Arctic lakes have been freezing up later in the year and thawing earlier, creating a winter ice season about 24 days shorter than it was in 1950, a University of Waterloo study has found. But, I don’t think they are paying attention to cycles like the PDO. And, in 1992, Mt. Pinatubo’s eruption had global effects on lowering temperature, making their start point a cherry pick.
Dramatic thinning of Arctic lake ice cuts winter ice season by 24 days
Arctic lakes have been freezing up later in the year and thawing earlier, creating a winter ice season about 24 days shorter than it was in 1950, a University of Waterloo study has found.
Researcher Claude Duguay stands on the cracked ice of an Arctic lake
(Credit: Claude Duguay/University of Waterloo) Download image
The research, sponsored by the European Space Agency (ESA) and published in The Cryosphere, also reveals that climate change has dramatically affected the thickness of lake ice at the coldest point in the season: In 2011, Arctic lake ice was up to 38 centimetres thinner than it was in 1950.
“We’ve found that the thickness of the ice has decreased tremendously in response to climate warming in the region,” said lead author Cristina Surdu, a PhD student of Professor Claude Duguay in Waterloo’s Department of Geography and Environmental Management. “When we saw the actual numbers we were shocked at how dramatic the change has been. It’s basically more than a foot of ice by the end of winter.”
The study of more than 400 lakes of the North Slope of Alaska, is the first time researchers have been able to document the magnitude of lake-ice changes in the region over such a long period of time.
“Prior to starting our analysis, we were expecting to find a decline in ice thickness and grounded ice based on our examination of temperature and precipitation records of the past five decades from the Barrow meteorological station,” said Surdu “At the end of the analysis, when looking at trend analysis results, we were stunned to observe such a dramatic ice decline during a period of only 20 years.”
The research team used satellite radar imagery from ESA to determine that 62 per cent of the lakes in the region froze to the bottom in 1992. By 2011, only 26 per cent of lakes froze down to the bed, or bottom of the lake. Overall, there was a 22 per cent reduction in what the researchers call “grounded ice” from 1992 to 2011.
Researchers were able to tell the difference between a fully frozen lake and one that had not completely frozen to the bottom, because satellite radar signals behave very differently, depending on presence or absence of water underneath the ice.
Graph showing the reduction in grounded ice between 1992 and 2011
(Credit: Planetary Visions / University of Waterloo, Canada / ESA) Download image.
Radar signals are absorbed into the sediment under the lake when it is frozen to the bottom. However, when there is water under the ice with bubbles, the beam bounces back strongly towards the radar system. Therefore, lakes that are completely frozen show up on satellite images as very dark while those that are not frozen to the lake bed are bright.
Researchers used the Canadian Lake Ice Model (CLIMo) to determine ice cover and lake ice thickness for those years before 1991, when satellite images are not available.
The model simulations show that lakes in the region froze almost six days later and broke up about 18 days earlier in the winter of 2011 compared to the winter of 1950. Shorter ice-cover seasons may lead to shifts in lake algal productivity as well as thawing of permafrost under lake beds.
“The changes in ice and the shortened winter affect Northern communities that depend on ice roads to transport goods,” said Surdu. “The dramatic changes in lake ice may also contribute to further warming of the entire region because open water on lakes contribute to warmer air temperatures, albeit to a lesser extent than open sea water.”
The ice regimes of shallow lakes were documented using radar images from ESA’s ERS-1 and -2 satellites. More information on the ESA is available online.
-30-
Be interesting to see the results for this winter.
Regional, one winter comparison… So what?
“Researchers used the Canadian Lake Ice Model (CLIMo) to determine ice cover and lake ice thickness for those years before 1991, when satellite images are not available.”
Oh, a model to create the earlier data. So that’s all right then.
I’m curious why the observed breakup dates for the Yukon River disagree with their modeled data
http://www.yukonriverbreakup.com/statistics.html
Why did they only report on the small area shown.
In the area we live, we’ve found that ice thickness can be affected by unrelated variables such as the date snow arrives. Early cold with no snow can produce an astonishing layer of ice, especially when combined with strong chilling winds. Alternatively when snow arrives early it acts as an insulator and less ice is formed.
