By WUWT regular “Just The Facts”
In making a couple upgrades to the Sea Ice Page, I made a few observations, and a few questions arose.
Firstly, several weeks ago the following exchange occurred on a Sea Ice News thread:
Rod Everson says: August 4, 2012 at 7:48 am
Just a suggestion for a site improvement, Anthony. Could you put a map of the Arctic on the Sea Ice Page that indicates the various seas that make up the Arctic Ocean? I think that would be useful given the volume of traffic you get and the many times that various seas are referred to by name in the comments. I just spent several minutes Googling the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas and never did get to a map that had the full layout of both seas. Thanks for considering this. (And if it’s already on the site somewhere, could someone will post its location?–If it is on the site already, moving it to the Sea Ice Page, or duplicating it there would seem logical, by the way.)
[REPLY: I find this one helpful, myself. -REP]
As many of you know, WUWT moderator Robert Phelan, aka REP, passed away less than a week later. It is with honor and appreciation that I’ve added the map Bob suggested to the WUWT Sea Ice Page at the head of the Northern Regional Sea Ice section and tagged it accordingly. Thank you for your many contributions REP.
Secondly, I’ve added the following Northern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly map;
to the Sea Ice Page and noted that there are some quite large Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies in the Arctic at present. They appear to centered in four primary areas, the coasts of the Beaufort, Laptev and Kara Seas, as well as the middle of Baffin Bay. There are a multitude of potential explanations these anomalies, let’s take them individually.
1. There’s Less Sea Ice in these areas at present. Both Arctic Sea Ice Extent:
and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area;
are currently at their lowest points on the 34 year satellite record. Any areas that were partially or completely were covered with sea ice in prior years, and have now become ice free, would be more likely to have positive Sea Surface Temperature anomalies. It is not clear from the NOAA/ National Weather Service National Centers for Environmental Prediction Sea Surface Temperature website what the base period for the Real-Time Global (RTG) Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies show above is. Bob Tisdale notes that, “NOAA uses the base period of 1971-2000 for sea surface temperature anomalies for its ERSST.v3b and Reynolds OI.v2 data.” If you know what base period is used for the Real-Time Global (RTG) temperature anomalies, please post a link to it in comments below. Base period aside, viewing this Arctic Sea Ice animation;
it appears that most of the areas with large anomalies, were reasonably ice free during this time-frame in the majority of years of the 34 year satellite record, however there are places like the Kara Sea;
which appears bereft of Sea Ice this year. Per the animation above, sea ice clearly encroached much more into many of these areas in prior years, and thus the decrease in Arctic Sea Ice is likely a factor in the current large Arctic Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies.
2.An “Unusually Strong Storm” that;
“formed off the coast of Alaska on August 5 and tracked into the center of the Arctic Ocean, where it slowly dissipated over the next several days.”
“Arctic storms such as this one can have a large impact on the sea ice, causing it to melt rapidly through many mechanisms, such as tearing off large swaths of ice and pushing them to warmer sites, churning the ice and making it slushier, or lifting warmer waters from the depths of the Arctic Ocean.
“‘It seems that this storm has detached a large chunk of ice from the main sea ice pack. This could lead to a more serious decay of the summertime ice cover than would have been the case otherwise, even perhaps leading to a new Arctic sea ice minimum,” said Claire Parkinson, a climate scientist with NASA Goddard. “Decades ago, a storm of the same magnitude would have been less likely to have as large an impact on the sea ice, because at that time the ice cover was thicker and more expansive.'” NASA
Interestingly, Beaufort Sea Ice Extent;
appears to have dropped precipitously between August 14th and 19th, and Chukchi Sea Ice Extent;
appears to have dropped precipitously between August 25th and 28th, both drops being the steepest in the very brief 5 year record. This lends some support to the potential influence of the storm. However, Beaufort Sea Ice Area;
and Chukchi Sea Ice Area;
appear to have experienced a reasonably precipitous summer decline each year of the prior decade, casting doubt on the degree influence of the 2012 storm on the precipitous declines it the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Regardless an “unusually strong storm” that was “tearing off large swaths of ice and pushing them to warmer sites, churning the ice and making it slushier, or lifting warmer waters from the depths of the Arctic Ocean” is likely a factor in the large Arctic Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies we currently see.
