This fits right in to what I’ve been blogging about for two years. the 2007 record minimum ice extent was wind driven not melt driven. A significant portion of the ice did not melt in place. It was pushed south by the wind where it melted.
Here’s where the wind is a factor in pushing past the ice arches:
NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face
Arctic Sea ice loss – “it’s the wind” says NASA
Here’s where ice arches help: Update on Arctic sea ice melt – “Ice pockets choking Northern Passage”
Watch how ice flows in the Arctic: Arctic Sea Ice Time Lapse from 1978 to 2009 using NSIDC data
Today’s Press Release From JPL:
Missing ‘Ice Arches’ Contributed to 2007 Arctic Ice Loss
Animation: View animation (GIF 52 Mb) | View animation (GIF 13 Mb)
PASADENA, Calif. – In 2007, the Arctic lost a massive amount of thick, multiyear sea ice, contributing to that year’s record-low extent of Arctic sea ice. A new NASA-led study has found that the record loss that year was due in part to the absence of “ice arches,” naturally-forming, curved ice structures that span the openings between two land points. These arches block sea ice from being pushed by winds or currents through narrow passages and out of the Arctic basin.
Beginning each fall, sea ice spreads across the surface of the Arctic Ocean until it becomes confined by surrounding continents. Only a few passages — including the Fram Strait and Nares Strait — allow sea ice to escape.
“There are a couple of ways to lose Arctic ice: when it flows out and when it melts,” said lead study researcher Ron Kwok of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. “We are trying to quantify how much we’re losing by outflow versus melt.”
Kwok and colleagues found that ice arches were missing in 2007 from the Nares Strait, a relatively narrow 30- to 40-kilometer-wide (19- to 25-mile-wide) passage west of Greenland. Without the arches, ice exited freely from the Arctic. The Fram Strait, east of Greenland, is about 400 kilometers (249 miles) wide and is the passage through which most sea ice usually exits the Arctic.
Despite Nares’ narrow width, the team reports that in 2007, ice loss through Nares equaled more than 10 percent of the amount emptied on average each year through the wider Fram Strait.
“Until recently, we didn’t think the small straits were important for ice loss,” Kwok said. The findings were published this month in Geophysical Research Letters.
“One of our most important goals is developing predictive models of Arctic sea ice cover,” said Tom Wagner, cryosphere program manager at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “Such models are important not only to understanding changes in the Arctic, but also changes in global and North American climate. Figuring out how ice is lost through the Fram and Nares straits is critical to developing those models.”
To find out more about the ice motion in Nares Strait, the scientists examined a 13-year record of high-resolution radar images from the Canadian RADARSAT and European Envisat satellites. They found that 2007 was a unique year – the only one on record when arches failed to form, allowing ice to flow unobstructed through winter and spring.
The arches usually form at southern and northern points within Nares Strait when big blocks of sea ice try to flow through the strait’s restricted confines, become stuck and are compressed by other ice. This grinds the flow of sea ice to a halt.
“We don’t completely understand the conditions conducive to the formation of these arches,” Kwok said. “We do know that they are temperature-dependent because they only form in winter. So there’s concern that if climate warms, the arches could stop forming.”
To quantify the impact of ice arches on Arctic Ocean ice cover, the team tracked ice motion evident in the 13-year span of satellite radar images. They calculated the area of ice passing through an imaginary line, or “gate,” at the entrance to Nares Strait. Then they incorporated ice thickness data from NASA’s ICESat to estimate the volume lost through Nares.
They found that in 2007, Nares Strait drained the Arctic Ocean of 88,060 square kilometers (34,000 square miles) of sea ice, or a volume of 60 cubic miles. The amount was more than twice the average amount lost through Nares each year between 1997 and 2009.
The ice lost through Nares Strait was some of the thickest and oldest in the Arctic Ocean.
“If indeed these arches are less likely to form in the future, we have to account for the annual ice loss through this narrow passage. Potentially, this could lead to an even more rapid decline in the summer ice extent of the Arctic Ocean,” Kwok said.