Changes in PDO and soot increase from Chinese power plants.If like most countries as they develop China will implement pollution controls in the next 20-30 years so there will be less soot when we reach peak cooling from PDO and possibly the Sun. I’ll bet ice will be much like in 1950 at that time.
Dave –
The historical average for the Yukon River breakup is May 8th, with a standard deviation of 3.5 days.
The breakup date for 2013 was May 5th, that is, one standard deviation below the 117 year mean. Only once since 1990 has the breakup occurred at the historical mean, and that was in 2003. All others were earlier than the historical mean.
May 1 is two standard deviations from the mean, representing a 97.7% probability that that date is not just a chance aberration from the mean. The Yukon has broken up only four times on May 1, the earliest breakup date on record. These occurred in 1992-1995.
Until about 1975, the historical breakup mean was around May 9th. Since then it has fallen to around May 4th. Again, it was May 5th last year.
We can debate the causes of the change, but there is little doubt that the breakup date has occurred earlier since 1975, albeit with no net deterioration since around 1990.
And, in the meantime …. “IT IS EVEN WORSE THAN YOU THINK!”
See, Hudson Bay is a large, near-circular body of water that freezes over every year whose center lies right at 60.0 north latitude. (Churchill is on its west coast.) Right at 1.3 Mkm^2 in area.
Husdon’s Bay melt-off is coming now about a week early, and its freeze out has been delayed about 2 weeks from what the earliest reports (back in the little ice age years of 1650 …he added quietly.) At 60 degrees north latitude, Hudson Bay is “somewhat larger” than all these Arctic rivers combined, squared in area, and them squared again. (He added sarcastically.)
So, you’d think that anything as large as Hudson Bay melting out completely the entire year would be noticed by the CAGW crowd and would be a matter of great concern and loud gnashing of teeth, right? (He asked again, very sarcastically.)
But, regardless, we would be hearing about it, right? if Hudson Bay melted out completely not just one year, but if it never even re-froze across three winters we would certainly hear about it, right?
Now. Flip the counter.
What if an area the size of Hudson Bay completely froze over and did not melt at all for an entire year at latitude 60? Would that matter to the earth’s climate? What if that trend of increasing sea ice at latitude 60 was steady, and the area of “excessive sea ice” continued to increase since May 2011? Not just “one week” as is so strongly reported in this paper, but a multi-year-long trend of excess ice not at the Arctic’s 82 and 83 north latitude (where there is little sun) but excessive sea ice at Hudson Bay’s latitude 60, latitude 59, latitude 58?
Well. The Antarctic sea ice anomaly in October and November WAS +1.5 million square kilometers — Larger than the entire Hudson Bay . The Antarctic sea anomaly is now right at 0.9 Mkm^2 and the trend continues positive. UP.
So, when Antarctic Sea Ice threatens shipping around Cape Horn, will the CAGW religion allow its priests to write a paper?
” Researchers used the Canadian Lake Ice Model (CLIMo) to determine ice cover and lake ice thickness for those years before 1991, when satellite images are not available.”
The model simulations show that lakes in the region froze almost six days later and broke up about 18 days earlier in the winter of 2011 compared to the winter of 1950.”
Reasonable folks might infer that the CLIMo inferred timing is off by 6 and 18 days!
“Shorter ice-cover seasons may lead to shifts in lake algal productivity as well as thawing of permafrost under lake beds.”
Any attempt to uncover concrete evidence of “shifts in lake algal productivity” and/or “thawing of permafrost”?
This study is another gross example of flawed methodology and speculation masquerading as Science! The European Space Agency is joining NASA on the AGW bandwagon; how sad…
The model simulations show that lakes in the region froze almost six days later and broke up about 18 days earlier in the winter of 2011 compared to the winter of 1950.
Do the simulations agree with the observations? There were observations, were there not?
Steven, the earliest recorded breakup day was Apr 28, 1940, at 1:54 PM. There’ve also been eight other breakup days in late April.
Doesn’t comparing real data for 2011 with imagined data from 1950 strike anyone as being just a tad unscientific.
