Greenland Ice Melt every 150 years is 'right on time'

UPDATE: see this new article on the issue,

“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.

Extent of surface melt over Greenland’s ice sheet on July 8 (left) and July 12 (right). Measurements from three satellites showed that on July 8, about 40 percent of the ice sheet had undergone thawing at or near the surface. In just a few days, the melting had dramatically accelerated and an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface had thawed by July 12. In the image, the areas classified as “probable melt” (light pink) correspond to those sites where at least one satellite detected surface melting. The areas classified as “melt” (dark pink) correspond to sites where two or three satellites detected surface melting. The satellites are measuring different physical properties at different scales and are passing over Greenland at different times. As a whole, they provide a picture of an extreme melt event about which scientists are very confident. Credit: Nicolo E. DiGirolamo, SSAI/NASA GSFC, and Jesse Allen, NASA Earth Observatory

› Hi-res of left image

› Hi-res of right image

I covered this over the weekend when Bill McKibben started wailing about the albedo going off the charts. I thought it might be soot related. The PR below and quote above is from NASA Goddard. I had to laugh at the title of their press release, where they cite “Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt”,  then contradict themselves when the main researcher goes on to say “melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889“. Do these guys even read their own press releases? Climatologist Pat Michaels concurs saying: “Apparently NASA should start distributing dictionaries to the authors of its press releases.”

I’ve sent off a note to the NASA writer, seen here. Maybe she’ll get the headline fixed.

That, and they seem surprised that the Greenland ice sheet would suddenly start melting in summer. Though, not every part of the ice sheet is melting right now, so perhaps their calibrations might be a bit off:

There may have been a brief few days of melt, but it appears to be over:

Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt

For several days this month, Greenland’s surface ice cover melted over a larger area than at any time in more than 30 years of satellite observations. Nearly the entire ice cover of Greenland, from its thin, low-lying coastal edges to its two-mile-thick center, experienced some degree of melting at its surface, according to measurements from three independent satellites analyzed by NASA and university scientists.

On average in the summer, about half of the surface of Greenland’s ice sheet naturally melts. At high elevations, most of that melt water quickly refreezes in place. Near the coast, some of the melt water is retained by the ice sheet and the rest is lost to the ocean. But this year the extent of ice melting at or near the surface jumped dramatically. According to satellite data, an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface thawed at some point in mid-July.

Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise.

“The Greenland ice sheet is a vast area with a varied history of change. This event, combined with other natural but uncommon phenomena, such as the large calving event last week on Petermann Glacier, are part of a complex story,” said Tom Wagner, NASA’s cryosphere program manager in Washington. “Satellite observations are helping us understand how events like these may relate to one another as well as to the broader climate system.”

Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., was analyzing radar data from the Indian Space Research Organisation’s (ISRO) Oceansat-2 satellite last week when he noticed that most of Greenland appeared to have undergone surface melting on July 12. Nghiem said, “This was so extraordinary that at first I questioned the result: was this real or was it due to a data error?”

Nghiem consulted with Dorothy Hall at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. Hall studies the surface temperature of Greenland using the Moderate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites. She confirmed that MODIS showed unusually high temperatures and that melt was extensive over the ice sheet surface.

Thomas Mote, a climatologist at the University of Georgia, Athens, Ga; and Marco Tedesco of City University of New York also confirmed the melt seen by Oceansat-2 and MODIS with passive-microwave satellite data from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder on a U.S. Air Force meteorological satellite.

The melting spread quickly. Melt maps derived from the three satellites showed that on July 8, about 40 percent of the ice sheet’s surface had melted. By July 12, 97 percent had melted.

This extreme melt event coincided with an unusually strong ridge of warm air, or a heat dome, over Greenland. The ridge was one of a series that has dominated Greenland’s weather since the end of May. “Each successive ridge has been stronger than the previous one,” said Mote. This latest heat dome started to move over Greenland on July 8, and then parked itself over the ice sheet about three days later. By July 16, it had begun to dissipate.