For more information about NASA and agency programs, visit: http://www.nasa.gov .
========================
h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard
Did anyone find the reference to the ice that was lost being really old a little odd – Is there any scientific basis for saying the ice in that strait was unusually old?
Next thing you know they’re going to start talking about old growth ice being replaced by rotten ice, which would then imply that extent doesn’t matter because the quality of the ice is declining
RE: rbateman (18:57:51) : “Didn’t someone have an emergency plan that called for filling in the Bering Strait?”
Perhaps when rising fuel costs make air travel infeasible there will be a effort to build a trans-arctic railway system so that one could travel from Moscow to Washington DC by rail.
Robert Wykoff (19:15:11) :
Can someone explain to me why even if all ice is gone in the north pole during summer is catastrophic? I remember watching a nature show some time back on the discovery channel that showed there were over 20 events in the last few million years where there was no polar ice at all for thousands of years at a time, despite this, the earth still spins, and trees still grow.
Good Luck with that question. I’ve posed it about a dozen times to various trolls around here and never did get a response.
tokyoboy (19:12:17) : -I knew DMI would have the straight skinny on the ice extent!
JAXA seems a bit shaky lately.
I was reading this and had the the thought-“Ought to go over to DMI.” Just as I saw your post.
Robert Wykoff (19:15:11) :
Can someone explain to me why even if all ice is gone in the north pole during summer is catastrophic?
1. The penguins would loose there summer breeding ground.
2. Polar bears can not swim and would be go extinct Thursday June 7th 2030 (2 PM GMT).
3. Greece would default and collapse the euro.
4. The increase in fresh water would decrease the salinity of the oceans and thus the density causing all ships to sink because of lack of buoyancy.
5. Russia would invade Canada.
6. Spain would default and collapse the Pound
7. The isostatic rebound in the North would tilt North America and drain the Mississippi.
8. The flood of water from the Mississippi would tear all Big Oil platforms from their moorings.
9. Britain would default and collapse the Ruble.
10. The French might surrender to the penguins.
How much WORSE does it have to get before you understand the seriousness of the PROBLEM !!!!!!!!!!!!
Here is a more recent paper,
Summer retreat of Arctic sea ice: Role of summer winds (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 24, December 2008)
– Masayo Ogi, Ignatius G. Rigor, Miles G. McPhee, John M. Wallace
“Observational evidence presented here supports the conclusion of OW that the prevalence of anomalous anticyclonic surface wind anomalies over the Arctic, as observed during the summer of 2007, tends to reduce SIE by producing an anomalous Ekman drift of ice out of the marginal seas and toward the central Arctic. Our JAS SLP index, a measure of the strength of the late summer anticyclonic surface wind anomalies over the Arctic, was more extreme during the record-low ice year 2007 than during any prior year from 1979 onward.”
Interesting site for Arctic ice mass balance, ice thickness, etc.
http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/
Andrew30;
5. Russia would invade Canada
Excellent post Andrew, still laughing. Just so you know, we in Canada are preparing a pre-emptive strike. We’ve sent the magnetic North Pole into Siberia on a scouting mission. They think its their’s now, its actually a double agent.
But onto controlling the climate… The chain across the straight makes sense but seems a bit crude to me. What I was thinking was tackling the problem at the CO2 level. Now CO2 turns to ice crystals at around -79 C or so. The south pole is almost that cold. So we build a gigantic wind tunnel with a refrigeration coil around it at the south pole. It will take very little energy to run it since the incoming air is already almost cold enough (well except for that gigantic fan). Now we can pull CO2 out of the atmosphere at will and adjust the atmosphere to what ever we want. Now I know what a lot of people are thinking, the CO2 crystals would pile up and we would have a storage problem. I got that figure too. We shovel the stuff into rockets and fire them at Mars. They’ll explode on impact, releasing the CO2 which will cause Mars to warm up. In case we screw up this planet trying to terraform it and doing more harm than good, we’ll have a nice warm planet nearby to move to.
