From a Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution News Release : Team finds subtropical waters flushing through Greenland fjord
Waters from warmer latitudes — or subtropical waters — are reaching Greenland’s glaciers, driving melting and likely triggering an acceleration of ice loss, reports a team of researchers led by Fiamma Straneo, a physical oceanographer from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI).
“This is the first time we’ve seen waters this warm in any of the fjords in Greenland,” says Straneo. “The subtropical waters are flowing through the fjord very quickly, so they can transport heat and drive melting at the end of the glacier.”
Greenland’s ice sheet, which is two-miles thick and covers an area about the size of Mexico, has lost mass at an accelerated rate over the last decade. The ice sheet’s contribution to sea level rise during that time frame doubled due to increased melting and, to a greater extent, the widespread acceleration of outlet glaciers around Greenland.
While melting due to warming air temperatures is a known event, scientists are just beginning to learn more about the ocean’s impact — in particular, the influence of currents — on the ice sheet.
“Among the mechanisms that we suspected might be triggering this acceleration are recent changes in ocean circulation in the North Atlantic, which are delivering larger amounts of subtropical waters to the high latitudes,” says Straneo. But a lack of observations and measurements from Greenland’s glaciers prior to the acceleration made it difficult to confirm.
The research team, which included colleagues from University of Maine, conducted two extensive surveys during July and September of 2008, collecting both ship-based and moored oceanographic data from Sermilik Fjord — a large glacial fjord in East Greenland.
Sermilik Fjord, which is 100 kilometers (approximately 62 miles) long, connects Helheim Glacier with the Irminger Sea. In 2003 alone, Helheim Glacier retreated several kilometers and almost doubled its flow speed.
Deep inside the Sermilik Fjord, researchers found subtropical water as warm as 39 degrees Fahrenheit (4 degrees Celsius). The team also reconstructed seasonal temperatures on the shelf using data collected by 19 hooded seals tagged with satellite-linked temperature depth-recorders. The data revealed that the shelf waters warm from July to December, and that subtropical waters are present on the shelf year round.
“This is the first extensive survey of one of these fjords that shows us how these warm waters circulate and how vigorous the circulation is,” says Straneo. “Changes in the large-scale ocean circulation of the North Atlantic are propagating to the glaciers very quickly — not in a matter of years, but a matter of months. It’s a very rapid communication.”
Straneo adds that the study highlights how little is known about ocean-glacier interactions, which is a connection not currently included in climate models.
“We need more continuous observations to fully understand how they work, and to be able to better predict sea-level rise in the future,” says Straneo.
The paper was chosen for advanced online publication Feb. 14, 2010, by Nature Geosciences; it will also appear in the March 2010 printed edition of the journal. Co-authors of the work include WHOI postdoc David Sutherland (now of University of Washington), Gordon Hamilton and Leigh Stearns of the Climate Change Institute, University of Maine, Fraser Davidson and Garry Stenson of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Mike Hammill of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Mont-Joli, Quebec, and Aqqalu Rosing-Asvid of the Department of Birds and Mammals, Greenland Institute of Natural Resources. Canadian and Greenlandic colleagues contributed valuable data on the shelf, from tagged seals.
Funding for this research was provided by the National Science Foundation, WHOI’s Ocean and Climate Change Institute Arctic Research Initiative, and NASA’s Cryosperic Sciences Program.
#
Helheim glacier
Time-lapse photographs taken every 4 minutes show calving of the front of Helheim Glacier, August 2008. In 2003 alone, Helheim Glacier retreated several kilometers and almost doubled its flow speed.
| Gordon Hamilton, University of Maine |
| » View Video (Quicktime) 56K Modem |
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Robert (22:32:14):
So even if it were a zero-sum equation, unless the loss of heat somewhere else is growing an ice sheet somewhere, the exchange will lead to more warming in the long run.
HUH? Explain yourself here. Does not follow.
Also, what about heat lost to space?
Your arguments seem to be sophistry. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.
[I know guys, I know….I am just feeding the troll.]
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Layne,
You might want to read this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/prediction-arctic-ice-will-continue-to-recover-this-summer/
Robert (22:32:14) : “There are two things to bear in mind with regards to this. One is that the warming of the earth that is taking place…” [KLUNK!]