Even the area around Summit Station in central Greenland, which at 2 miles above sea level is near the highest point of the ice sheet, showed signs of melting. Such pronounced melting at Summit and across the ice sheet has not occurred since 1889, according to ice cores analyzed by Kaitlin Keegan at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H. A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather station at Summit confirmed air temperatures hovered above or within a degree of freezing for several hours July 11-12.

“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. “But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome.”

Nghiem’s finding while analyzing Oceansat-2 data was the kind of benefit that NASA and ISRO had hoped to stimulate when they signed an agreement in March 2012 to cooperate on Oceansat-2 by sharing data.

============================================

h/t to WUWT reader Ole Heinrich

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

141 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
richard telford
July 24, 2012 12:11 pm

Why would anybody expect the temperature at Greenland Summit on July 24 to indicate anything about the potential for melt on July 12?
The temperature on – or just before – July 12 might be slightly more relevant, and is indeed above freezing.

Jan
July 24, 2012 12:16 pm

“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. “But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome.”
So, it occurs every 150 years, but now it will occur more often, or? I don’t get what is “worrisome” with this to be honest. What am I missing?

Jan
July 24, 2012 12:19 pm

Looking at the averages for the mentioned period it shouldn’t melt all that much.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/04416/2012/7/8/WeeklyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

Entropic man
July 24, 2012 12:23 pm

The hot high pressure air which moved over Greenland in the second week in July coincided with the close of the US East Coast heat wave, which may be where the hot air came from.
If this is normally a very rare weather pattern, we probably wont see its like again for some time. If we start seeing repeats every few years, then it may signify a genuine change in North American climate. It does provide an explaination for that sudden drop in albedo.

Just an engineer
July 24, 2012 12:23 pm

Maybe if you click on it instead of posting you would have your answer.

July 24, 2012 12:28 pm

richard telford,
Wrong. Read the article. Max temp was 11ºF — well below freezing.

Entropic man
July 24, 2012 12:29 pm
Bill Illis
July 24, 2012 12:33 pm

The monthly temperature history says it got to 1C to 2C on 4 days for several hours each day. How much melting of snow and ice is there at 2C when you are on top of an ice-sheet 3 kms thick and the temperature of the ice is -30C starting just a few feet down extending down for more than 1 km.

Entropic man
July 24, 2012 12:39 pm

Bill Illis says:
July 24, 2012 at 12:33 pm
“The monthly temperature history says it got to 1C to 2C on 4 days for several hours each day. How much melting of snow and ice is there at 2C when you are on top of an ice-sheet 3 kms thick and the temperature of the ice is -30C starting just a few feet down extending down for more than 1 km.”
Presumably the amount they saw, unless you are one of those conspiracy theorists who automatically assume Goddard is putting out false data.

Austin
July 24, 2012 12:44 pm

Ice and snow will melt if the solar insolation and air temp combined are above a specified value. A strong sunny day with little wind and temps in the mid 20s are sufficient. If it was 36 degrees on the 12th then that would be a major melt event. My guess would be that you would have snow become slushy to the depth of several feet. Given that the sun just circles the sky for most of Greenland’s latitude, then you would even see melt on all sides of the compass. It would be like a July day at altitude in the Rockies or Sierras.

TomL
July 24, 2012 12:45 pm

So what happens to ice 10’s or 100’s of km from the coast, when it warms up to a couple of degrees above freezing for a few days? I would guess the water would flow a short distance downhill, and then refreeze with a net effect of not much.

Myron Mesecke
July 24, 2012 12:45 pm

NBCNews.com has this up and conveniently left off this part of the quote:
With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time

Myron Mesecke
July 24, 2012 12:50 pm

Jan says:
July 24, 2012 at 12:16 pm
So, it occurs every 150 years, but now it will occur more often, or? I don’t get what is “worrisome” with this to be honest. What am I missing?

You are missing your doom and gloom mantra hat. Anyone wearing one is sure to speak as if things are going to get worse.

Taphonomic
July 24, 2012 12:51 pm

“Unprecedented NASA Press Release”
Press release events of this type occur about once every week on average. More to come at 11.

