different; big difference to the formation of ice because the freezing temperature is different; and big differences in the plants and animals in the water.
Compared with trying to attribute the contribution of global warming to a particular weather event, it is easier to link the recent, rapid decrease of sea ice to a warming planet. The freezing, melting and accumulation of ice require persistent heating or cooling. It takes a lot of heat for a sustained period to melt continental-size masses of ice. Historically, the sea ice that was formed in the winter did not melt in the summer and there was a buildup of ice over many years – it accumulated; it stored cold. Around the edges of this multi-year ice are areas where the sea froze and melted each year. The melting of multi-year ice, therefore, represents the accumulation of enough heat to counter years of cold. The movement, poleward, of the area where ice freezes and thaws each year is the accumulation of spring coming earlier. The requirement for energy to persist and accumulate to affect changes in sea ice reduces the uncertainty that is inherent in the attribution of how much global warming has impacted a particular event.
Understanding the detailed mechanisms that provided the heat to melt the ice remains a challenge. (This is the real point of in Kwok and Untersteiner) We know it takes about 1 watt per square meter of energy to melt that much ice that fast. This could be delivered by the Sun, transported by the air, by the ocean, by warm water from the rivers of Canada and Siberia, by snow – yes, snow is energy. Once the ice is gone in the summer, then the ocean can absorb heat from the Sun. If there is growth of phytoplankton or zooplankton, then they might enhance the absorption of energy – yes, life is energy. Ocean acidification might change. The natural question that arises – do these processes that are active in this new environment work to accelerate sea ice melting or might they contribute to freezing of water. What are the local feedbacks? (This is above – see below.)
Another study that is of interest is the paper in Geophysical Research Letters, Recovery mechanisms of Arctic summer sea ice, by S. Tietsche and colleagues. This is a model study. With a model the scientist owns the world and can prescribe what it looks like. In these numerical experiments, the Arctic is prescribed with no ice. Then whether or not the ice recovers is explored. In these studies the ice does recover. The ocean does indeed take up extra heat in the summer, but it gives it up quickly in the fall. This is followed by the formation of first year ice in the winter. The ice-albedo feedback that might let the ice melt runaway is limited. Tietsche et al. conclude that it is not likely that Arctic sea ice will reach a tipping point this century.
This does not mean that summer ice loss will decrease. This does not mean that there will not be huge changes in the Arctic. This only says that it still gets cold in the winter.
Models: One of the things I like about the Kwok and Untersteiner paper is their brief discussion of models. They point out that none of the models available for the 2007 IPCC assessment were able to predict the rate of sea ice decrease. Looking forward, they state that the model projections for 2060 range from no sea ice in September to more sea ice than is observed today. The Tietsche et al. paper is a focused model experiment – not a climate projection. It is also a model result that, perhaps, helps to understand the differences in the 2060 projections. That is, how is the recovery of sea ice in the autumn represented in the projection models?
A couple of other points: First, the amount of energy needed to cause the observed melting in sea ice is 1 watt per square meter. If you calculate the amount of energy in the different factors at play in melting of sea ice, then the numbers are 10s of watts per square meter. As suggested above, there are many reservoirs of energy – the Sun, rivers, etc. So when we look at the different ways 1 watt per square meter can be delivered to the sea ice, then there are several paths. The existing models tell us that with the increased heat due to greenhouse gases, energy gets delivered to the Arctic and sea ice melts. The existing models say that there might be several different paths; it is likely, that several of them operate at different times. The second point: Of course the Tietsche et al. paper will enter as an isolated contribution to the political argument, Arctic “death spiral” – as will those of accelerated melt, New warning on ice melt.
r
Figure 1: Simplistic summary of Arctic sea ice
Useful links
Recent sea ice trends
Sea ice data
Rood’s Blogs on Ice
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 — Blog Index
Record daily high temperatures: 2728 (1850 new; 878 tied)
Record daily high minimum temperatures: 3123 (2137 new; 986 tied)
Total record high temperatures: 5851 (3987 new; 1864 tied)
-------
Record daily low temperatures: 675 (378 new; 297 tied)
Record daily low minimum temperatures: 1298 (884 new; 414 tied)
Total record low temperatures: 1973 (1261 new; 711 tied)
-------
High temperature record/low temperature record ratio: 2.97 to 1
----------------------------------------------
U.S. daily temperature records for 2011 Year-To-Date as of 4/30/2011
Record daily high temperatures: 6699 (4582 new; 2117 tied)
Record daily high minimum temperatures: 6422 (4373 new; 2049 tied)
Total record high temperatures: 13121 (8955 new; 4166 tied)
-------
Record daily low temperatures: 3222 (2232 new; 990 tied)
Record daily low minimum temperatures: 5275 (3957 new; 1318 tied)
Total record low temperatures: 8497 (6189 new; 2308 tied)
-------
High temperature record/low temperature record ratio: 1.54 to 1
(All temperature record data from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records.php)
Really? Would you please so kind as to show us some of those signals? Because I read tons of stuff about this, and I haven't see a single indicator that we're at "the tail end" of anything. For instance, there's this news just from this morning that would seem to indicate that no such leveling off is occurring, nor about to:
"Quickening climate change in the Arctic including a thaw of Greenland's ice could raise world sea levels by up to 1.6 meters by 2100, an international report showed on Tuesday.