[REPLY – The US won’t be invading Canada in any case. You’ve beaten us twice, so we’ve learned our lesson the hard way. ~ Evan]
RockyRoad (19:14:59) :
Your rant on the tipping point tipped me into laughter.
I’m still choking.
What seems to be overlooked by everyone is the potential for conflict between Canada and Denmark over the strategically important island of Hans.
Up until now, conflict between the two countries has been avoided because of the ice preventing easy passage through the Nares Strait.
Now that the ice is disappearing, Canada and Denmark are going to have at it.
See discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Island.
For the first time in history, both Canada and Denmark will share land borders with two countries.
“Can someone explain to me why even if all ice is gone in the north pole during summer is catastrophic?”
“Catastrophic” is a loaded framing. Negative consequences include more warming (because of the change in the earth’s albedo) and loss of the habitat and the animals that live there.
“I remember watching a nature show some time back on the discovery channel that showed there were over 20 events in the last few million years where there was no polar ice at all for thousands of years at a time, despite this, the earth still spins, and trees still grow.”
This is a common misconception. Global warming is not going to damage “nature.” The threat is primarily to human civilization. The pole was last ice free tens of thousands of year ago. The earth was not supporting 6 billion human beings. If climate change costs us, say, 75% of our food production, “nature” could not care less. The consequences for human beings would be rather severe, however.
Robert
2010/02/19 at 9:51pm
““I remember watching a nature show some time back on the discovery channel that showed there were over 20 events in the last few million years where there was no polar ice at all for thousands of years at a time, despite this, the earth still spins, and trees still grow.”
This is a common misconception. Global warming is not going to damage “nature.” The threat is primarily to human civilization. The pole was last ice free tens of thousands of year ago. The earth was not supporting 6 billion human beings. If climate change costs us, say, 75% of our food production, “nature” could not care less. The consequences for human beings would be rather severe, however.”
The idea that the north pole has not been ice free for tens of thousands of years is a common misconception of alarmists and others who spend their time hiding from the world in their hug boxes, however as regulars here at WUWT know, this is UTTERLY FALSE. The North pole was open water in 1960 when a US Navy nuclear sub visited the North Pole… photographic evidence abounds…
In 1960, some Soviet scientists proposed that the USA, USSR, and Canada build a dam across the Bering Strait in order to warm up the Arctic and melt the ice:
“Abstract : Today we are publishing an article about a daring project of a Soviet engineer, a laureate of the Stalin Prize P. M. Borisov, who is dreaming of erecting a gigantic dam across Bering Strait and of changing the face of the Arctic: to alter the climate of the Arctic regions, to transform the vast areas of eternal frost on the territory of the United States, the USSR, and Canada into fertile grain fields.”
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA333626
Don’t anyone mention this to Obongo or he’ll be furious!
Once again Steve, you’re simplyfying and cherry picking just to try to stretch the facts to fit your notion of what is happening. If you take the time to read the article you posted, you’ll note how concerned the scientists are that WARMER TEMPERATURES will melt these natural arches across these straits. Yes, the wind blows the ice through the straits, but if the arches are not melted by HEAT, then the ice gets jammed in the straits and can’t get blown any further south. Also, as has been well documented and discussed on many sites, in addtion to the wind pushing ice through these MELTED ice free straits, there were also very high temperatures in the arctic during 2007 as well.
Seems you just can’t accept the fact that the arctic is indeed seeing high temperatures anomalies and the sea ice is trending down up there. The very article you posted worries about higher temps melting away allowing more ice to escape, yet you ignore that part of the equation.
REPLY – The US won’t be invading Canada in any case. You’ve beaten us twice, so we’ve learned our lesson the hard way. ~ Evan]
Wow, what version of history did you read? American history never mentions either incident and Canadian history… well, let’s say some “interpretation of the data” was required. The first incident involved a small (very small) invasion force from the US that assumed the french speaking people would jump at the chance to break away from english canada and support the invasion. They didn’t and the invasion failed. But it was a token force at best. The second incident involved “Canada” invading the United States and marching on Washington and partly burning down the White House. Number of Canadian soldiers? None. It was the British garrison force in Halifax that marched on Washington.