3. Albedo Feedback is another possible factor in the large Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies in the Arctic:
“Viewed in its simplest sense, initial warming will melt some of the Arctic’s highly reflective (high albedo) snow and ice cover, exposing darker underlying surfaces that readily absorb solar energy, leading to further warming and further retreat of snow and ice cover. This feedback can work in reverse whereby initial cooling leads to expansion of the Arctic’s snow and ice cover, leading to further whereby the loss of high albedo/solar energy reflective sea ice exposes low albedo/solar energy absorbing sea water.”
“However, as developed below, Arctic amplification as is presently understood has a suite of causes, operating on different temporal and spatial scales. Prominent among these are expansion or retreat of the Arctic sea ice cover altering vertical heat fluxes between the Arctic Ocean and the overlying atmosphere (Serreze et al., 2009; Screen and Simmonds, 2010a,b), changes in atmospheric and oceanic heat flux convergence (Hurrell, 1996; Graversen et al., 2008; Chylek et al., 2009; Yang et al., 2010), and changes in cloud cover and water vapor content that affect the downward longwave radiation flux (Francis and Hunter, 2006) arising from processes either within the Arctic or in response to alterations in atmospheric energy flux
convergence (Abbot et al., 2009; Graversen and Wang, 2009). Other studies point to impacts of soot on snow (Hansen and Nazarenko, 2004) and of heat absorbing black carbon aerosols in the atmosphere (Shindell and Faluvegi, 2009). Different processes can work together. For example, a change in atmospheric heat flux convergence that leads to warming may result in reduced sea ice extent that furthers the warming.” Processes and impacts of Arctic amplification: A research synthesis – Mark C. Serreze and Roger G. Barry
Regardless of the other factors involved in Arctic Amplification, Albedo Feedback is likely a factor in the large Arctic Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies in the Arctic.
4. Anthropogenically Warmed River Discharge is another potential factor in the large Arctic Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies in the Arctic. For example, a portion of the Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly in the Beaufort Sea;
appears to be coincident with the Mackenzie River delta. A satellite image from June 13th, 2012;
shows tendrils of runoff from the Mackenzie River reaching out into the Beaufort Sea. It is possible that River Discharge from the Mackenzie River has been warmed by anthropogenic influences, e.g.;
“As of 2001, approximately 397,000 people lived in the Mackenzie River basin”
“the heaviest use of the watershed is in resource extraction – oil and gas in central Alberta, lumber in the Peace River headwaters, uranium in Saskatchewan, gold in the Great Slave Lake area and tungsten in the Yukon.”
“Although the entire main stem of the Mackenzie River is undammed, many of its tributaries and headwaters have been developed for hydroelectricity production, flood control and agricultural purposes.”
