People send me stuff. In my email this past week I got a cover photo of the June 2010 issue of National Geographic along with this message from Al in Georgia:
I was at the Doctor’s office and picked up the following magazine in the waiting room. National Geographic June 2010 issue entitled Greenland Ground Zero for Global Warming.
- Melt Zone There’s a meltdown on the ice sheet—and optimism among Greenlanders.
- Viking Weather The warming climate that enticed Erik the Red is returning.
Now how can you claim that on the one hand we created the current warming trend and on the other hand admit that there was a time when the climate was much warmer than today. In fact, use that history as a means of suggesting how things might look as we humans warm the planet to temperatures never seen except during the time of Erik the terrible. What a riot!
Indeed. The email circulated, and that prompted this famous photo being posted:
Of course images like this one at left showing water tumbling down a huge moulin are being held up with gloom and doom scenarios that say Greenland’s Ice is melting “faster than expected” and we’ll get six feet of sea level rise from it along with a 10-15°F temperature rise by the year 2100.
Perhaps. But, moulins have existed since Greenland had ice, they are just part of the natural landscape and processes. They aren’t “new” to our time.
One of the photos we don’t often get to see was also circulated in the email, by somebody who lives in Greenland and knows what this is really all about.
It’s a real eye opener:
He writes:
In the winter a huge among of snow are accumulated on the Ice (2-3 meters, sometimes more) and we are not talking about 1 or 2 square-miles, it’s about 100.000’s of square miles (up to 1 million) on the Westside of the Ice cap and a similar picture on the Eastside… when the melting season starts in april-sep… the meltwater has to go somewhere, and for sure it goes downhill in huge meltwater rivers.
The black stuff on the bottom of the lakes is carbon dust and pollution in general… but not from one year, but several decades (the topographical conditions don’t change from year to year). On a flight over the Ice Cap a sky clear day, you can see hundreds of huge lakes with the black spot on the bottom.
Here in Kangerlussuaq, on the edge of the Ice Cap, we have several burst from edge-lake, all the water (millions of tonnes) in the river passing through the settlement in a day or two.
The Vikings (Eric the Red) is about Medieval warm period…. the Hockey-stick mystery!!!
Med venlig hilsen
Svend Erik Hendriksen
And in that same Nat Geo collection that the photo above came from, you can see this photo also:
No mention in that Nat Geo slideshow of the origin of cryoconite, but I did find this at Portland State University by Jonathan Ebnet:
Cryoconite Holes
Cryoconite holes are water filled holes caused by increased melting around sediment. Cryoconite holes are common on the surfaces of glaciers in polar and non-polar regions (in polar regions, cryoconite holes have an ice lid, while in non-polar regions, cryoconite holes are open to the atmosphere). Cryoconite holes are not limited to glaciers. Cryoconite holes are also found on lake ice and sea ice. I will investigate whether sediment is required to initiate melt in the subsurface of a glacier, or whether absorption of solar radiation by clean ice is only needed to allow melting to occur. Previous studies have shown that some cryoconite holes are interconnected by cracks within the ice, while the remainder are isolated. These cracks appear to be the means by which the subsurface melt exits the glaciers, discharges into the melt-water streams, and empties into the perennially ice-covered lakes.
There is this time lapse animation showing how a hole changes with some solar insolation (warning – huge file, may take several minutes to download)
Click on the image below to view the evolution of two cryoconite holes over a 41 hour period. Watch how quickly the sediment melts down into the ice, and how fast the hole ices over. The movie will show the ice lid thickening and the hole filling up with air, half way through the movie (visible as the hole becoming lighter in color).
Now the really interesting thing about all this cryoconite or black dust and soot is that it tends to accumulate and stay there, continuing to help with melting daily. If the holes are interconnected with cracks through which meltwater flows, then they’ll continue until such time that the hole gets so deep that no sunlight reaches the bottom.
I’m remined of a simple experiment that Mike Smith carried out in his backyard one winter.
This from Brett Anderson’s AccuWeather Global Warming blog last year:
Here is a photo of fresh snow cover in my backyard over which I had tossed some eight month-old fireplace ash under a totally blue sky
Keeping in mind this demonstration is occurring just two days after the winter solstice (meaning the albedo effect is less than it would have been under clear skies in February or March), in just one hour, the greater melting in the ash-covered areas is already apparent:
After four hours, the ash-free area has a depth of 5.5 inches
At the same time, the ash-covered areas have a depth of about 2.5 inches. Multiple measurements were taken (note ruler hold about an inch in front of ruler) which yielded an average depth of 2.5 inches.