Why didn’t they compare 2011 with, say, 1867 (when Alaska was purchased from Russia); after all a model is a model.
This is just Barrow Alaska, ground zero for ARctic Warmists. Lots of recent changes probably caused by ocean currents/PDO, etc. The only real data is the sat stuff. And the only discernable decline in grounded ice is the years 2008-2011. Which is why no meaningful statistical analysis was done.Start year with higher grounded ice is Pinatubo. Rest are “flat” until 2008. Subsequent years correspond to the general shrinkage of Arctic sea ice that has now reversed. I bet that when 2014 is added, you will see reversion to the normal mean of grounded ice, thus disproving the papers thesis, which is swamped by natural variability unless models are used to project backwards to 1950. There are effectively no observational data before 1991.
Hmmmm…. Dr Pielke, Sr did a study a while back that showed freeze start dates and thaw dates had not shifted. Who to trust in this day of climate hype?
This paper is based on invented data- the data is not real world but furnished by “models”. Claude Dugay of the University of Waterloo is another would-be scientist.
Let’s wait for a new paper analyzing 2012 and 2013. I only ask because…..
http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/TempChange.html
Historical average for Yukon river breakup is May 8th eh? With a std dev. of 3..5 days. Wonder just how long the period was to obtain the average? What 30 years worth of data during the coldest part of the 20th century? I sincerely doubt that if you had data going back to the MWP that the std dev would be anywhere close to 3.5days. May 8th is likely just a cherry picked number to generate a finding they were predetermined to show. Before you can say something is unprecedented or shocking, you need to know what the natural variation is, and when it comes to climate, periods of 100yrs or less just is NOT sufficient. What was the average breakup date for the Yukon during the medieval warming period?Temperatures back then were ALL natural.
To all and everyone
Yes, we are aware of it and have been so for long.
Who can cut out fighting a hockeystick and quit slamming around with a silly cycle that is broken / kaputt / has got flat tire …….to his / her denial defence……
will be able to discuss it.
Forgot the link for the article.
http://www.livescience.com/25907-alaska-climate-pdo.html
I wonder what the Arctic lakes were like during the 1920s to 1940s Arctic Warm Period?
Was this natural or man made? You decide.
Claude Dugay of the University of Waterloo has collected a few data points that demonstrate the Earth is warming out of the Little Ice Age. When Dugay has a model that will show the Earth entering the Little Ice Age and then recovering from it, he may have something of interest to report.
There start year was at a time when OA had been wicked positive, which keeps the cold in the arctic; unlike this year with AO being negative making it offer colder in northern virginia than in Fairbanks.
Their graph seems to match the ‘black line’ five year mean graph for AO jan/feb/mar
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/JFM_season_ao_index.shtml
I dunno. The abstract says
But what’s this I see?
Why near Barrow?
So without global warming, ice out in the Twin Cities, Minnesota would have been in mid May last year?
So if there is water under the ice that simply does not contain bubbles, or if there are bubbles within the ice itself, how does this play out?
I see no particular reason that bubbles should necessarily be present in such water in the first place or, even if they are present, why they should disappear to radar imaging when the water freezes to the bottom of the lake, presumably with these echogenic bubbles now still present within the ice.
What am I missing?
Lake ice season is obviously different than sea ice extent.
Using Cryosphere data, I get a pretty flat line for max and min ice dates, with an average of 254.21 and 66.67 days respectively (about 12 Sep and 8 Mar).
I STD Dev is 9.96 for max, and 6.83 for min.
The melt season is getting slightly longer, with the max date arriving earlier by 0.0401 days per year. Ice max is also shortening, at 0.0453 days per year. This works out to the melt season arriving about 1/2 day earlier, every 1000 years.
This is confirmed by counting the total melt days per year. On average, ice decreases 187.89 days per year, and increases 177.36 days per year. The trend for the melt days is 0.0052 days per year increase. 3 years have been less 1 std Dev of 10.5 for melt season length, and 3 years have been above this. Only 1 year has been outside 2 std Dev, and that was 1997, which had nearly 220 melt days.
somehow the corrupt station data is melting ice at the bottom of lakes.
of course forget the fact that we see confirming evidence in the loss of permafrost.