“The river discharges more than 325 cubic kilometres (78 cu mi) of water each year, accounting for roughly 11% of the total river flow into the Arctic Ocean. The Mackenzie’s outflow holds a major role in the local climate above the Arctic Ocean with large amounts of warmer fresh water mixing with the cold seawater.” Wikipedia – Mackenzie River
“Oil and gas development is already extensive in the basin, primarily in the Alberta and BC portions, and much more is expected in the future. For example, a proposal to develop the vast natural gas reserves that are found in the Mackenzie Delta is currently being evaluated. This will require the development of a pipeline along the Mackenzie, which will also facilitate development of gas resources in NWT (GNWT 2007). Perhaps the most significant current fossil energy development at this time is the oil sands (also known as the “tar sands”) in Alberta, near the City of Fort McMurray (Figure 1). An estimated 300 billion barrels of recoverable fossil energy is found in these deposits (MRBB 2003). Development is proceeding rapidly. At the end of 2009, four mines were in operation, with three additional mines approved or under development. In 2008, these projects were producing 1.3 million barrels/day. Production of 3 million barrels/day is expected by 2018, with 2030 production levels reaching 5 million barrels/day by 2030 (Holroyd and Simieritsch 2009; Government of Alberta 2010).”TRANSBOUNDARY WATER GOVERNANCE IN THE MACKENZIE RIVER BASIN, CANADA – Rob C. de Loë –
It is also of note that;
“The Beaufort Sea contains major gas and petroleum reserves beneath the seabed, a continuation of proven reserves in the nearby Mackenzie River and North Slope.[12] The Beaufort Sea was first explored for sub-shelf hydrocarbons in the 1950s and estimated to contain about 250 km3 (60 cu mi) of oil and 300,000 km3 (72,000 cu mi) of natural gas under its coastal shelf. Offshore drilling began in 1972; about 70 wells were set up by 1980s[28] and 200 wells by 2000.[29]” Wikipedia – Beaufort Sea
In terms of the Laptev Sea
“The mighty Lena River, with its great delta, is the biggest river flowing into the Laptev Sea, and is the second largest river in the Russian Arctic after Yenisei. Other important rivers include the Khatanga, the Anabar, the Olenyok or Olenek, the Omoloy and the Yana.”
“The Laptev Sea is a major source of arctic sea ice. With an average outflow of 483,000 km2 per year over the period 1979–1995, it contributes more sea ice than the Barents Sea, Kara Sea, East Siberian Sea and Chukchi Sea combined. Over this period, the annual outflow fluctuated between 251,000 km2 in 1984–85 and 732,000 km2 in 1988–89. The sea exports substantial amounts of sea ice in all months but July, August and September.”
“Most of the river runoff (about 70% or 515 km3/year) is contributed by the Lena River. Other major contributions are from Khatanga (more than 100 km3), Olenyok (35 km3), Yana (>30 km3) and Anabar (20 km3), with other rivers contributing about 20 km3. Owing to the ice melting seasoning, About 90% of the annual runoff occurs between June and September with 35–40% in August alone, whereas January contributes only 5%.”
“The sea is characterized by the low water temperatures, which ranges from −1.8 °C (28.8 °F) in the north to −0.8 °C (30.6 °F) in the south-eastern parts. The medium water layer is warmer, up to 1.5 °С because it is fed by the warm Atlantic waters. It takes them 2.5–3 years to reach the Laptev Sea from their formation near Spitsbergen.[3] The deeper layer is colder at about −0.8 °С. In summer, the surface layer in the ice-free zones warms up by the sun up to 8–10 °С in the bays and 2–3 °С in the open sea, and remains close to 0 °С under ice. The water salinity is significantly affected by the thawing of ice and river runoff. The latter amounts to about 730 km3 and would form a 135 cm freshwater layer over the entire sea; it is the second largest in the world after the Kara sea. The salinity values vary in winter from 20–25‰ (parts per thousand) in the south-east to 34‰ in the northern parts of the sea; it decreases in summer to 5–10‰ and 30–32‰ respectively.”
“Sea currents form a cyclone consisting of the southward stream near Severnaya Zemlya which reaches the continental coast and flows along it from west to east. It is then amplified by the Lena River flow and diverts to the north and north-west toward the Arctic Ocean. A small part of the cyclone leaks through the Sannikov Strait to the East Siberian Sea. The cyclone has a speed of 2 cm/s which is decreasing toward the center. The center of the cyclone drifts with time that slightly alters the flow character.” Wikipedia – Laptev Sea
“Ye et al. (2003) and Yang et al. (2004) recently studied the effect of reservoir regulations in the Lena and Yenisei basins. They found that, for instance, because of a large dam in the Lena River basin, summer peak discharge in the Vului valley (a tributary in the west Lena basin) has been reduced by 10%–80%, and winter low flow has been increased by 7–120 times during the cold months. They also reported that, because of influences of large reservoirs, discharge records collected at the Lena and Yenisei basin outlets do not always represent natural changes and variations; they tend to underestimate the natural runoff trends in summer and overestimate the trends in both winter and fall seasons. Operations of large reservoirs may also affect annual flow regime particularly during and immediately after the dam construction (Ye et al. 2003; Yang et al. 2004).Discharge Characteristics and Changes over the Ob River Watershed in Siberia
In terms of the Kara Sea;
“The Ob and Yenisei Rivers in north-central Russia are among the larger rivers that drain into the Arctic Ocean, though past research suggested that they do not necessarily carry as much organic matter and sediment as other rivers. The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) aboard the Aqua satellite acquired this image of the rivers as they dumped tan sediments and dark brown dissolved organic material (DOM) into the Kara Sea on June 29, 2012.” River Outflow to the Kara Sea
The Yenisei;
“is the largest river system flowing to the Arctic Ocean. It is the central of the three great Siberian rivers that flow into the Arctic Ocean (the other two being the Ob River and the Lena River).”