The areas without soot melt about 0.5 inches of snow during this 4-hour period while the soot-covered areas melt 3.5 inches.
For visual comparison purposes, note the ruler hole in the non-ash-covered snow above the shadow.
Even tiny amounts of soot pollution can induce high amounts of melting. There is little or no ash at upper right.. Small amounts of ash in the lower and left areas of the photo cause significant melting at the two-hour mark in the demonstration.
Any discussion pertaining to melting glaciers or icecaps must consider the accelerated melting caused by soot pollution in addition to any contribution from changing ambient temperatures.
Photos: Copyright 2007, Michael R. Smith (used with permission)
Mike Smith is CEO of WeatherData Services, Inc., An AccuWeather Company. Smith is a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society and a Certified Consulting Meteorologist.
So yes, it does look like man made melting in Greenland, but not from CO2, but rather from soot. Since the USA has tough laws against particulate emissions, I’m wondering if we shouldn’t be pointing the finger at China and asking them to adopt clean air standard rather than worrying about California’s idiotic Prop AB 32 “global warming law”:
Note that this is just a snapshot of the atmosphere, it doesn’t show where the soot ends up, but as you can see, it does reach the latitude of Greenland.
Some science has already been done on it, emphasis mine:
========================================================
20th-Century Industrial Black Carbon Emissions Altered Arctic Climate Forcing
Joseph R. McConnell,1* Ross Edwards,1 Gregory L. Kok,2 Mark G. Flanner,3 Charles S. Zender,3 Eric S. Saltzman,3 J. Ryan Banta,1 Daniel R. Pasteris,1 Megan M. Carter,4 Jonathan D. W. Kahl4
Black carbon (BC) from biomass and fossil fuel combustion alters chemical and physical properties of the atmosphere and snow albedo, yet little is known about its emission or deposition histories. Measurements of BC, vanillic acid, and non–sea-salt sulfur in ice cores indicate that sources and concentrations of BC in Greenland precipitation varied greatly since 1788 as a result of boreal forest fires and industrial activities. Beginning about 1850, industrial emissions resulted in a sevenfold increase in ice-core BC concentrations, with most change occurring in winter. BC concentrations after about 1951 were lower but increasing. At its maximum from 1906 to 1910, estimated surface climate forcing in early summer from BC in Arctic snow was about 3 watts per square meter, which is eight times the typical preindustrial forcing value.
1 Desert Research Institute, Nevada System of Higher Education, Reno, NV 89512, USA.
2 Droplet Measurement Technologies, Boulder, CO 80301, USA.
3 Department of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.
4 Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: Joe.McConnell@dri.edu
==========================================================
So when you see alarming stories of Greenland meltwater, remember: soot is more powerful at melting snow and ice than CO2.
h/t to Steve from Oregon
Juraj V. adds in comments the Greenland Temperature record:
1DandyTroll says:
November 3, 2010 at 5:18 pm
@jim Owen
Can I interject the idea that ice doesn’t really care for the darkness or IR heat radiativeness of the material that falls on it but usually the more simpler stuff like salty or metally or oily stuff that tend to make the ice go soft and dissolve whereupon the object of “ice melting” has a really weird other dimensionally tendency to . . . ta dadada . . . sink. :p
You “can” interject that idea, but it has bears no relation to the subject at hand. IOW, you just failed your first thermodynamics exam. And, incidentally, proved that you’ve never hiked through, for example, the Sierras or the Bob Marshall Wilderness in winter where this phenomenon is common. :-))
As for the issue of soot & all on snow, a few thoughts…
I would think that the majority of soot-like particles generated a large distance from the Arctic areas would become involved in the precipitation process along the way & ‘washed’ from the air.
Along those lines, is the soot/dust found in the Arctic embeded in the fresh snow flakes or is it on the top/surface, deposited after the snow fall? I would think any soot within a snow flake would not be nearly as effective in absorbing radiation as would soot on the surface.
How cold does it have to be before any soot exposed to direct solar radiation at expected solar angles of the high latitiudes cannot be warmed enough to start melting?
How much melting does soot cause on a snow surface at night & at what temp does any melting stop?
just some thoughts…
Jeff
RE: Erik says:
November 3, 2010 at 10:59 am
The link Erik gave:
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/ftp04/mq22551.pdf
is worthwhile reading about Greenland Vikings, especially the well-written “history,” which gives a decent over-view of what has been learned, though of course the writer never ventures far from the somewhat timid conjectures which can be drawn, after the tedious process of sifting sand and examining frozen dung and stray items.