Arctic amplification is real.. regardless of the cause. When the planet warmed in the 20-40s
we saw the same thing with retreat of ice at the NP. When the globe warms it does not warm uniformly. The arctic warms more. The warming we’ve seen there over the past few decades has consequences:
1. generally less ice
2. ground ice at the bottoms of lakes declining
3. permafrost declines
4. species migration northward at 3 times the normal rates.
11 meters in elevation per decade and 16km in latitude per decade.
Simple fact. plants and animals dont migrate because of “biased” surface stations. Their migration is driven by changes in the climate.
In other words, the LIA was real. It used to be colder. Now its warmer. and the arctic warms more generally speaking. during the MWP the Vikings were glad of this
In this short press release we find “dramatically affected”, “decreased tremendously”, “shocked”, “dramatic”, “stunned” and again “dramatic”. I hope the paper addresses variation in the depth of water before freeze up, the timing and depth of snow over early ice and the actual dates of the opening and closing of winter roads each year. I also want to see a graph of the annual met records and their modelled ice thickness for the entire time period. A further question relates to the use of Barrow data- is it representative? real or upjusted?
corrigendum:
max date arriving earlier by 0.0401 days per year
Should be
min date arriving earlier by 0.0401 days per year
The dates of the ice max and ice min are both arriving slightly earlier. The ice max date is coming just slightly earler than ice min, enlarging the melt season by 1/2 day per 1000 years.
In other words, there has been no significant change in sea ice extent melt season, over the record.
In fact, the length of the melt season has been remarkably constant.
Why did they only report on the small area shown.
Jimbo says:
February 4, 2014 at 9:32 am
Why near Barrow?
Yes, Jimbo, you recognize both are rhetorical questions.
Don’t tell mosh, but the answer probably is…….
The correlation doesn’t hold for other the vast other areas along the Canadian Arctic coastline.
Another computer model – about as accurate as the global warming models.
You are correct.
There is actually a very simple way to test the validity of one of their claims. Are there any fish in those lakes? If there are no fish then the lake could have frozen to the bottom. If there are fish, the lake cannot have frozen to the bottom, at least not in the lifetime of that population of fish (when they were either introduced or initially migrated into the region – potentially thousands of years).
According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game: North Slope Management Area – “The state’s third largest lake, Teshekpuk Lake, is found here on the coastal plan, as are hundreds of smaller lakes. Most of these lakes are inaccessible by road and too shallow to support fish populations, but there are dozens of lakes that contain lake trout, Arctic char, Arctic grayling, and burbot.” The key phrase in this statement is “too shallow to support fish” – if it is too shallow to support fish it is most likely to have frozen to the bottom.
As far as their claim that the winter ice season is 24 days shorter than it was in 1950, this is simply a case of laziness. To paraphrase a comment an older limnologist friend of mine expressed – ‘Students today don’t want to do the footwork of going out and collecting samples and data and are far too willing to stay warm and comfortable at home working with computers and models.’
1998 and 2010 were El Niño years. Warm. Move along, nothing to see here…
Looks like they left out last winter (2012-2013) which one of the coldest in many years.
It’s worse than we thought! Early climate alarmism at work, they too made assumptions in a straight line.
Sound familiar? LOL.
So dark lakes are frozen to the bottom, and bright lakes have water under the ice.
Now where is the data on how the water depth in those lakes has changed. Did the frozen stiff lakes have the same water level they had before, or have the bright lakes got more water in them, than they had before.
Enquiring minds, want to know.
Oh boy, imagine if this happened today? We must accept the reality of climate change in Antarctica.
[Apologies if I have made any typing errors as it is from an image.]
It is 83 F this afternoon at my house in SW Florida. Just wanted y’all to know the only ice I am thinking about is how much more I need in my beverage. Why anyone would want a colder world is beyond me.
Cool – the ice is melting earlier and refreezing later.
Means that there is more time to go fishing!
