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.
Excellent work. We owe a great debt of gratitude to WattsUpWithThat & ClimateAudit for the work they do.
However, it is hard to keep track of all the different climate reports that have errors in them. We need some kind of web repository where these errors are indexed and a description of the errors is outlined. It is very difficult to keep track of how many contentious climate documents exist visiting the various blogs because they update so frequently.
Kim
On Greenland’s land topography-
Go to ngmapcollection.com; click on “oceans” then click on “arctic ocean floor map 1971”. This map will show that the under ice topography of Greenland has been known for at least 40 years.
I’m sure they’ll blame the warmer waters to AGW and the change in currents on AGW.
Stefan (01:30:37) :
OT, but after again engaging with a warmist online, I’m left wondering that warmists need courses in how to think. Maybe it is just me, but warmists seem to be swallowing ever more convoluted speculations in order to shore up their hypothesis. Of course I could be wrong… that’s the point.
———–
In classic Kuhnian philosophy of science, this phenomenon of trying to twist convoluted speculations in order to shore up an existing hypothesis is a sure sign that the paradigm governing that hypothesis is in a state of extreme failure, shortly to be jettisoned.
If you see here:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
You can see the south east side of greenland coast with positive temperature anomaly, but watch the gulf waters south of the US, whence the gulf warm current comes: cold.
It looks more like a local phenomenon perhaps related to displacement to the south of the jet stream, which is related to changes in artic pressure, detailed already by Erl Happ:
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/04/05/solar-warming-solar-cooling/#comment-272
It’s the Sun Al Baby!
Perhaps it might be an appropriate time to consider the possible effects of discontinuities of the temperature profile along the horizontal line of the thermohaline circulation given that it is estimated that a round trip is approximately 1000 to 1500 years and that happens to coincide with the climate cycling from MWP to LIA to present.
Has anyone got a link that explores that issue ?
For anyone interested in how the ocean currents determine sea surface temps around Greenland they should visit http://ocean.dmi.dk/satellite/index.php and select NordAtlanten in the drop down (or just click on the map below). That said it’s worth looking just for the current image for the North Sea and Baltic which illustrates just how cold this winter has been.
Not trying to start a fight or anything, but is it possible that GHG induced warming of the various latitudes is making the ocean currents stay warm longer and push further north towards greenland, or is that out of the question? Again, not trying to start a fight, just asking an honest question.
Robert (21:47:39) :
“At that single station, I’m sure it was, but over Greenland as a whole? The anomaly over Greenland from 1999-2009 appears significantly greater than that present from 1930-1940, using the “Global Maps from GHCN Data” feature”
Now that’s an interesting question. Why not have a look at this ‘interactive map’ which shows the warming/cooling trends in the GHCN raw dataset from 1910 to 1940 and then click on the ‘dark red’ dots for the Greenland stations.
GISS raw data trends 1910 to 1939
GISS raw data trends 1910 to 1939
Here are the GISS raw/adjusted temperature charts for four Greenland stations that show the warming/cooling trends for the full 1880 to 2010 period, the 1880 to 1909 period, the 1910 to 1939 period, the 1940 to 1969 period and finally the 1970 to 2010 period.
GodThab Nuuk
Jakobshaven
Upernavik
Angmagssalik
Now I don’t know about you but it sure looks to me that for most of these Greenland stations the rate of warming between 1910 to 1939 is greater than or as great as the warming between 1970 to 2010?
Now look back at the 1910 to 1939 interactive map and have a look at the Icelandic, north Norwegian and other stations thar are affected by the ocean currents in the Nordic Seas. Spot anything?
Stykkisholmur
Reykjavik
Akureyri
Jan Mayen
Isfjord Radio
Bodo Vi
Tromo/Skatto
Vardo
Again I don’t know about you but it sure looks to me that for most of these Nordic Sea stations, as with the Greenland stations, the rate of warming between 1910 to 1939 is greater than or as great as the warming between 1970 to 2010?
