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.
Interesting article.
Wish it had delved a bit deeper about the currents themselves. The speed and the causes. Currents are driven totally from heat differential, right. So if currents have accelerated so much, the tropic heat is spreading faster to cooler north areas which in turn cause ocean radiation at a greater rate than when current was slower and moving less energy. Normal TD.
Since we have not seen the sun in this type of configuration since the late 1800’s, we could be witnessing what the earth does to shed excess energy. Seems logical that could very well be what is occurring. The thirty years from the 70’s to 2005 were exceptional solar wise. We are just coming out of the modern day grand maximum. Next few years should tell it all.
Could this be how earth rids itself of excess heat? Does the earth as a whole follow TD principles such as minimum time? Kind of counter-intuitive that the move to increase current flow which spreads warmer water and that radiates at a greater rate could also melt more ice in the arctic due to the shedding of energy. That energy is tiny compared to the total energy received in the last thirty some years. However, by itself is still sizeable amount of energy. This energy has had thirty some years to conduct to deep layers of the soil and oceans, and therefore it will take it quite some years to shed it if we are in fact at the start of a cooling period.
Solar irradiance is now at that suppressed level. The sun recently hit levels not seen since the early 1900’s and are close to those around 1820’s. What is happening is not “business as usual” as in the late 1900’s and up to 2005.
Would welcome any ideas, thoughts. I seem not able to pin it down.
The last AGU meeting was quite enlightening, If you have a chance and the time, at least 30 minutes, it will open your eyes, especially Mr. Solanki’s paper as lead speaker.
WUWT- Dalton Minimum Repeat goes mainstream
http://eventcg.com/clients/agu/fm09/U34A.html
OT: I cannot use Tips & Notes at all these days. It locks up my whole browser. Can you perhaps install an automatic archiver to cut in at a not impossible number of posts? thanks in hope.
Do I get this right? More warm water from the subtropics reach Greenland and melts ice. That means the warm water leaves 80 cal for each g of ice it melts. If the water is say 5 deg C it leaves 80 g water of 4 deg C + 1 g water of 0 deg from the ice, or 20 g of 0 deg +1 g 0 deg from the ice. It’s just to scale it up to current global level?
Anyhow it means cooling of the water and according to the map it returns south. It will mean a cooling of the waters nearer to the equator.
About the albedo it ought to be just the surface of the ice sheet that adds to the albedo, not the mass.
Ice bergs floating in the water do not add to the sea level as they melt, only to cooling of the water. As they fall into the sea, however the level outght to rise?
What’s more interesting is how complex climate “forecasting” actually is, and this paper just confirms that point of view.
The deep ocean currents drive the “conveyor belt” which brings warmer water to northern Europe. The very cold, very saline water just south of Greenland sinks very fast due to its high density and this is the “driver” – along with the deep Antarctic water it picks up on the way – for the rest of the ocean heat transport.
If the Greenland ice sheet melts too fast then the salinty drops and this conveyor switches off. Massive impacts globally from small changes one way or the other.
If you want it in a soundbite:
The “switching off” of the thermohaline currents or THC can cause the refreezing of the Arctic with all of the positive feedback that the ice albedo and other effects bring.
Check out Predictability? With a Pinch of Salt please.. Part One
Stefan (01:30:37) :
Nope. It’s not just you. Cult-like. Well programmed. Here’s how you tell, have you ever had an actual conversation with one of them. I mean where they say, yeah that could possibly be. You knowing all along it’s perfectly possible by proper physics? Check out a book at the library on cult mentality, it’s real, it’s dangerous, and it requires professional de-programming for a person to come back to reality and rejoin real people with real faults. You see, they actually think they have no faults.
Just what DO they include in their models?
Raw data fed through a grinder and poured into a mold for all I know.
Even Colonel Sanders admits there’s chicken and spices in the list.
I have a question; perhaps rhetorical. Why is it we are only now finding all these natural factors and influences on climate change in such detail? I’m not just talking about this ocean effect but all the other very illuminating and interesting details posted on this and other similar blogs. Why haven’t organizations like the IPCC come out with all this before instead of the alarmists scaremongering nonsense? Isn’t it time to threaten such organizations with law suits unless they come clean?
