Still no polar ice tipping points ahead

NASA Freshwater ponds appear atop the Arctic ice cap during the summer melt in this image taken on July 12. The NASA-funded Impacts of Climate on Ecosystems and Chemistry of the Arctic Pacific Environment project has been examining the ponds and the ice around them this summer.
Freshwater ponds appear atop the Arctic ice cap during the summer melt in this image taken on July 12. The NASA-funded Impacts of Climate on Ecosystems and Chemistry of the Arctic Pacific Environment project has been examining the ponds and the ice around them this summer. Image: NASA

We covered this earlier, but this is a new press release on the subject today.

From the University of Washington via Eurekalert

Model shows polar ice caps can recover from warmer climate-induced melting

A growing body of recent research indicates that, in Earth’s warming climate, there is no “tipping point,” or threshold warm temperature, beyond which polar sea ice cannot recover if temperatures come back down. New University of Washington research indicates that even if Earth warmed enough to melt all polar sea ice, the ice could recover if the planet cooled again.

In recent years scientists have closely monitored the shrinking area of the Arctic covered by sea ice in warmer summer months, a development that has created new shipping lanes but also raised concerns about humans living in the region and the survival of species such as polar bears.

In the new research, scientists used one of two computer-generated global climate models that accurately reflect the rate of sea-ice loss under current climate conditions, a model so sensitive to warming that it projects the complete loss of September Arctic sea ice by the middle of this century.

However, the model takes several more centuries of warming to completely lose winter sea ice, and doing so required carbon dioxide levels to be gradually raised to a level nearly nine times greater than today. When the model’s carbon dioxide levels then were gradually reduced, temperatures slowly came down and the sea ice eventually returned.

“We expected the sea ice to be completely gone in winter at four times the current level of carbon dioxide but we had to raise it by more than eight times,” said Cecilia Bitz, a UW associate professor of atmospheric sciences.

“All that carbon dioxide made a very, very warm planet. It was about 6 degrees Celsius (11 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than it is now, which caused the Arctic to be completely free of sea ice in winter.”

Bitz and members of her research group are co-authors of a paper about the research that is to be published in Geophysical Research Letters. The lead author is Kyle Armour, a UW graduate student in physics, and other co-authors are Edward Blanchard-Wrigglesworth and Kelly McCusker, UW graduate students in atmospheric sciences, and Ian Eisenman, a postdoctoral researcher from the California Institute of Technology and UW.

In the model, the scientists raised atmospheric carbon dioxide 1 percent each year, which resulted in doubling the levels of the greenhouse gas about every 70 years. The model began with an atmospheric carbon dioxide level of 355 parts per million (in July the actual figure stood at 392 ppm).

In that scenario, it took about 230 years to reach temperatures at which the Earth was free of sea ice during winter. At that point, atmospheric carbon dioxide was greater than 3,100 parts per million.

Then the model’s carbon dioxide level was reduced at a rate of 1 percent a year until, eventually, temperatures retreated to closer to today’s levels. Bitz noted that the team’s carbon dioxide-reduction scenario would require more than just a reduction in emissions that could be achieved by placing limits on the burning of fossil fuels. The carbon dioxide would have to be drawn out of the atmosphere, either naturally or mechanically.

“It is really hard to turn carbon dioxide down in reality like we did in the model. It’s just an exercise, but it’s a useful one to explore the physics of the system.”

While the lack of a “tipping point” could be considered good news, she said, the increasing greenhouse gases leave plenty of room for concern.

“Climate change doesn’t have to exhibit exotic phenomena to be dangerous,” Bitz said, adding that while sea ice loss can have some positive effects, it is proving harmful to species such as polar bears that live on the ice and to some people who have been forced to relocate entire villages.

“The sea ice cover will continue to shrink so long as the Earth continues to warm,” she said. “We don’t have to hypothesize dramatic phenomena such as tipping points for this situation to become challenging.”

###

The research was funded by the National Science Foundation, the Davidow Discovery Fund and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

For more information, contact Bitz at 206-543-1339 or bitz@atmos.washington.edu, or Armour at 858-610-3812 or karmour@uw.edu.