Now how can that be when the late 20th century warming is supposed to be due to CO2 and other anthropogenic GHG emissions? Isn’t the recent 2007 low in Arctic sea ice extent supposed to be due to global warming because of man’s contunued reliance on fossil fuels? I wonder what the Arctic sea ice extent was back in the 1920s/30s? I wonder what was happening to those Greenland glaciers back in the 1920s/30s when the warming trend was greater than it has been in the late 20th century?
Now hands up who still thinks that an odourless, colourless trace gas vital to the continued existence of life on this planet determines our climate rather than natural cyclc ocean currents like the PDO/ENSO/AMO//NAO?
Does anyone monitor Greenland’s icecap in terms of extent and depth? It would seem that extent is an issue relating to water temperature and current speed, historic ice accumulation, and air temperature. Whereas internal depth would be a function of current ice accumulation, air temperature, wind conditions, and solar loading.
Re: Roger Knights (03:24:26):
Air Temperatures were not part of the study, had nothing to do with the study, were not considered, and should not have been put in the title. The title as worded implies an “discovered exclusion from cause”, of air temperature and that is not at all, in any way what the Woods Hole team was investigating or found. It’s a misleading headline, period.
And while I recognize that WUWT is not necessarily friendly to ‘warmists’ like me, I would hope that hyping of headlines beyond the actual content of a study would cross the line. But apparently not. Finally, as we January 2010 saw record warmth in the troposphere which is consisent with AGW models, I have yet to be offered one shred of evidence that warming is not occuring. The slowing of the rise in global temps over the past few years is exactly what would be expected during a solar mimimum and extended La Nina, and now that we’re headed toward a new Solar Max, the march upward in temps is continuing exactly as AGW models would posit. If the world is not warming, why the new record high temps?
Warm atlantic water in the Arctic?
Look
http://ocean.am.gdynia.pl/p_k_p/pkp_19/Marsz-Stysz-pkp19.pdf
JonesII (05:07:20) :
“vukcevic (01:37:35) : Did these changes follow geomagnetic field variations you have pointed out several times here?”
I am not convinced about direct solar input of one kind or the other. for time being I consider GMF as a reasonable proxy, rather than a driver of the climatic events.
I am currently assembling further data. For time being it is difficult to say is the GMF causing temperature changes, by having an effect on the Atlantic ocean’s currents, or the ocean’s currents variability has a reverse effect on the GMF. Further complication is huge geodesic anomaly in the Hudson Bay area, one of the two locations of the magnetic pole peaks. This area is the main supplier of fresh waters to Labrador Sea (and subpolar gyre), regulating the extent of Gulf warm waters progress along the Greenland coast. For more details see part I at:
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/41/83/04/PDF/NATA.pdf
Magnetic graph of interest:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NA-temGMF.gif
more at: http://www.vukcevicco.uk/GandF.htm
Andrew P (07:02:22) : Your link shows that Nature Geosciences’ team it’s from the Church of the Thermo-armageddon
Here again the link, and click on the left clickable map to see greenland:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/satellite/index.php
Reality check: Cold everywhere.
Jacob Coburn: Of course it’s possible, but you then need to explain why those currents were just as warm, or maybe even slightly warmer, 60-80 years ago (and even warmer 1200 years ago).
Btw. I should have included this link in my previous note about the temperature record from the area near the Helheim glacier:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431043600000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
As you can see, the last few years were all within the same range as the whole 1930 – 1960 period, with one single exception (2003).
To Robert
Almost all of us skeptics at this site acknowledge that after the MWP (medieval warm period) there was an LIA (little ice age) since which time (1600’s or so) there has been a long term trend of global warming, with various cycles of warming and cooling related either to solar cycles or ocean oscillations or both superimposed. So we expect that “baseline” temps a hundred years ago may be slightly cooler than current temps (although we have also learned that upward measurement bias in temps due to siting and urbanization issues mess up the data).
KW
R. Gates (23:32:58) : Regarding your contention that “It is misleading to have added “not air temperature”“; it appears the air and water temperatures are simliar, ie. slightly above freezing, and the air is so only seasonally. Considering the difference in mass between air and water, the effect of air is insignificant, making the statement “not air temperature” true.