The observations are valuable, and add to our store of knowledge, however they always seem to need to pop a statement like this in:
“Melting ice also means more fresh water in the ocean, which could flood into the North Atlantic and disrupt a global system of currents, known as the Ocean Conveyor. ”
The use of the word “disrupt” is unfortunate. It implies that a system which was stable is getting knocked out of kilter.
If you study the history of Greenland you become aware the climate has varied. In the MWP the Greenland Vikings could grow crops, while the Little Ice Age was so cold it drove the Dorset Inuit from East Greenland.
It is likely these events did have some effect on “a global system of currents, known as the Ocean Conveyor. ” However the system simply adapted. It didn’t break down or go berserk in any dramatic way.
Likely it is part of a greater oscillation akin to the AMO.
This is not to say the observations aren’t valuable. I just wish these scientists didn’t have to be so cotton-picking dramatic, to get anyone’s attention.
Philip T. Downman (02:11:41)
As they fall into the sea, however the level outght to rise?
Yes, provided that they grow slower than they fall into the sea.
Mostly they provide a big thrill for tourists in canoes, until someone gets whacked by one, then the tours will go the way of barrell riding over Niagra Falls.
Climate Coalition hit by defectors! That’s good news!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804204575069440096420212.html?ru=yahoo&mod=yahoo_hs
I find the most telling part of the article is the phrase “scientists are just beginning to learn more about the ocean’s impact — in particular, the influence of currents — on the ice sheet.”
So yet another example of the science not being settled. The sooner all concerned realise that a snapshot of the current understanding of any scientific subject is just that, a snapshot, not the enduring state of the science. It’s like trying to judge the ending of a film (movie) from a single frame picked at random.
Philip T. Downman (02:11:41) :
Sounds pretty right to me. Think of the iceberg tou mention cooling the NA waters. Would that tend to speed up or slow down the current, even though is’s a tiny effect?
P Gosselin
http://comments.americanthinker.com/read/42323/540020.html
That has the potential to be a major contribution to the on going debate.
Ed
Andrew (01:48:14) :
“This is the first time we’ve seen…”
How often has this statement been made in relation to weather (not climate) events.
The authors then assume that it has never happened before, and then extrapolate this event the be the norm for the future.
This is I am afraid the state of affairs the world over in all walks of life. I see it in my own profession too. Is this part of cognitive dissonance? I was working as a young technician at a well know international lab many years ago, I was sent “below stairs” for a year as a Clerk of Works to get site experience – what a sight & what an experience that was. I digress, upon returning to the fold of the drawing office, I prepared a specification for the decoration of an office upon completion, as I shared architectural & engineering roles in part, & used the term “mist-coat” + 2 No full coats emulsion, the “mist” being simply a watered-down emulsion coat to seal the surface of the plaster before applying the final decorative finishes. The senior architectural technician & the senior architect, both challenged my terminology as they had never heard of it before & I was therefore wrong, but despite my protestations was forced to change it to their invented term of “sealer coat”. I eventually (days later but the damage was done) demonstrated that such a term was actually in SPONS, the “bible” of quantity surveying used by all in the UK construction industry, (a copy of which was on the architect’s shelves, gathering dust one presumes although its cover was a nice bright colour)!
Peter of Sydney:
IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 6: Paleoclimate.
p442 and surrounding..
You can find them at http://www.ipcc.ch
Many people think that the IPCC just churns out some kind of pre-fabricated consensus.
But “many people” haven’t read the IPCC technical reports.
They are very illuminating as to how “settled” the science is. Like Those Hazy Skeptics at the IPCC
Sorry I forgot to add that this was a illustration of the arrogant attitude people have to things they have not seen before, the ilogical but automatic presumptious conclusions being that it has to be new!
tallbloke (23:42:13) :
Do you mean this one, tallbloke?
http://newsbusters.org/node/10804
“Science Magazine: Glaciers Not On Simple Upward Melting Trend”
Caleb:
Perhaps it did.
Some of the paleoclimate evidence suggest that the THC (thermohaline current) which has one effect of driving heat from the sub-tropics to northern Europe has switched off and changed direction more than once in the past.
It would definitely be a strong disruption.
It might be the mechanism by which the interglacials ended and the start of the subsequent ice age.