I also think archeologists in Greenland have to be careful not to irritate the people who hold the purse strings, by stating too clearly how warm the MWP actually was. For example, the estimates of the population of Greenland Vikings have trended downwards, from up around 8000 down to 3000, or even less than 1000, in one recent thing I read. However items slip by this temerity. For example the above link mentions there were 100,000 goats and sheep in a single district of the larger settlement.
Then compare that number with the National Geographic’s description of modern efforts to even start a herd, with modern tractors and fodder airlifted in when necessary, and you get a clear idea of how much warmer it was 1000 years ago, because modern herds can’t match the Viking’s.
If these archeologists were funded more freely, and under no threat of banishment for contradicting Mann’s attempt to make the MWP disappear, they likely could give us a far clearer picture of both the Vikings, and the climate back then. (For example: there is a desire to get samples of wood from old barrels they have discovered, not only in Greenland but from Thule sites up in Ellesmere Island, and to attempt to determine the species of the wood, and where the original tree grew. It is assumed all wood came from Europe, but not a known fact. However such work would require funding.)
I think Mann will get more funding just for his lawyers this year than a lot of these fellows see in a decade. Yet think what might be discovered, if you just set these guys free along the coastline with a sonar, or sent them to undisturbed patches of snow to take cores and look for Viking soot. If I had a tenth the funding Hansen diddles away each year, I’d send some of these fellows up to poke around the coast of Newfoundland, and pay others to examine the lowest levels of Newfoundland’s oldest settlements, to see if the oldest strata contained any Norse items, along with the English.
It seems a real pity when we don’t learn as much as we could, because some fear certain truth might upset their political applecart.
mososmoso: I’d suggest you hit the Saturday yard sales. Most of the people of my generation kept old issues of the NG simpley because they were too pretty to throw away. I’ve seen some real gems.
In summer, on High Sierra snow fields, there are lots of holes. at the bottom of each one is something which absorbs sunlight and radiates warmth. It can be a stone from the surrounding cliffs, a sprig of conifer needles or an insect, even a butterfly will make a hole. Just to keep things interesting, sub-snow boulders will absorb what light reaches them through the snow and melt back the snow around and above them. This makes trapdoors that bring the backpacker face down in the snow with one leg in a narrow hole. trying to get back up with a backpack on is strenuous. Especially if you push down with a hand and it plunges through also. I learned to lay my staff flat and push on that. One place where a hoe handle is better than those fancy ski pole things.
When I get deep snow in my long drive way, it is easier to spread fine black peat in a thin layer, than to scoop 250 feet of 18″ deep stuff, three to four sunny days and it is drivable (less than 6″ deep), and yes the shade from the trees slows it down a lot when cold. More organic than salt and faster.
I thought the point of the article was to show how little effect soot has, because no sooner is it deposited than it gets covered up and whiteness returns. So the albedo calculation needs to have a time of visibility component in it also. Does it?
Living in Albuquerque and visiting Santa Fe often, it is common in early spring to see bumps of ice in the road around the square. The temperature is warm enough to melt snow but the ice keeps on keeping on. The thing I noticed was that the ice is usually covered in dirt. You would think that the dirt makes it darker and more absorptive. However, it also blocks direct UV exposure. UV probably directly breaks ice bonds photonically and most likely plays an important but little discussed role in the melt rate of snow, ice, and glaciers.
Jim Owen says:
You’d get exactly the same effect with dark rock
Not really. When a parking lot is plowed there are piles of snow mixed with rock and sand. I have noticed that these piles tend to shrink over a few weeks and that the areas covered with rocks tend to shrink slower than areas without them. I have seen many large holes between the rocks. I assume that this is due to the insulating properties of the rocks. Or it could be that unprotected snow sublimes and the rocks stop that.
// Now how can you claim that on the one hand we created the current warming trend and on the other hand admit that there was a time when the climate was much warmer than today. In fact, use that history as a means of suggesting how things might look as we humans warm the planet to temperatures never seen except during the time of Erik the terrible. What a riot! //
I think the author here is deliberately confusing the climate of one small region of the globe (the North Atlantic and irregular NAO effects) with global temperatures.
Soot and ash are also called “The Black Icebreaker”… local fishermen in Greenland use it in the spring as icebreaker (from haurbor to open water)… soot and ashes are spread on the ice fore a rapid formation of a channel.
(Sarc On) We shouldn’t be talking this way about the you-know-who (and the you-know-who South of them) and all the soot they produce cause all it’s going to do is make them nice folks mad and they’re going to stop buying our bonds and taking our IOU’s. That’s not good. Think maybe that’s why some say it’s all the fault of the bad, bad CO2, and they don’t even talk about the soot? Things are sure getting really complicated. (Sarc Off)
How much ice/snow can particulate and black carbon really melt? Applying the doom and gloom scenarios, cities like Chicago should remain fairly ice free in the winter. Instead, the snow and ice which do not melt look rather gross and depressing.