This also responds to Nick (02:06:43) : So warmer water doesn’t heat the air above it? a typically specious statement.
The term “global climate” has no meaning. “Climate” is a useful term from a local basis as it means what the succession of weather events are likely to be. It is obvious from reading history that local climates can vary considerably over time. These local climate variations often have resulted in occurances of famine, whether from consistant low temperatures or consistant wet conditions over a short (years) period, or conversly, extended (years) periods of drought.
The important part of all of this has been whether enough food could be produced to feed a population of humans adequately for survival.
Fortunately, with the increase in concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, growth of plants (primary source of food) has been enhanced, so there have been far fewer instances of famine overall.
Humans have done little to cause this enrichment of CO2, and attempts to lower levels of CO2 are most foolish. Not only would attempts to do so be futile, but it would be senseless to take any steps which would bring back the times of widespread famine, which most certainly would happen if we did manage to lower global average temperatures a couple of degrees or so.
You folks back in Florida, where air temperatures nearing 100F seem awfully hot should realize that we cope quite nicely here in Phoenix, AZ when temperatures get above 115F. Increases in average temperatures of a couple of degrees won’t mean either the end of the world or the extinction of humans.
Far better to spend research dollars on figuring out ways to cope with constantly varying weather events than blowing money on attempting to change that which we have no control over. It might not satisfy the curiousity of some, but from the standpoint of the betterment of conditions we humans will have to live with, it would be money well spent.
Early springs and late fall frosts are just fine and dandy for farmers, who produce the food we have to have to survive. Late frosts in spring cause havoc, as do early frosts in fall. Somewhat warmer is far better than cooler. Variance is not “change”, and whatever location on the face of the planet, variance of local climates has been common.
Don’t worry. A thousand years from now, tree-ring data from Bolivia will prove that this “Arctic Warming Period” was a myth.
“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.”
Says the article.
“Greenland glaciers – melt due to sea current change, not air temperature”
Says the title here. Suggested correction:
“Greenland glaciers – melt due to sea current change, AND air temperature” (that being a known event).
I just looked on the Accuweather Global Warming site where they say the warming is Sub tropical .Catchy title wouldn’t you say. The funny thing is this report was done back in July of 2008 through Sept.
R. Gates (07:33:01) :
“…I have yet to be offered one shred of evidence that warming is not occuring…”
What about Phil Jones saying “no statistically significant warming since 1995…” ?
scienceofdoom (03:21:43) :
I think most of the really shocking changes to the sea’s systems of currents (such as the Gulf Stream and the thermohaline circulation) were caused by really dramatic releases of fresh melt-water into the Atlantic. These events are hard to envision, for we don’t have any melt-water lakes of that size on earth in modern times.
One prehistoric lake may have covered large areas of northern Canada, (Lake Winnipeg and Great Slave Lake are but lingering puddles,) and extended into what is now Hudson Bay, and all this water was held back by an ice dam which, when it finally crumbled, was washed away and eroded very swiftly. The amount of fresh water abruptly surging into the north Atlantic was colossal, and (in theory,) screwed things up royally. It took (in theory) something like a thousand years to recover.
Compared to such events, the amount of water involved in the melting back of coastal glaciers is tiny.
Not that they don’t have an effect on thermohaline circulation or the Gulf Stream, however their effect likely is best described as fluctuations, rather than as an overwhelming crisis.
Global warmers have enough space to publish their beliefs in the MSM, they don’t need a post here. It would be more interesting to see what has happened with, for example, the Ap index and current solar cycle.
Am I right to conclude from this story that only those parts of the glaciers that are already largely submerged in the deep fjords are subject to melting due to warm currents? So the melting of that ice would hardly contribute to sea level rise. Also only a fraction of the kilometers thick Greenland ice sheet is located in a position where water is in direct contact with the ice. So isn’t this whole story a storm in a teacup?