But the air temperatures haven’t risen enough to significantly increase the melting rate, have they? If not, or if they are decisively outweighed by the rise in water temperature, then the headline is essentially OK. Perhaps, it should have been more lawyerly and read:
Or:
The headline has to be read in the context of the previous alarmist news about the topic, whose whole point has been the acceleration of the melting. (There would be nothing alarming about the normal rate of melting, which has always been going on, so there’d be no news about it.)
This accelerated melting was attributed to global warming or climate change, giving the reader the impression (as intended) that air-melting was occurring. (An increase in melting from warmer water wouldn’t be alarming, because the Argo buoys indicate that the global sea temperature is stable — and therefore that the warmer waters near Greenland were only a local blip.) Thus the headline isn’t guilty for not including the word “acceleration,” given that that is the whole context of the Greenland glacier controversy. There’d be no controversy without it. It’s a rebuttal of the implicit message of prior headlines.
wayne (02:10:32) :
Thank you for the pointer to the presentation. Very interesting.
Mike Ramsey
“Melting ice also means more fresh water in the ocean, which could flood into the North Atlantic and disrupt a global system of currents, known as the Ocean Conveyor. (Jack Cook, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)”
Has any one actually considered if this is possible or whether it is just another one of those statements left over from the glory days just a few weeks ago when climatologists could make any statement that they wanted with impunity in support of their scary global warming scenarios.
I doubt that there is any actual evidence which quantifies the contribution from excessive ice melt on the degree of salinity. I suggest that it was just another unsupported assertion along with many others that have been made in the propaganda war. Other than local dilution at the point that melt water enters the sea, I would hazard that it is impossible to measure any change in salinity as the volume and the conveyor’s velocity passing the glacier regions amounts to there being many orders of magnitude greater volume of conveyor than excess melt water run off. And as the melt water is at a lower temperature than the conveyor, a negative feedback (that word that climatologists love to invoke) would be operating to help maintain sea water density. But even if there were a measurable dilution, could it ever be anywhere near strong enough to even slightly perturb the conveyor.
In short I think it is another load of poppycock that needs to be debunked.
The one weakness I find in this report is that it speaks of changes in the North Atlantic Circulation but it does not seem to discuss how this current has actually changed in recent years.
vukcevic (01:37:35) : Did these changes follow geomagnetic field variations you have pointed out several times here?
Is it possible that these changes were, in turn, related to recent changes in the jet stream?…and
Is it possible that these changes in the jet stream were caused by variations in the solar “wind”, which, in turn, responded to changes in the solar polar field?
I once told a distinguished engineering professor who was an expert at Greenland icecap radar imaging that the icecap sits in a bowl and can’t slide precipitously into the sea, and he had the gall to try to tell me that the topography of Greenland’s land surface was poorly known. He’d just finished pooh-poohing the 800 year lag of CO2 to temperature in the ice core record, too. This was for an audience being challenged about the hysteria by you know who.
=============================
Ref – wayne (02:10:32) :
“Interesting article…”
___________________
Ditto. Need to watch/study that Global Conveyor a lot more.
Ref – Peter of Sydney (02:37:55) :
“I have a question;…”
___________________
Think of Government Motors (GM). As long as there’s nothing in the newspaper all is AOK; that is as far as the general public is concerned. But folks in the know have known GM was sick and dying of cancer since the mid 1960’s; same for USSteel and others.
Ref – scienceofdoom (03:21:43) :
“Some of the paleoclimate evidence suggest that the THC (thermohaline current) which has one effect of driving heat from the sub-tropics to northern Europe has switched off and changed direction more than once in the past.
“It would definitely be a strong disruption.
“It might be the mechanism by which the interglacials ended and the start of the subsequent ice age.”
______________________
Now we’re talking ’cause and effect’. We need to hold off the vinegar and see if articles have any points of value. If the Sun has so little effect on climate according to some here who should know, then the “Global Thermohaline Circulation” sounds like a great place to look for answers. Turn down or off the North Atlantic Current and Europe freezes (along with the North Sea and the rest of the Northern Hemisphere). And what’s driving the North Atlantic Current? The good old Gulf Stream. There’s more to sea water than salt. Sort of like the old song about bones connected one another.