“The upper reaches, subject to rapids and flooding, pass through sparsely populated areas. The middle section is controlled by a series of massive hydroelectric dams fueling significant Russian primary industry. Partly built by gulag labor in Soviet times, industrial contamination remains a serious problem in an area hard to police. Moving on through sparsely-populated taiga, the Yenisei swells with numerous tributaries and finally reaches the Kara Sea in desolate tundra where it is icebound for more than half the year.”
“The Sayano–Shushenskaya Dam is located on the Yenisei River, near Sayanogorsk in Khakassia, Russia. It is the largest power plant in Russia and the sixth-largest hydroelectric plant in the world, by average power generation.”
Another tributary, the Tuul passes through the Mongolian capital, Ulan Bator while the Egiin Gol drains Lake Khövsgöl (500 km) downstream, where the 124 m (407 ft) dam built in the 1960s produces 4500 MW. The resultant reservoir is nicknamed Dragon Lake because of its outline. The tributary Oka and Iya rivers, which rise on the north slopes of the Eastern Sayan Mountains, form the ‘jaws’ and 400 km (250 mi) of the Angara forms the ‘tail’. There are newer dams almost as large at Ust-Ilimsk 250 km (155 mi) downstream (also damming the tributary Ilim river) and Boguchany a further 400 km (250 mi) downstream (not operational). Further dams are planned but the environmental consequences of completely taming the Angara are leading to protests which may prevent funding.
Angarsk, the center of the expanding Eastern Siberian oil industry and site of a huge Yukos-owned refinery, lies 50 km (31 mi) downstream of Irkutsk. A major pipeline takes oil west, and a new one is being built to carry oil east for supply to Japan from the Sea of Japan port of Nakhodka. The exact potential of Eastern Siberia is unknown, but two new major fields are the Kovyktinskoye field near Zhigalovo 200 km (125 mi) north of Irkutsk and the extremely remote Verkhnechonskoye field 500 km (310 mi) north of Irkutsk on the Central Siberian Plateau.Wikipedia – Yenisei River
The Ob is used mostly for irrigation, drinking water, hydroelectric energy, and fishing (the river hosts more than 50 species of fish).
The navigable waters within the Ob basin reach a total length of 9,300 miles (15,000 km). The importance of the Ob basin navigation for transportation was particularly great before the completion of the Trans-Siberian Railway, since, despite the general south-to-north direction of the flow of Ob and most of its tributaries, the width of the Ob basin provided for (somewhat indirect) transportation in the east-west direction as well. Until the early 20th century, a particularly important western river port was Tyumen, located on the Tura River, a tributary of the Tobol.”
“The Trans-Siberian Railway, once completed, provided for more direct, year-round transportation in the east-west direction. But the Ob river system still remained important for connecting the huge expanses of Tyumen Oblast and Tomsk Oblast with the major cities along the Trans-Siberian route, such as Novosibirsk or Omsk. In the second half of the 20th century, construction of rail links to Labytnangi, Tobolsk, and the oil and gas cities of Surgut, and Nizhnevartovsk provided more railheads, but did not diminish the importance of the waterways for reaching places still not served by the rail.