"Such a rise -- above most past scientific estimates -- would add to threats to coasts from Bangladesh to Florida, low-lying Pacific islands and cities from London to Shanghai. It would also, for instance, raise costs of building tsunami barriers in Japan.
"The past six years (until 2010) have been the warmest period ever recorded in the Arctic," according to the Oslo-based Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), which is backed by the eight-nation Arctic Council.
The AMAP study, drawing on work by hundreds of experts, said there were signs that warming was accelerating. It said the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice free in summers within 30 to 40 years, earlier than projected by the IPCC.
As reflective ice and snow shrink, they expose ever bigger areas of darker water or soil. Those dark regions soak up ever more heat from the sun, in turn stoking a melt of the remaining ice and snow.
"There is evidence that two components of the Arctic cryosphere -- snow and sea ice -- are interacting with the climate system to accelerate warming," it said
(http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/03/us-clim ate-arctic-idUSTRE7422YQ20110503)
It's getting warmer, and it's our fault. There's no data that indicate otherwise.
All the Science they have well,,is in their ideology.
Pffthh,
They like a broken 45 on a record player,,"da,dump,da,dump,da,dump"..
LoL
Also, did you see post 330?
I think that was just unintentionally ambiguous language by the reporter; 2010 was definitely a warm one in the Arctic.
I'm sorry, but you seem to have missed my request: can you please post links to any of those thousands of signals you know of that indicate a leveling off of warming? I promise you I will read them with an open mind, as I always do--that is, the ones written by scientists and/or that don't start off with the line "Al Gore is a big fat alarmist liar". ;-)
No worry,another Ferry will be along soon and you can catch up with the rest of the scientific community.
LoL
The warmest April in at least 352 years?! Wow! That sure doesn't sound like incipient cooling to me.
I did, however I had to go to school, so I did not have adequate time to respond.
Correct. The satellite trend shows a positive trend in Sea Level. It is just nice to keep track of how our Sea Level compares to other years, that's all.
And I agreed with you to a degree that it has not been long enough to show trends,but is the most reliable data that we have, which is why I trust it more than anything else. According to the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, we should have been continuing to gain heat over the past 8 years.
Why have we not?
QUOTE
A recently published estimate of Earth%u2019s global warming trend is 0.63 %uFFFD 0.28 W/m2, as calculated from ocean heat content anomaly data spanning 1993-2008. This value is not representative of the recent (2003-200 warming/cooling rate because of a %u201Cflattening%u201D that occurred around 2001-2002. Using only 2003-2008 data from Argo floats, we find by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from %u20130.010 to %u20130.161 W/m2 with a typical error bar of %uFFFD0.2 W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance.
/QUOTE
You can not compare ARGO measurements to older data that is bound to have significant error margins in it, as the way we were measuring OHC before ARGO was significantly less accurate and precise.
You seem to be missing the key point that I have made with the oceanic oscillations. You are correct that they move heat around, however it is a FEEDBACK that accounts for the warming and cooling impact the oceanic oscillations have- and that is the Arctic. When there are warmer than normal oceanic currents, the Arctic melts, and gains more OHC, sinc more ocean is exposed. It is as clear as day, when one looks at the Arctic temperatures.
Note that the Arctic, according to the most reliable data- the satellite data was COOLING until 1993. This is EXACTLY when the AMO turned positive.
Also note that Antarctica has slightly cooled since 1979, according to the satellite data.
When more ocean is exposed, it is harder for the oceanic oscillations to cool the Arctic, due to the open ocean already exposed by the warm ocean currents, so therefore, the Arctic, overall gains OHC.