The paper is available at http://www.agu.org/journals/pip/gl/2011GL048739-pip.pdf.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
85 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
KristianA
August 18, 2011 2:44 am

Fridtjof Nansen NOT Frijodolt Nansen

Billy Liar
August 18, 2011 2:59 am

If the press release is anything to go by, this piece of ‘research’ is pathetic on so many levels. The authors appear to believe they can:
… explore the physics of the system.
Surely, physics is what goes into the model not something that you learn from the model. These are kids playing with computers – they need to grow up.

jason
August 18, 2011 3:44 am

So this model required more than 3000ppm of co2 and “centuries” to melt winter ice. So what was the point of this study, as co2 ain’t ever going to get near that!

Bloke down the pub
August 18, 2011 4:29 am

As BioBob indicated, the warm-ongers are always telling us that we are approaching peak oil if not already there. So where’s all the Co2 gonna come from? I feel a grant application coming on.

John R. Walker
August 18, 2011 4:31 am

Scientists have discovered that ice can turn into water and back into ice again! Bloody brilliant – we’re all saved!

1DandyTroll
August 18, 2011 5:28 am

So yet another model that only holds true if their linking of CO2 to warming ratio is accurate, which incidentally just so happens to be proven in, oh, after a couple of hundred years or so.
Since there apparently exist warmer climate induced melting is there any such thing as colder climate induced melting? o_0
I’m thinking I’m not going to hold my breath, even though my computer model strongly indicates I should be able to do so for any length of time (the crazed climate communist hippies say so too), nor save any popcorn. :0

Nuke
August 18, 2011 5:57 am

Bystander says:
August 17, 2011 at 6:55 pm
Wait – so now models are OK to use for forecasting?
I thought models were bad evil things thaty cannot be trusted?

There are no evil models, just evil modelers.

August 18, 2011 6:10 am

I would like to remind to all the fellows that are placing here their sarcastic comments about how these people needed a super computer model to find out that the water can refreeze, that in the 21st century the “consensus” about the scientific truth requires it to be the result of a model, not of the observation of the nature like in the ol’ good times. It doesn’t matter how many times you can melt and refreeze your ice cubes by taking them out and putting them back in your freezer. If the computer model says it will not refreeze, that ain’t going to happen. The science is settled.

Richard M
August 18, 2011 6:22 am

Ignoring for the moment that this is pure fantasy … exactly what would be bad about this scenario? It would mean much of Canada and Siberia would be far more habitable without changing much of the rest of the world more than a couple of degrees. Lot’s more farm land would also be available. It would also open shipping lanes as well, not to mention improving living conditions for thousands of species that prefer warmer weather (that’s most of them).
Sounds like a win-win-win situation.

SteveE
August 18, 2011 6:31 am

Allencic
As you’re a retired geologist I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you the climate of the Pliocene, but for those who don’t know it was about 2-3 degrees warmer than today* and average sea levels were ~25m higher than today**. Surely you can see that a rise in sea level of that much would be devestating to the population that inhabite the deltas of the World and produce much of the food we eat.
*http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Robinson_etal.pdf
**http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Dwyer_Chandler.pdf

Allencic
August 18, 2011 6:41 am

re: Kelvin Vaughn. How about a blonde joke about the blonde who went to Penn State to study climate science because she wanted to become a super model?

Robw
August 18, 2011 6:55 am

Umm. they claim 11 degrees F will result in ice free arctic.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Hardly!
Another model not worth the a plugged nickel.

SteveE
August 18, 2011 6:59 am

Bloke down the pub says:
August 18, 2011 at 4:29 am
As BioBob indicated, the warm-ongers are always telling us that we are approaching peak oil if not already there. So where’s all the Co2 gonna come from? I feel a grant application coming on.
—————–
I’d imagine burning gas and coal for fuel would be the most likely source…

Allencic
August 18, 2011 7:07 am

This is a general question that applies to this article as well as all aspects of AGW. I ask this of all my warmist friends. I tend to get blank stares or nasty comments that I’m crazy or worse. Here goes. Global warming is supposed to have been taking place for at least the last thirty years or so, if NO AGW had been happening, what would the climate of the last thirty years have been like? How would it have been different than what we’ve experienced? Would the climate have been better or worse? Please answer with specifics. No fair using words like could, might, perhaps, it is possible that, etc., etc.