A dam was built near Novosibirsk in 1956, which created the then-largest artificial lake in Siberia, called Novosibirsk Reservoir.”Wikipedia – Ob River
Lastly, in terms of Baffin Bay , it is an;
“arm of the North Atlantic Ocean with an area of 266,000 square miles (689,000 square km), extending southward from the Arctic for 900 miles (1,450 km) between the Greenland coast (east) and Baffin Island (west). The bay has a width varying between 70 and 400 miles (110 and 650 km). Davis Strait (south) leads from the bay to the Atlantic, whereas Nares Strait (north) leads to the Arctic Ocean. A pit at the bay’s centre, the Baffin Hollow, plunges to a depth of 7,000 feet (2,100 m), and the bay, although little exploited by humans because of its hostile environment, is of considerable interest to geologists studying the evolution of the North American continent.” Wikipedia – Ob River
The lack of apparent River Discharge and human influence on Baffin Bay Sea Surface Temperature aside, Anthropogenically Warmed River Runoff is likely a factor in the large Arctic Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies seen along the coasts of the Beaufort, Laptev and Kara Seas.
5. Northern Polar Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomalies;
have increased by .343K/C per decade, and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomalies appear to have been more than a degree K/C warmer than average for much of this year’s melt season. However, heat exchange between cold dense ocean water and a warmer much less dense atmosphere, would occur at slow pace, and it is inconceivable that a degree C or so anomaly in Atmospheric Temperatures could result in 6, 7 and 8 degree C Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies. With this said, increased Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomalies are likely a factor in the large Arctic Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies.
6. Tundra Vegetation Feedback. Bhatt et al. “Circumpolar Arctic Tundra Vegetation Change Is Linked to Sea Ice Decline (2010)”;
“show that pronounced warming has occurred along Arctic coasts between 1982 and 2008. The terrestrial warming, argued as a response to removing the regional chilling effect of sea ice and expressed in terms of a summer warmth index, has had an impact on tundra vegetation as demonstrated by increasing values of the satellite-derived Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI). NDVI represents the fraction of photosynthetically active radiation absorbed by the plant canopy. There has been a 10–15% increase in maximum NDVI along the Beaufort Sea coast of northern Alaska where sea ice concentrations have strongly declined during 1982– 2008 (Fig. 10). Note that altered vegetation may itself contribute to Arctic warming through impacts on surface albedo and the sensible heat flux (Foley et al., 1994; Levis et al., 2000). Processes and impacts of Arctic amplification: A research synthesis – Mark C. Serreze and Roger G. Barry
Tundra Vegetation Feedback, is likely a minor factor, if one at all, in the large Arctic Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies, though interesting to think about.
Question
Beyond the conjectures above, can anyone offer further factors that might explain the large Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies currently seen in the Arctic, as well as the precipitous declines in Sea Ice Extent that occurred the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas during August? Also, if you can offer any evidence that supports or refutes the possible factors posed above, please present them in comments below, preferably with links/data in support.
For more information visit the WUWT Sea Ice Page and other WUWT Reference Pages. If you have have any suggested additions or improvements to any of the WUWT Reference Pages, please let us know in comments below.
I’m rather skeptical that heating up the Mackenzie in Alberta makes any measurable difference to the water temperature after it crosses the entire Northwest Territories from south to north. It’s a long way, across a cold landscape.
“””””…..Maus says:
September 2, 2012 at 4:15 pm
Steven Mosher: “You realize there is a feedback between more open water and more intense storms leading to more open water and more intense storms, leading to… well the sun thankfully sets eventually.”……”””””
Well when you calculated that very high 0.95 “albedo” for that 89.9622 degrees incidence angle and water, I hope you used the same high incidence angle, when you calculated the surface irradiance.
For that incidence angle, the irradiance attenuation factor (cos (incidence angle)) is 0.0006597 so the effective albedo for that situation is 95% of that which is 0.0006267.
So let’s not crow about high albedos in the arctic. Nearly 100% of nearly zero irradiance, is still nearly zero reflected energy.
Caleb says:September 2, 2012 at 8:30 pm
For the life of me I can’t see how open water in the arctic can make the planet warmer.