Even that SkepticalScience graph can not hide that there has been no OHC gain over the past decade. Why could that be? The AGW Theory says that we should rapidly gain OHC, yet we have not gained any over the past decade.
I have not claimed that they are understood, in fact, I have claimed that they are not. I have mentioned a few powerful negative feedbacks that could stop CAGW from occuring. That is all. I did not claim that there were no positive feedbacks. And I believe that there are many feedbacks in Carbon Dioxide, in which we have yet to discover.
Wait are you using the same exact way of getting those temperatures every year?
No. But before you go off on the whole "consistent instrumentation is the only way to ensure accuracy" argument, I'd suggest you take your grievance to the UK Met Office; I bet they never even considered the fact that they are using different thermometers now than they did back in the 1600s, so they'd probably give you an award or something for pointing that out to them. ;-)
I'll take the Nobel Peace Prize I hear they give them out in candy machines now :)
Thanks for answering the question. Going back only 29 or so years is not AWG sorry.
co2 feedbacks:
So if you agree that they're not understood well enough and are not all discovered yet, why did you claim the total affection co2s feedback negates the warming caused by the ghg theory???
Idk how you can claim that when you yourself admit there are probably feedback loops we've yet to discover, and the effect of the ones we have discovered aren't completely known.
CONCLUSION:
Clearly you can't claim the total affect of ALL of co2s feedback loops is cooling, for CO2 feedback loops are not understood well enough.
Argo
I agree they have the most reliable data. But we are discussing climate trends.5 years is not enough time. If you think it is, I have already told you many times that Argo themselves claimed OHC has been increasing. They're initial study showed cooling, but a new study that didn't include the errors of the previous study, showed warming.
ALL OF THIS is on Argo's website, if you do not believe me.
CONCLUSION:
Argo data isn't long enough to make any climate trend conclusions, however if you think it is, it shows warming. Source: they're own website
Oscillations
Oscillations do not cause any warming or cooling of the total heat of Earth. You claim feedback loops create additional warming by changing albedo levels, however, THE SAME IS TRUE, for the opposite.
Meaning when an oscillation is in its cold phase, feedback loops create additional cooling. Ex: cooling allows ice to form creating greater albedo, cooling temps in the area, allowing more ice to form, further decreasing albedo, creating more cooling.
In a sense, they balance out.
CONCLUSION: The net effects of the feedbacks cancel out, having NO EFFECT on the total heat of Earth.
LOL. Very familiar...Funny, at least to me...but very familiar...
Yes, it does look chilly in NY state, but that is weather and not climate.
I understand but it shouldn't be this cold this year. Felt like winter down here this morning.
YUP.
While your sucking on your candy machine lollipop, consider this: it's getting warmer by the day, and with no end in sight. So whether you go back one year (2010 was the warmest on record), ten years (the last decade was the warmest on record), 40 years (each decade since 1970 has been warmer than the previous one), 100 years (many modern-day temperature records began roughly a century ago, and last year was the warmest since then), 351 years (Central England has been maintaining weather records that long), 500 years (borehole measurements show that the planet hasn't been this consistently warm for as far back as such measurements are valid), a thousand years (proxy data clear show that the 20th century was the warmest of the last ten, and the 21st century is off to a heck of a start), ten-thousand years (proxy data here show that it hasn't been that warm in at least that long), or 100,000 years (ice core samples show that the earth hasn't been this warm during that time, nor has it ever warmed up anywhere near this fast during any interglacial), the result is always the same: the planet is warming, and warming rapidly.
That's a bit more than 29 years, so deny it at your peril.
Now back to your sucker... ;-)
This came from CycloneBuster at one point in time.
Seems like we've been warmer before. Without MMGW.
I know this isn't 100% right. But still gets a point across that the world has been warmer. Not because of me or you.
Oh, so a guy with a B.A. in sociology and an M.S. in operations management writes a post at a now defunct blog in which he claims--without providing a shred of proof--that temperature data that shows warming has been manipulated, while data that shows cooling, or a lack of warming, is perfectly kosher. He then goes on to admit that he doesn't understand how climatology works, and this is before he goes into various anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-Obama, antiscience tirades elsewhere on the page.
But I really can't blame you for posting this, given that denialists have little to support their beliefs beyond baseless right-wing rants from non-scientists. But still...
FWIW, the data I so often post is right from the horse's mouth: a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records.ph p
">http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records.php. Now, if you're inclined to believe that any and all government data is suspect, you shouldn't even bother going there; it's just boring science facts and stuff anyway.
That is a blatant lie.
He doesn't say anything in his article about immigration, muslim or obama.