And what do “most climate scientists” believe is the cause of shifting ocean currents? Why CO2, of course.
How dare these upstarts at Wood Hole write a paper that doesn’t blame any warming event on CO2! I am positively incensed.
Just finished watching the Nova special on Balog’s Extreme Ice Survey (sponsored by ExxonMobil). So when do they stop trying to convince us that monitoring the floaty bits of glacial tongues relates directly to the loss of the Greenland ice fields?
R. Gates (22:32:22) : about the headline
Son, do you have a burr under your saddle?
The title of the post clearly claims to discuss the melt due to sea current change. It says nothing about the melt caused by air temperature except that the current discussion isn’t about that.
And from the 4th paragraph you quote: “scientists are just beginning to learn”
One could fix this by adding what others have known for hundreds of years
@aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES
Interesting paper. Certainly there was a brief but intense warming episode from 1920-1930. It reminds us that there’s a lot of variation in the climate, especially with regards to local conditions. But the ten-year windows are pretty short to show anything about climate trends. If you look at a wider time window, like 1909-1939 vs 1979-2009 (also adding four more years of data) the average temp anomaly is clearly greater in the modern era.
“The title of the post clearly claims to discuss the melt due to sea current change. It says nothing about the melt caused by air temperature except that the current discussion isn’t about that.”
But in fact:
“Greenland glaciers – melt due to sea current change, not(!) air temperature”
Emphasis mine. I thought R Gates quite reasonably asked for integrity — don’t distort what the science says, especially when a large part of your critique of the conventional wisdom involves attacking others for distorting the science.
Mark T (22:47:43) :
Sorry my understanding of quotes is blah blah blah
Even if I mess up….I am sue you get the gist of what i am saying.
If you want to explain more to me your grievances more in detail….please email me at sharkhearted@gmail.com
My name is Chris [as I always post at the end].
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USa
Correction: Even if I mess up…I am SURE…
I have a MAC. Have had this complaint before. Perhaps this stems from that? I am not sure what I am doing wrong. The only specialized lingo I use here is italics
Robert (22:32:14) :
What is the data that says the earth is warming?
Many independent data sets, including the GISS data and the satellite records.
“So even if it were a zero-sum equation, unless the loss of heat somewhere else is growing an ice sheet somewhere, the exchange will lead to more warming in the long run.
HUH? Explain yourself here. Does not follow.”
Loss of ice cover is a positive feedback, causing warming.
“Also, what about heat lost to space?”
What about it?
“Your arguments seem to be sophistry. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.”
You are mistaken. The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim that they are sophistry, if you wish to make such a claim.
Layne Blanchard (22:46:12) :
Your remark left me wondering if you have seen this previous post:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/13/watching-the-2007-historic-low-sea-ice-flow-out-of-the-arctic-sea/
Meanwhile the Sea Ice extent for this date is now greater than for 2005, 2006, and 2007 (link along right side of page for AMSR) and still increasing.
John F.:
I believe in accuracy, and so the title for this thread would have been honest and accurate if it had simply said:
Greenland Glacier melt due to sea current change
And left it at that. The way it was worded implies quite strongly that air temps were somehow proven to not to ALSO cause melting. It is misleading to have added “not air temperature”, but I undestand that I am a minority here (yes, a AGW “warmist”), and so of course the headline captures the spirit of what WUWT is all about and majority of posters here like to see….
vigilantfish said:
“Actually, I hate to play devil’s advocate here but a few posts ago we were critiquing the IPCC’s glacier ’science’ for its reliance on someone’s MSc thesis based on Alpine ski guides’ anecdotal reports of loss of glaciers. Perhaps the difference here is that in this case, the early 20th century fishermen, sealers and other witnesses had not been propagandized by the scientistic cult of global warming and thus led to expect only one specific outcome?”
————–
I think the principal objection to the grey source anecdotes was not so much how wrong they were, but that they so much belied the strident claims of the AGW tocsin ringers that they only cited peer-reviewed material.
Robert (23:18:40) :
Pure sophistry. Folks this is a spin artist at work.
[Although it is too much a compliment to use the word “artist” in this context.]