Seems to be at odds with Mackenzie River area ice bridge opening and closing date data
http://www.dot.gov.nt.ca/_live/pages/wpPages/Open_Close_Dates_Ice_Bridges.aspx
The graphs of the arctic melt season.
[IMG]http://i62.tinypic.com/20uae79.jpg[/IMG]
Ok, lets try this….
http://oi62.tinypic.com/20uae79.jpg
Dave –
Apologies, I applied the stats to the wrong column. My entry above should read as follows:
The historical average for the Yukon River breakup is May 8th, with a standard deviation of 5.1 days.
The breakup date for 2013 was May 15th, that is, about 1 and 1/2 standard deviations above the 118 year mean. In the 24 years since 1990, only three times has the breakup occurred later than the historical mean, three times at the mean (on May 8th), and 18 times earlier than the historical mean. On the whole, the last quarter century speaks to relative warmth.
On the other hand, only ten times in the 118 year record has the ice broken after May 15th.
*******
Kids, don’t let what happened to me, happen to you. Don’t play with moving averages at home.
Anyone else paying attention to great lakes ice? Haven’t seen anything like it in my lifetime.
http://iceweb1.cis.ec.gc.ca/Prod20/page2.xhtml?CanID=11080&lang=en
Looking at the Yukon breakup at Dawson City, the earliest occur between 28 April (1940) and 3rd May (1926). In the 1930s warm perid there were 6 years in this range, averaging May 2. In the 2000s warm period there were 7 years, averaging April 30, 2 days earlier. Upstream, the population of Whitehorse went from about 1000 people in the 1940s to 25,000 in the oughts. For the period from 1971 to 2000 the average Dec temperature in whitehorse was -14.9 degrees C, with the average high -10.6 and the average low – 19.1. In 1944 these temps were – 11, -7 and -14. In 2009 they were -13, -9 and -16. Could it be that there has been no real warming in the Yukon and the growth of Whitehorse has warmed the Yukon enough to move the breakup 2 days earlier? Since global warming is manifested most strongly at high latitudes and in the winter, this would not suggest much warming since the late 1930s.
Was this study necessary to “prove” the ice has shrunk since 1992? We have satellites for that. Common sense tells you the ice on arctic lakes would follow a similar pattern. The problem for the warmistas, as usual, is their failure to understand/recognize that this all happens in a pattern. The arctic ice will follow earth temperatures when it cools as well.
File this under the history of global warming. Check the lakes out now!!
This all seems to be based on computer modelling rather than observation. Computer modelling in the hands of a CAGW afficionado has the scientific veracity of a circus monkey. There is so great a dearth of confirmation of the CAGW scare that they are looking under all the stones and at the bottom of the sea (lake).
Steven Mosher says: February 4, 2014 at 9:37 am
“The warming we’ve seen there over the past few decades has consequences:
ground ice at the bottoms of lakes declining”
What is ground ice at the bottoms of lakes?
Do you mean permafrost under the lake?
Usually there is no permafrost under a lake or ocean. The exception being the ocean near Resolute where there is permafrost.
An area where the lake drains, for instance a river delta, often have unfrozen areas called Taliks.
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/10ag.html
Permafrost is not new. When they built the Alcan (Alaska) they had many problems with it.
BC says: @ February 4, 2014 at 1:17 pm
Anyone else paying attention to great lakes ice?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes
Great Lakes ice cover: Setting records during the Winter of 2013-2014 ~ Michigan State University Extension.
My view of CAGW / AGW is very simple. MOST of the recent warming has been natural.
Even if MOST of the recent warming was caused by man it is generally a good thing. Paleo says so and observations of the biosphere says so. The rest is made up of climate stimulations, circle jerks, temperature pasteurizations, UHI, outright lies, banning editors, re-defining what the peer review process is, hidden heat, hot spot is actually therenotthere, lavish funding, tropical jaunts, hypocrisy, contradictory crap, unfalsifiable hypothesis, cold is warm, warm is global warming, up is down, et. al. I raise my hat off to the Warmist chaps.