I tend to agree. The warming influence of increased isolation absorbed by the ocean surface would be out weighed by the heat escape from the ocean into the atmosphere. Slides 8 and 9 of this presentation;
http://geography.exeter.ac.uk/opensource/cryosphere/documents/Trapped_in_the_ice_OER_2.pdf
lay out the general parameters, and the paper, Increasing fall-winter energy loss from the Arctic Ocean and its role in Arctic temperature amplification, Screen and Simmonds, found that:
creating a cold brine under the ice which, (perhaps due to hurt feelings,) sinks to the depths
You know, these Brinicles do seem a bit sad 🙂
Glad OLR finally entered the discussion. Open water is a near-perfect heat dump (into Space, forevah). It cools itself and the globe very efficiently.
justthefactswuwt says:
September 2, 2012 at 9:23 pm
Brinicles?
Good golly, that is just like the blob thing, but in real life!
Those poor starfish never had a chance. I wonder if they thought they did something wrong so as to incur the wrath of the Brinicile ?
The horror!
numerobis says: September 2, 2012 at 8:43 pm
I’m rather skeptical that heating up the Mackenzie in Alberta makes any measurable difference to the water temperature after it crosses the entire Northwest Territories from south to north. It’s a long way, across a cold landscape.
Firstly, I encourage your skepticism and appreciate your input.
Secondly, there is evidence that some rivers are warming, e.g.;
and that;
Here is some background on the Mackenzie River:
As such, while I cannot present any observational evidence to support Anthropogenic warming of the Mackenzie river, the river does appear to have warmed, during a time when it was being leveraged and impacted for a multitude anthropogenic purposes. As such, while still conjecture, anthropogenic warming of the Mackenzie River still appears to be a viable potential factor in current large Beaufort Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies. However, I would welcome additional evidence that might help to eliminate it as a potential factor.
Steve Mosher said: In a warming world we expect there to be less sea ice at the north pole, not more.
——–
Actually, in a warming world I would expect there to be less sea ice at BOTH poles. Thats the thing about AGW, the G is suposed to stand for Global. As in all over the world. Funny how a global effect seems to be happen mostly in just a few places.
I miss Anthony’s explenation of soot from the Chinese industry. It gained credibility with me when i saw the winter Ice (compared to 2007 winter ice looked better). I am curious if we will see a change in the coming years as they modernize their industry and clean up their city’s more (in the process).
Another drive-by from Mosher.
Please tell us, recovery to where? What should Arctic sea ice be looking like at normal? Was 1979 normal for example?
Apparently arctic tmeperatures are below average this year and mostly well below freezing.
http://reasonabledoubtclimate.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/arctic-temperatures-cooler-than-average-in-summer-2012/
How would a 2C AGW warming cause major ice reduction? Water freezes easily at -28C. Other factors must be involved.
Hi Anthony,
Your observation that “… an unusually strong storm formed off the coast of Alaska on August 5 and tracked into the center of the Arctic Ocean” is the catalyst for my response.
Over the past couple of years I have been monitoring daily temperature variations across Canada (including the Northwest Territories and Nunavut) and Alaska. With respect to the month of August the following observations were made in relation to the Arctic Ocean coastal towns of Barrow and Deadhorse in Alaska and Tuktoyaktuk in Canada – at their respective airports:
(1) Barrow yielded a monthly anomaly of +3.8 degrees C;
(2) Deadhorse yielded an even higher figure of +5.1 degrees C, and
(3) Tuktoyaktuk yielded a figure of +4.0 degrees C.
These significant deviations from the long-term monthly means for each site would dovetail well with your observation of a precipitous drop in sea ice extent in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas during August and, possibly, in response to the aforementioned Arctic storm. Indeed, warm temperatures in northern Alaska may well have been the trigger for the storm. However, they do not explain why, when northern Alaska was experiencing an Arctic “heatwave” of sorts, southern, western and central Alaska were experiencing temperatures barely above the norm!