I did a Apple F search on it and nothing came up in the article.
Well you did say elsewhere but hate to break it to ya but it wasn't him.
What other things are you lying about?
I specifically used the words "elsewhere on the page", not "elsewhere in the article". The point being, the writer hardly approaches the issue of warming with an objective scientific eye; his entire blog is driven by a certain political ideology, and that has a way of poisoning one's own well.
Which I specifically said he didn't write. But you said he did. You might try to play word games with other people (sheep) but it doesn't work with others.
Isn't it about time you get on McBill even though I have him ignored and attack me?
He?????????
No no no sorry HE doesn't do it.
Go back and search like I said.
I did say that. Apparently you don't read things on this page either.
RE:375
You are correct. I did show this graph many times here.
You can clearly see why God made man in a cold climate and not a warm one. See where we are now on that graph? What does that tell us?
I'll say no more about this matter--as I don't want to further pollute Dr. Rood's excellent blog forum with the deconstruction of an antiscience website--other than this: the nonsensical blog post to which RMuller linked was written by that blog's owner (Bruce Hall). The other nonsensical articles and political cartoons on that site were placed there by that blog's owner. It's Hall's blog, so he's responsible for the content--and one must assume he's in complete agreement with it, or else it wouldn't be there.
And so I close by repeating my request: can any of you please challenge the basics of AGWT from a scientific perspective, as opposed to an ideological one? And when attempting to do so, can you please cite or link to science sources, and not, say, opinion pieces on personal blogs? That way we can debate the science in an honest, polite, and professional manner. Thanks!
Post 370, directed at you. Just a heads up in case you missed it...
Southern Tornadoes' Financial Toll Could Rival Katrina
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- The tornado that obliterated contractor Robert Rapley's house also swept away his livelihood, destroying his saws, his paint sprayer and his truck. Like thousands of others in a region already struggling with high unemployment, he now faces the prospect of trying to recover with no way to earn a living.
"We lost everything," Rapley said as he climbed on the wreckage. "I can't even go to work."
Thousands were thrown out of work by the twisters last week that killed 328 people across seven states in the nation's deadliest tornado outbreak since the Depression. Hundreds of factories and other businesses were destroyed, and many others were left without electricity.
The financial and economic toll is still being tallied, but officials in hardest-hit Alabama -- which had more than two-thirds of the dead -- said the damage there alone could rival the $1 billion in insured losses the state suffered in Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
"It's going to be extremely high," said Seth Hammett, director of the Alabama Development Office.
Many people were struggling to make ends meet even before the twisters flattened neighborhoods in Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia and Mississippi, where unemployment in March ranged from 9.2 percent in Alabama to 10.2 percent in Mississippi.
Curtis Frederick, 28, couldn't find any work to provide for his three children aside from delivering newspapers. Then a twister wiped out his mobile home park in Tuscaloosa.
"There's a lot of people that need help," he said. "We're struggling already from the economy being so bad."
Rain in several of the states on Tuesday added to the misery for those trying to salvage belongings from badly damaged homes. In gray and chilly Tuscaloosa, many lost everything, including coats, sweat shirts and sweaters, leaving them shivering in unseasonable temperatures in the low 50s.
Becky Curtis sat in the bathroom, one of the only dry spots in her small red-brick apartment, sorting through old cassette tapes. In another room, rain dripped through holes in the ceiling onto her hardwood floors.
"We're trying to get all this stuff out of here as fast as we can to save some mementoes," she said. The rain "definitely does not help."
In Birmingham, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice toured an aid and donation center in a neighborhood of her home city that was heavily damaged. She grew up in the city and still has family there.
"You realize that with every home that's flattened, there are dreams and memories that have gone with that home. So this is a very human tragedy," said Rice, who served in the George W. Bush administration.
One of the twisters destroyed a Wrangler jeans distribution center that employed 150 people in Hackleburg, an Alabama town of about 1,500. The town is in a county with an unemployment rate of nearly 13 percent.
"That one industry is the town," Hammett said. "Until they get back up and going again, that town will not be the same."
VF Corp., Wrangler's parent company, said it is looking into setting up distribution operations in another location nearby to allow people to get back to work quickly, and employees will continue to receive pay and benefits in the meantime. Eric Wiseman, chairility caused by living in different hotels for the past few days has kept her returning to her job as a nurse. She is having trouble sleeping.
"Every time I close my eyes I see trees, people walking and crying, debris everywhere," she said.
People thrown out of work by the storms will qualify for unemployment benefits as well as federal disaster aid.
