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
SteveE
August 19, 2011 12:36 am

roger says:
August 18, 2011 at 11:08 am
Just remind me…. how are deltas formed?
——-
Deltas are formed where a large river meets the sea. An example is the Ganges delta in Bangladesh. This flooded in 1998 and left 30 million people homeless.
Hope that helps!

Brian H
August 19, 2011 3:13 am

Actually, when the ice goes for a century or two, the polar bears de-methylate one of their jumping genes and turn into Kodiaks. It’s all in the program.

Brian H
August 19, 2011 3:34 am

SE;
peak oil is just another fantasy marker. All the fossil fuel available wouldn’t double CO2. So my plan for reaching the agricultural stimulus goal of “2,100 by 2100” is to use coal-fired plants and solar furnaces to break down limestone and release all the good stuff.

SionedL
August 19, 2011 10:57 am

My new montra, revealed to me by The One we’ve been waiting for, is:
“If you hear something is happening, but it hasn’t happened, don’t always believe what you hear,” he said. Obama Alpha Il, Aug 17, 2011

SionedL
August 19, 2011 11:14 am

to SteveE regarding 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 (sic). 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.”
____________
I doubt that Allencic had his prostate removed (that if if he did) without having a biopsy that proved definitively that he had cancer. He did not have his prostate removed because it was a little swollen, or removed on a theory that all men will have prostate caner by age XX, 10, 20, 30 years down the line. We don’t treat things we don’t have.

John B
August 21, 2011 1:38 pm

Smokey says:
August 17, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Bystander,
Incorrect, as usual. GCM models confidently predicted a “tropospheric hot spot,” which was said to be “the fingerprint of global warming.”
But the models were wrong.
————–
Smokey, we’ve discussed this before and I have explained to you that the tropospheric hot spot, or lack of it, is NOT a “fingerprint of global warming”. I would be interested to hear what you have to say about Dr Roy Spencer’s take on the matter:
“Some have claimed that this somehow invalidates the hypothesis that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for global warming.
But the hotspot is not a unique signature of manmade greenhouse gases. It simply reflects anomalous heating of the troposphere — no matter what its source.

the lack of a hotspot no more disproves manmade global warming than the existence of the hotspot would have proved manmade global warming.”

John B
August 21, 2011 1:39 pm
RACookPE1978
Editor
August 21, 2011 2:08 pm

No. Not true.
An atmospheric “hot spot” is most definitely a required, essential and also necessary cause, symptom, and explanation of the “theory” of CAGW: The uprising radiation from the earth MUST BE intercepted and absorbed by CO2 molecules (and be re-radiated downward from a point in the atmosphere and re-absorbed by the earth) ..
If this theoretical “hot spot” cannot be found, cannot be measured, then the whole premise of CAGW is falsified.

August 21, 2011 2:23 pm

John B fails to accept that the models were, as usual, wrong:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/mckitrick-models-observations-rss-msu-uah-radiosondes-flat.jpg
But like any true believer, when observations trump models… John B goes with the models.
[8,400+ results in a search for “fingerprint of global warming”, 29,000+ results for “tropospheric hot spot”. Both are figments of CAGW true believers’ imaginations.]

John B
August 21, 2011 3:29 pm

Smokey says:
August 21, 2011 at 2:23 pm
John B fails to accept that the models were, as usual, wrong:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/mckitrick-models-observations-rss-msu-uah-radiosondes-flat.jpg
But like any true believer, when observations trump models… John B goes with the models.
[8,400+ results in a search for “fingerprint of global warming”, 29,000+ results for “tropospheric hot spot”. Both are figments of CAGW true believers’ imaginations.]
————-
Smokey, I was asking you what you think of Roy Spencer’s position, that’s all. He doesn’t appear to agree with you or RACookPE1978. I’m not “going with” anything.