I think there needs to be a serious application of reality applied here.
If particulate and black carbon can’t keep Chicago ice free in the winter, how much ice/snow can it really melt in a even colder climate?
Other sources that comment on the 2010 Soot study by Jacobson
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/soot-and-climate-change-a-new-article-by-jacobson-2010/
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/07/soot-control/
Jim Owen:
Sorry about your teeth. Other links on CO2 radiative forcing:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
http://www.warmdebate.com/radiative-forcing-and-co2-emissions
The IPCC’s estimate of additional forcing from all added CO2 since the Industrial Revolution is ≈ 1.5 Wm-2.
The formula for calculating change in radiative forcing (ΔF) in Wm-2 for carbon dioxide (CO2) is given as ΔF = αln(C/Co) where C and Co are the current and pre-industrial concentrations of CO2, respectively and α = 5.35.
Atmospheric CO2 is presented in parts per million by volume (ppmv). There is no universal standard for what we mean by a doubling of CO2 and various numbers are used, most commonly 560 (2×280 — the common pre-Industrial revolution reference) and 600 (2×300 — presumably benchmarked from early in the Twentieth Century).
A doubling of pre-Industrial Revolution atmospheric CO2 = 5.35 x ln(560/280) ≈ 3.7 Wm-2.
According to the National Academies’ Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (2001), doubling CO2 (to 600 ppmv) would lead to a forcing of about 4 W/m2
This information is from http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/What_Watt.html which goes into a more detailed discussion of radiative forcing.
@Dennis ward
I rather think that you might be mischievously trying to provoke a ‘spat’ here.
I can’t remember quite where I read it but there are several papers and articles that would show a parallel ‘warming’ of other areas of the globe at the same latitude as Greenland over that same time frame.
Doh! Wish I had a better memory and a more disciplined attitude to keeping articles.
Even so, the proponents of AGW would use localised, short term, unsupported effects/data/observations to maintain their proposition. The difference here is we are discussing well researched papers and observations which have withstood initial peer review, have been accepted over many decades as accurate representations of past trends and yet have been free of the effects of Ch*n*s* Power Stations and Redneck SUV emissions.
An above post indicated the RATE of increase in temperatures in the early 20th Century exceeded that in the latter part.
Face it. The evidence keeps on coming out, the chips are down, no matter which way you try and cook the books…..the tide has turned, look out your warm clothing, start splitting more logs than you think you’re going to need and BTW you might want to buy a good hunting rifle before it’s impossible. It already is impossible in the UK.
Alpine glacier retreat is more due to increased insolation and reduced snowfall, probably from decreased cloud cover, than it is from warming per se. During the 1980s and 1990s it was not uncommon in winter in parts of the Swiss and French Alps to have reddish brown Sahara dust deposited on the snow by the Scirocco, and that did cause visibly faster melt.
While I have no doubt that soot can help to melt ice and snow, I do not think that all soot is man made. There are plenty of naturally caused forest fires, volcanoes and other sources of soot emissions on this planet in addition of man.
Even with that it is a “don’t care” issue.
“Dave says:
November 3, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Mike Smith>
“The point of the experiment was to demonstrate that darkened snow will melt much more quickly than virgin snow. That said, at Anthony’s suggestion, I have ordered some carbon black and will repeat the experiment this winter IF Mother Nature will cooperate and give us a deep snow with no wind.”
You’re missing your control – you need to repeat the experiment in the shade, and in various temperature conditions (in case the heat is being absorbed from the atmosphere, unlikely as it may be, and because it will only be above a certain temperature boundary that this effect is enough to melt otherwise unmelted snow/ice).
If you want to make things more accurate, you also need a replicable way of distributing the soot evenly.
Come to think of it, you would improve the data gathered by testing various concentrations of soot, although I don’t think that affects the basic experiment.
Finally, I would formalise your technique for taking measurements – perhaps with a grid, but however you do it, you need to define where you’ll take them before the experiment starts if you want to rule out (unintentional/subconscious) selection bias.”
What? Dave, the “control” condition is the adjacent, continguous, surrounding, snow that does not have soot on it.
If you spray cologne on your right shoulder, but not your left, and someone says your right shoulder smells of cologne, but your left does not, you really don’t need to repeat the study the next day, or on another person, or on a cold day, or with a taller person, or with a person who has anosmia, to be fairly certain that the cologne led to the scent.