SteveE
August 18, 2011 7:11 am

Old England says:
This study, as so many have pointed out, is not only pointless but fails to appreciate that the artcic winter temperature would need to rise by 30 degrees and more for it to become ice free.
———–
The global average temperature during the Pliocene was 2-3 degrees higher than today, however Northern latitudes above 70N were as much as 10-20 degrees warmer than todays temps, so that’s certainly possible.

Nuke
August 18, 2011 8:12 am

Allencic says:
August 18, 2011 at 7:07 am
This is a general question that applies to this article as well as all aspects of AGW. I ask this of all my warmist friends. I tend to get blank stares or nasty comments that I’m crazy or worse. Here goes. Global warming is supposed to have been taking place for at least the last thirty years or so, if NO AGW had been happening, what would the climate of the last thirty years have been like? How would it have been different than what we’ve experienced? Would the climate have been better or worse? Please answer with specifics. No fair using words like could, might, perhaps, it is possible that, etc., etc.

AGW is a failed theory. Where is the tropospheric hotspot?

SteveE
August 18, 2011 8:22 am

Allencic
The reason that you get blank stares is because it’s a loaded question and you know it. Tell a person with skin cancer that they’ve had it for a while now and haven’t had any problems with it so why operate on it and see the response you get.

August 18, 2011 9:06 am

Did you notice that CO2 had to be raised 8 X 355 to get 6C of warming? Not 2 X by 2100 to get 5C of warming ….
The IPCC models are so different from the one(s) used here, right?

Bruce Cobb
August 18, 2011 9:59 am

SteveE says:
August 18, 2011 at 8:22 am
Allencic
The reason that you get blank stares is because it’s a loaded question and you know it. Tell a person with skin cancer that they’ve had it for a while now and haven’t had any problems with it so why operate on it and see the response you get.
Oh come on. It is a perfectly reasonable question to ask. The blankness and nastiness stem from fear and anger stem from the fact that they know the answer would tend to threaten their warmist Beliefs which they hold so dear.
Skin cancer? Please. It is real and it is dangerous to human health and life. CAGW, on the other hand belongs in comic books along with other wild sci-fi adolescence-crazed fantasies.

roger
August 18, 2011 11:08 am

SteveE says:
August 18, 2011 at 6:31 am
Just remind me…. how are deltas formed?

Mac the Knife
August 18, 2011 11:13 am

“..polar ice tipping points ahead..”
Well, only if you’ve been tipping a bit too much of the AGW ‘Kool Aid’ (Jonestown flavor)!

Allencic
August 18, 2011 1:25 pm

SteveE,
Thanks for your smarmy reply. As someone who has had very radical surgery for prostate cancer I really appreciate your serious answer to a serious question. Putz!

August 18, 2011 1:25 pm

How short are our memories anyway?
Back in the 1960’s there were cries that the ice caps would be gone in 10 years.

Werner Brozek
August 18, 2011 5:28 pm

“Don K says:
August 18, 2011 at 12:40 am
But you do need to keep in mind that the hypothetical 6C rise is not expected to be evenly distributed. What is modeled is — I’m sure — no or slight warming in the tropics and rather dramatic warming — way more than 6C — in the high latitudes.”
Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that in the tropics, there is so much water vapor in the air that the effects of the CO2 are almost completely masked by H2O. But at the poles, since air at -30 C can hold so little water vapor, the effects of the CO2 are more dramatic. It does make a certain amount of sense. However if the high latitudes were to go up by 30 C just for argument sake, then the air would be able to hold a lot more water vapor so the effect of the CO2 would not be as strong at the poles as now. So I would not be surprised there is some sort of a logarithmic function in terms of how much warmer the Arctic will be relative the rest of the world should warming occur.

SteveE
August 19, 2011 12:31 am

Allencic
I’m sorry to hear about your prostate cancer and hope that the surgery was successful.
I’m sure you’re fully aware of the importance of treating something early then rather than waiting and seeing if it gets any worst. And as a geologist I’m also sure you are aware of how radically the climate and sea-level can change and understand the effects it would have on our planet.