Oh wait… hockey sticks? Did you mean hockey?
[REPLY – The first was Arnold’s attack. A long shot, but would have had a big effect had it succeeded. Then in the War of 1812 there were a number of failed attempts. It was naive to expect the populace to flock to the American cause after the way we had treated the Tories (many of whom had fled to Canada). In any case, invading Canada has been bad luck for the US. ~ Evan
Robert (21:51:38) :
“If climate change costs us, say, 75% of our food production, “nature” could not care less. The consequences for human beings would be rather severe, however.”
If on the other hand the warming increased rain and the growing season in Canada, Europe and Asia (like it has done in the past) and increased our food productions by, say, 75%, “nature” could not care less. The consequences for human beings would be rather uplifting, however.
RE: Dave Wendt (19:45:55) : -> Robert Wykoff (19:15:11) : “Can someone explain to me why even if all ice is gone in the north pole during summer is catastrophic?”
From the environmentalist point of view, I believe that some of them hold the position that all animal species are sacred and mankind has no right to survive if he knowingly destroys, or allows to be destroyed, the special required habitat where many unique arctic animals now live. That is the message of the Polar Bear.
Another issue is predicted rise of sea-level if all the Greenland ice melts and the even more catastrophic rise if some or all of the ground supported Antarctic ice also melts.
Spector
mbarlow@telebyte.net
76.2.11.219
2010/02/19 at 10:29pm
RE: Dave Wendt (19:45:55) : -> Robert Wykoff (19:15:11) : “Can someone explain to me why even if all ice is gone in the north pole during summer is catastrophic?”
“From the environmentalist point of view, I believe that some of them hold the position that all animal species are sacred and mankind has no right to survive if he knowingly destroys, or allows to be destroyed, the special required habitat where many unique arctic animals now live. That is the message of the Polar Bear.
Another issue is predicted rise of sea-level if all the Greenland ice melts and the even more catastrophic rise if some or all of the ground supported Antarctic ice also melts.”
Please cite a peer reviewed, data transparent study not published by the Hockey Team, an advocacy group, or funded by an advocacy group (and I regard the UNIPCC and US and British government agencies to be advocacy groups) which actually makes these predictions….
“Can someone explain to me why even if all ice is gone in the north pole during summer is catastrophic?”
A little more on the warming this would cause. I couldn’t find anything calculating the precise positive feedback of the albedo loss from losing the summer ice. I did a very (VERY) rough calculation. (If anyone has the real numbers, please post them):
Arctic ice area (summer, 1979-2000 average): about 7 million sq km (1.4% of the earth’s area)
Sea ice albedo: .7
Open water: .08
Summer radiation: 400 Watt/m^2
Duration: 6m/yr
So . . . over 1.4% of the Earth’s surface (.014), for half the year (.5), you get the difference between .7 (120 W/m^2) and .08 albedo (368 W/m^2) (it’s 248 W/m^2). You get a total forcing of about 1.7 W/m^2.
That’s slightly more than the amount of forcing adding by all the anthropogenic CO2 added to the atmosphere to data, so it’s a potentially large source of positive feedback.
And as a result, the concentration of ice is extremely high.
Meanwhile Al Gore stares at his computer which predicts Arctic ice is disappearing.
kim (17:29:53) :
<i.Paging Dr. Mark Serreze, STAT.
Since November 19 he might be busy watching Global Warming in its ‘death spiral’.
mikelorrey (22:23:26) :
The North pole was open water in 1960 when a US Navy nuclear sub visited the North Pole… photographic evidence abounds…
I keep that one handy on this page:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/WhatGlobalWarming.htm
Remember the Skate.
Along with the catastrophic sea level rise baloney.
Guess we’ll just have to ticket that hot rod AGW with Skating on thin ice.