Someone once commented that propaganda is very expensive and the truth is cheap. After HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF US DOLLARS the climate propagandists are slowly but surely losing the battle for the truth. What a waste of money in the face of massive global hunger, cold weather deaths etc. I hope Warmists are proud of themselves. This is one of the reasons why I keep coming to WUWT.
Where is Mosher the Arctic expert? I am not an Arctic expert, like most people here, therefore I am surprised that Mosher, the Arctic expert, is not here.
Are sea creatures continuing their way north to seek cooler climes? If yes then they will soon head south. The oceans are like that (1920 – 1940).
I assume these are large freshwater puddles ? There has been an increase in rainfall over the period that may have had an effect.
There is no scale bar so I’m assuming the radar image is about 160 km by 160 km. The lakes that are warming are totally enclosed within this area with frozen lakes to the north, south, east and west. This is a local effect.
Also note that the article starts with “Northern Alaska’s lakes” and in the very next paragraph switches to “ice cover on lakes in the Arctic”.
This is the same “measure local – claim global” science that the moss-guy was doing in Baffin Island.
Dr Burns says:
February 4, 2014 at 4:01 pm
If the scientists didn’t measure the water level of each lake they could very well be measuring an increase in lake levels (lower lake levels more likely to lead to bottom freezing).
Interesting link to Barrow Alaska permafrost observatory. Permafrost less than 45 cm deep on average. Was much deeper in 1970s than 1950s, significant warming in 1998-1999.
http://permafrost.gi.alaska.edu/project/permafrost-observatory-barrow
97% of the people, animals and plants surveyed in the Arctic would prefer it to be warmer.
And up to 100% of the plants surveyed wanted it to be warmer. 1 plant’s response may not have been clear, so the survey might not be 100% but close enough.
100% of these global warming studies have 97% fake data in them.
Its an industry that is based on production. Production of fake data that is.
Gail Combs says:
February 4, 2014 at 3:01 pm
———————————————-
Gail, the link predicts no significant ice by 2040.
http://phys.org/news/2014-01-great-lakes-ice-decades-bitter.html
Great link from GB Dorset
http://www.dot.gov.nt.ca/_live/pages/wpPages/Open_Close_Dates_Ice_Bridges.aspx
This chart represents the first and last day for a given year the various ice bridges can safely be crossed without crashing through the ice and drowning. The dates show little change over the years. Incidentally Fort Providence is the first community on the Mackenzie River downstream from Great Slave Lake and Tsiigehtchic is the last crossing of the Mackenzie before the last leg of your journey into Inuvik.
Do these people really expect things to be static and exactly the same all the time??
I have watched the daily changes in Arctic temps since early last year. As the seaons changed and fall set in, there was a rapid chill that descended on the northwest US and western Canada, Alaska to California. Yet the Barrow area and for a little ways east and south into northern Canada remained noticeably warmer. There was a warm wave that sat in that region for months. It was the last section of northern Canada to chill, as winter set in. I use this site for a quick glance at Arctic and northern temps…http://www.weather-forecast.com/maps/Arctic?symbols=none&type=lapse
It is amazing to see how quickly temps can shift over large areas. Today for example shows that the Scandanavian countries and south into Europe temps warmed up considerably from just 2 days ago. Alaska and eastern Siberia have also warmed in the last 2 days, as has the northern Canadian coastline right where this article is basing it,s research on.
Jimbo says:
February 4, 2014 at 11:49 am
Oh boy, imagine if this happened today? We must accept the reality of climate change in Antarctica.
—————————————-
Wow!. We might not have to wait too many years to see the start of that process. I had no idea that the potential consequences could be so dire, though. This is what bothers me the most with the CAGW argument taking up so much resources and time, when in all probability there is a real climate change coming that mankind needs to pay attention to, and the time to start planning for the potential consequences is now.
And in news just in.
Extent was also up by 50%. Is this how Arctic amplification works?
Steven Koptis says…
—
My point Steven is that if you look at ACTUAL breakup dates, the study’s conclusion that there are 24 fewer days in the freeze season is pure nonsense with no grounding in the real world of observation. Last year’s breakup of a week later than average at the very least shows a natural variation that dwarfs any trend.