Again I cite:
Robert@ur momisugly “So even if it were a zero-sum equation, unless the loss of heat somewhere else is growing an ice sheet somewhere, the exchange will lead to more warming in the long run.
And “Loss of ice cover is a positive feedback, causing warming.”
Does not follow. Non sequitur.
Really a waste of time.
DUH…..on loss of ice cover “causing” warming.
Your quotes are not even worth addressing…but thanks for the fodder.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Robert (22:32:14) :
And you assume that the Earth is warmed constantly at the surface by the Sun.
Irregardless that the exact mechanism(s) that accomplish this feat are poorly understood.
You make a 2nd assumption that the greenhouse effect prevents any loss of heat on the Planet.
There are already a bunch of GCM’s that make the same assumption, and they couldn’t account for the cooling, and it really is a travesty of assumptions.
The hypothesis known as AGW is full of assumptions.
Does anyone else remember a report a couple of years ago from a British survey team who found the melting rate of Greenland glaciers glaciers slowed back to 2000 levels “As if someone turned the tap off”? I can’t find any reference to it now. I seem to remember that when they presented their findings at a symposium lots of warmie scientists jumped up and started hollering and hooting.
I know, I know….don’t feed the trolls.
Robert (23:18:40) :
AGW is not a proven or testable theory. It holds no value to add to the betterment of the world.
It has failed all of it’s predictions so far.
It is Pal-reviewed and hearsay.
The null hypothesis holds until something comes along that tests out.
That is how Science works.
You can always write a book if you wish to remain hypothetical.
Plenty of renowned people have done just that, and no harm done.
“Robert (22:32:14) :
[…]
Second, even if the earth’s climate were not warming (as it is) the melting of the ice causes warming of its own, via changes in albedo, for example. So even if it were a zero-sum equation, unless the loss of heat somewhere else is growing an ice sheet somewhere, the exchange will lead to more warming in the long run”
Robert, do you run a carbon offsetting outfit or do you really have a genuinely negative outlook on live? I don’t remember you pondering the enormous increase of albedo in the USA, Europe and Asia through increased snowfall.
Robert is correct about melting ice and albedo. Its very simple, ice reflects IR radiation, darker sea absorbs it. Sun shining on ice is reflected and does not heat it much. Sun shining on dark sea is absorbed and heats it more.
So far we are at ‘just physics’. If ice retreats, warming due to IR absorption will occur. This isn’t sophistry, whatever is meant by that, but simple physics.
The implications of this however are, as usual, not simple physics. The question is whether the increased warming by radiation absorption at those latitudes is a significant contributor either to ice melt or to the warmth of the planet. And the answer is probably no.
So Robert’s point is perfectly valid, the phenomenon described is real and is occurring, its just that it is probably not of sufficient magnitude to matter. In particular, on a global scale, it is going to be minute in terms of feedback from clouds. And in terms of ice melt, its going to be minute compared to the effects of ocean currents, as this article explains.
The point is a bit like saying that when you turn on the air conditioner in a car, you will have to power the compressor, and that will increase fuel consumption. That is just physics. Well yes, maybe. But how much of a percentage difference will it make? And if you close the windows at the same time, how much effect will the lowered wind resistance have.
We are dealing with a very complicated machine here, and it is a mistake to conclude that we can tell from ‘just physics’ what, and how important, the effect of changing one input variable will be.
Robert, the previous warm period on Greenland was much longer than 10 years. Take a look at the GISS record for Angmagssalik and you’ll see. Only 2003 was really exceptional. And 2003 happens to be mentioned in this paper as well. And it was the summer of deadly heat in Europe.
Rotten ice! I found it.
Little OT but found out what the infamous rotten ice really is! I gather from the link below that it is formed in cold water forming new ice, not in the breaking up of warm melting ice.
It is a normal new ice process as the ice is being formed and undergoes brine exclusion in-between the chunks of ice with little salt content in order to allow the excess salt to escape and so a solid sheet of ice can form.
Learn something new every day! Appears it isn’t something unprecedented or unusual after all as in the alarmist article month’s ago! Shame on that ‘expert’ for omitting this type of key information from his audience!
Look half way down under “formation of sea ice”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
That was a long scientific study. Surley “robust”
“Robust” is the new “gravitas”.