July 24, 2012 12:53 pm

Myron Mesecke,
That means of course that this has happened before. And before CO2 was anything near current levels.
Apparently NBCNews has never heard of the Null Hypothesis. Everything observed today has occurred repeatedly in the past, and to a much greater extent. CO2 has nothing to do with the Greenland ice cap.

gator69
July 24, 2012 1:01 pm

OT – I enjoyed an unprecedented sunrise this morning after an unprecedented nights sleep. And Anthony, as always, keep up your great unprecedented work!
Unprecedentedly yours, Gator.

Jeff Mitchell
July 24, 2012 1:04 pm

I guess I do mean to be picky, but if this happens once every 150 years, then this one is 27 years early. I guess they have a fairly large range for “on time”.

Entropic man
July 24, 2012 1:09 pm

Smokey says:
July 24, 2012 at 12:53 pm
“Apparently NBCNews has never heard of the Null Hypothesis. Everything observed today has occurred repeatedly in the past, and to a much greater extent. CO2 has nothing to do with the Greenland ice cap.”
Watch that sloppy logic. What happened in 1889 and on July 12th were low frequency weather events.
There is no evident reason to connect them with CO2 levels, or falsify a connection, at present. If, however, these events become more frequent, it may be part of the ongoing changes in Arctic climate.
The NSIDC tried to correalate changes in the Arctic over recent decades with every variable they could think of. CO2 was the only one that matched, so it may become a candidate.
http://nsidc.org/icelights/2012/05/16/what-is-causing-arctic-sea-ice-decline/

July 24, 2012 1:25 pm

Entropic,
The NSIDC “adjusts” the record, thus they are untrustworthy. You can trust them to ‘correlate’ CO2 with Arctic ice. But that would be credulous. The Antarctic has no such corellation.
You are correct when you say there is no reason to connect CO2 levels with weather events, because there is no such connection. None.
And if you dismiss the Null Hypothesis as ‘sloppy logic’, you have a lot to learn.

otsar
July 24, 2012 1:30 pm

A random thought:
If these melting events happen on a regular basis, what effects do they heve on the ice cores?

July 24, 2012 1:48 pm

I really think some scientists should go, on helicopters, and collect
water and sediment from these pools and bring them back for
analysis. Maybe they’ll find another WW II plane as well.

Eric in CO
July 24, 2012 2:14 pm

I have trouble believing a scientist can detect one day’s ice melt from a 150 year old ice core.

Entropic man
July 24, 2012 2:45 pm

Smokey says:
July 24, 2012 at 1:25 pm
Entropic,
“The NSIDC “adjusts” the record, thus they are untrustworthy. You can trust them to ‘correlate’ CO2 with Arctic ice. But that would be credulous. The Antarctic has no such corellation.
You are correct when you say there is no reason to connect CO2 levels with weather events, because there is no such connection. None.
And if you dismiss the Null Hypothesis as ‘sloppy logic’, you have a lot to learn.”
The Null Hypothesis is a convention assuming that there is no correalation between two variables, as an aid to structuring investigations. In your case the null hypothesis would be that there is no connection between weather events in Greenland and changes in CO2. You should then go on to test whether that assumption can be falsified.
Instead you assert “there is no reason to connect CO2 levels with weather events, because there is no such connection. None.”. This makes a nonsense of the whole null hypothesis concept.
Similarly, you assert that the NSIDC data are untrustworthy because it is “adjusted”. Since we are unlikely to make much sense of the raw microwave data some adjustment to convert it into comprehensible ice extent maps would seem inevitable.
http://nsidc.org/icelights/
It would probably be pointless to ask where you got the trustworthy data record of Arctic ice dynamics on which your conclusions were based.

Stephen Wilde
July 24, 2012 2:50 pm

Isn’t there always 97% of surface melting across Greenland every year around noon in late July ?
Would depend on prevailing weather conditions to some degree though and so perhaps in some years it doesn’t happen at all and in other years it happens on varied dates.
Doesn’t last long or go deep though does it ?
It is more likely an annual event rather than every 150 years.
Anyway, how did they observe it in 1889 ?

1 2 3 6