It's tough to predict how long it will take for the stricken areas to recover, but the rebuilding projects could at least soften the economic blow.
"The rebuilding is huge," said Sam Addy, director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Alabama. "That brings in a lot of jobs and cash flow into the local area. For the larger economy, it's a loss."
In Birmingham, Rapley and his wife, Adrienne, survived the twister by taking cover in a storage room next to his garage. He carried her in -- she suffers from a brain injury -- and then they prayed: "The Lord is my shepherd." The deed to his property is gone, whisked away by the tornadoes. The house they shared for 20 years is destroyed.
For now, they are staying at a hotel, hoping they get federal aid soon.
"It's very expensive," Rapley said. "We're spending our last dime right now."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/04/southern-torn adoes-financial-toll-rival-katrina/#ixzz1LQ3AwpnC
Link
You are aware that science changes a lot year to year, and much more so in 36 years, right? If it was stagnant and set in stone, it wouldn't be science. Arguing that line is like saying, "Hey, the experts said back in 1400 that the earth was flat, but now they say it's curved; if they can't get it right, why should be believe them?"
Anyway, Dr. Kevin Trenberth--the head of the Climate Analysis Section at NCAR and the a lead author of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change reports-- has this to say about the increasing number and severity of extreme weather events:
"There is a systematic influence on all of these weather events now-a-days because of the fact that there is this extra water vapor lurking around in the atmosphere than there used to be say 30 years ago. It’s about a 4% extra amount, it invigorates the storms, it provides plenty of moisture for these storms and it’s unfortunate that the public is not associating these with the fact that this is one manifestation of climate change. And the prospects are that these kinds of things will only get bigger and worse in the future."
I realize Trenberth isn't employed by the Koch brothers or Fox News, so some here may choose to disregard his words. If so, how about master climate change denialist Roger Pielke--a man revered by the antiscience crowd--who had this to say back in 2006:
"Clearly, since 1970, climate change (i.e., defined as by the IPCC to include all sources of change) has shaped the disaster loss record."
And Munich Re, one of the world's largest reinsurers, said this last fall:
"...it would seem that the only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change. The view that weather extremes are more frequent and intense due to global warming coincides with the current state of scientific knowledge as set out in the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report."
So--again--while no particular extreme weather event can be directly blamed on GW/CC, climatologists have been saying for years that they should increase in both frequency and strength. No one can say with honest certainty that last week's record-breaking tornado outbreak is a direct result of a warming planet--but since two of the four largest tornado outbreaks ever have taken place in the last two weeks, and the four largest outbreaks have taken place since 2003, I'd say it would be pretty shortsighted to simply dismiss any possible connection as absurd.
I bet that will be the top story on WUWT tomorrow--and then we'll have to hear for the next two decades how the temp plunged nearly 560.F one day in May, 2011, but that record mysteriously disappeared later, so why are the climatologists trying to hide the decline?
;-)
For MikeSTL... the more rapid short term ice melt was already predicted by me...
One time it said 520 Degrees F cooler than the previous year for me. It is obviously a glitch in the processing of the data, and will probably auto-correct itself.
I think you are confusing what I said slightly. I had said that the individual climatic feedbacks are still uncertain, if that was not clear in my previous post. We know that in the PAST the negative feedbacks negated the warming caused by CO2.
Since Carbon Dioxide Levels were 10X as high when we were in an Ice Age 450 million years ago, we know that negative feedbacks overwhelmed the warming from co2. If the co2 system was filled with positive feedbacks, or no feedbacks, we would have not seen an Ice Age 450 million years ago.
One might try to argue that the co2 concentrations back then had high error margins, but the fact is, is that this graph actually puts the LOWER amount of co2 in the error marginal range. The error marginal range in Carbon Dioxide 450 million years ago was 4500 ppm to 6000 ppm.
The paleoclimatological data seems to suggest so, but the individual feedbacks' impacts are yet to be discovered.
I will get to the rest of your post, but I am fairly busy at the moment.
Wondering what additional moisture in atmosphere has to do with the measurement of the intensity of and number of tornadoes. Wondering what increased volume of water in the atmosphere would have to do with increased volume of water on the ground as in flooding.Knowing something about accounting and statistics, wondering why insurance companies are still making money when losses should be rising faster than they can adjust their premiums for increased amount of weather disasters if there really are such increases (there aren't). Wondering how "the only plausible explanation" should be viewed as some kind of scientific explanation.
Viewing: 351 - 401
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 — Blog Index