“”” rbateman (17:32:57) :
If I take a whole tray of ice cubes out of my refrigerator and place them in a bucket of water, 2 things happen:
1.) The refrigerator has to work harder to replace the ice
2.) the bucket of water gets much colder as the ice melts.
Now, what do you suppose is the effect of all that ice going south to cool off those oceanic waters? “””
Well in mid 2006, a British/Dutch team using a European satellite (presumably polar orbit) announced that after ten years of measuring the level of the arctic ocean, they show it was dropping at 2 mm per year, over that previous 10 years.
They said they were very confident of their data; but didn’t know why that had happened.
If they had read Physics Today for January 2005, they would have found my letetr written actually in mid 2004, in which I predicted that when floating sea ice melts, the sea level should drop; for reasons known to any 8th grade high school science student..
Melting of floating ice requires 80 calories per gram for latent heat of melting, and that can only come from the surrounding water since 9/10 or 10/11 or whatever of the ice is below the surface. So that can cool 80 grams of water by one degree C or one gram by 80 degree C (not likely).
Since salt water of more than 2.47% salinity has a positive temperature coefficient of expansion down to the freezing point, then the sea water must shrink, so the level goes down. If the temperature coefficient was constant with temperature (it isn’t), then the sea level fall, is independent of how much water cools how much. A tall column of water cooling a small amount shrinks the same amount as a shorter column cooling more (for the constant Tc rate.
so when all that ice that went out the gate, finally melted in the warmer waters, the sea level there would go down.
The author of the book whose revue in Physics Today, I was commenting on, responded that I was all wet ( in effect), and added that it was well known that when ocean waters heat up they expand and the level rises.
True (as is the converse) but totally irrelevent to my comment about floating sea ice melting.
That author is somewhat well known among AGW promoters.
No need for alarm. Nothing unprecedented. Nature is taking care of its own business. Climate is changing as always.
Spector (22:29:39) :
“From the environmentalist point of view, I believe that some of them hold the position that all animal species are sacred and mankind”
The idea that mankind is not an “animal species”, and is often mentioned as being separate from the ‘animals’, as I see above; is a cornerstone of all religions.
Humans are animals until they become minerals due to decomposition and then vegetables due mineral uptake by plants or through global warming indoctrination.
Humans are animals, and that likely includes you Spector; Robert however may have skipped the mineral stage.
Robert (21:51:38):
“Catastrophic” is a loaded framing. Negative consequences include more warming (because of the change in the earth’s albedo) and loss of the habitat and the animals that live there.
I suggest you venture to YouTube and view some of the videos available there of various bright lights of the climate science community declaiming on the impending disappearance of Arctic ice. From those I’ve bothered to watch, the implied tone is that the prospect should fill us all with incredible dread. And if it’s not really going to be “catastrophic”, why is it continuously used to push incredibly expensive plans to stop it from happening?
Regarding the increased warming from changes in albedo, If the ice does eventually disappear in some future summer it will in all likelihood do so some time in early September, since as this winter has demonstrated the Arctic is perfectly capable of completely refreezing even when the global sat temps are well above average. The thing is, although the Sun is still up around the clock then, about the 23rd of the month it goes down for its annual nap. In the interim it’s circulating at fairly small angles of incidence and if you check the albedo tables for water surfaces you’ll find that at low angles the albedo of water is about the same as new fallen snow. Undoubtedly, there could still be some added warming but it would likely be not greatly significant.
As to the animal habitat, if the polar bears can’t get at the seals, there’ll probably be a goodly assortment of envirowackos floating around on kayaks to supplement their diet. Failing that, as I’ve pointed out in the past, for the price of a couple of good climate science grants we could arrange to have helicopters drop boxes of Omaha steaks on every polar bear in the Arctic for the duration.
Robert (22:32:54) :
I can think of something really bad happening if the sea level were to drop:
Panama and Suez canals idled for starters.
All that cheap Global Seafaring stuff would take a hit.
Sea levels dropping would mean ports in difficulties, and northern sea lanes interdicted with treacherous icebergs.
You don’t know how good you got it until it’s gone.