Furthermore, if one looks at the anomalies for the previous month, they too were abnormally high: Barrow (+2.1-degrees C); Deadhorse (+4.3-degrees C) and Tuktoyaktuk (+5.6-degrees C).
It is also noteworthy that the weather station at Fort Yukon – to the NE of Fairbanks – was also experiencing high to moderately-high temperatures throughout June, July and August of this year; +4.1, 2.1 and 2.7-degrees C respectively.
Could it be that these generally warmer land temperatures were the trigger for the Arctic storm that led to the break-up and subsequent melting of the sections of the Arctic ice sheet in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas? And if so, why was the heating confined to a relatively small section of the Alaskan mainland?
Greg Beasley
Prospect, NSW
(Australia)
Does the large open area extent mean more evaporation and a higher atmospheric water concentration? If it does, then I wouldn’t expect a record for the speed of the freeze up, because H2O is such a powerful greenhouse gas. Note also that open water has a high albedo, and suspended H2O blocks the summer long wave flux, trapping the extra heat near the surface, and possibly contributing somewhat to the melt.
Interesting question. During the 34 year satellite record, Global Temperatures have increased by .133 degree K/C per decade; and not all of the .133 K/C per decade increase is likely associated with Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Northern Polar Temperatures have increased by .343 degree K/C per decade, nearly three times the global rate. Thus my first inclination would be to say that less than a third of the warming in the Arctic is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas influences. How much of the warming we see do you think is due to GHS?
I thought the ‘conventional wisdom’ was that the climate would have cooled over the last 50 years without human influences – the wiki page references quite a few studies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fc/Attribution_of_observed_global_warming_in_the_20th_century_to_human_activities_%28USGCRP_and_Hegerl_et_al%29.png/800px-Attribution_of_observed_global_warming_in_the_20th_century_to_human_activities_%28USGCRP_and_Hegerl_et_al%29.png
So the ‘mainstream’ argument would be >100%.
Also I don’t think you can subtract the global rate from the Northern Polar rate and say the remaining is not due to human influence, because all the predictions are that Northern Polar regions would warm at a much faster rate than the global mean. e.g. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch11s11-8-1-3-sea-ice.html
… The simulated annual mean arctic warming exceeds the global mean warming by roughly a factor of two in the MMD models, while the winter warming in the central arctic is a factor of four larger than the global annual mean when averaged over the models. …
John Brookes: “And people have done. And they get results like, …”
And I would like to expect that. Perhaps you could provide the relevant argument or a citation to (accessible) papers that do. Apologies for missing your post earlier.
george e smith: “So let’s not crow about high albedos in the arctic. Nearly 100% of nearly zero irradiance, is still nearly zero reflected energy.”
And yet this interesting and counterintuitive result of ‘nearly zeroes’ still accounts for a 20K noon-time difference in a field in which we regularly speak of 0.000055K daily trends. Do I correctly understand your position to be that since 20K is an utter nonsense for smallness than 0.000055K is 363,636 times more utter nonsense?
Pardon my ignorance but this is a genuine question. The DMI publishes a chart of Arctic Air temps above 80N starting in 1958 .http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
When I look at this the temp starts in the same place every year, rises to the same level every year and falls back to the same level every year from 1958 to 2012. Am I reading this graph incorrectly or are the arctic air temperatures above 80 north the same now as they have always been since 1958?
When I look at the winter of 2012 the temps were unusually warm (Still way below freezing obviously) yet the ice extent was as great as the 1979 2000 anomaly. Does this not seem to indicate that ice extent is nothing whatever to do with average air temp and thus nothing to do with any perceived global warming ?
Ivor Ward
Mosher again comes out with sins of omission. He said
” If you add more GHGS the temperature will trend upwards over time, not downwards ”
He forgot the qualification needed here that ” provided all other feedback mechanisms in a chaotic system like earth stay the same”. he also forgot to state that ” all feedback mechanisms the affect temperatures are not well understood and do not stay the same “.
Stating part of the truth because it supports your gospel is lying by omission, something which Mosher has consistently been doing.
Mosher also states
” In a warming world we expect there to be less sea ice at the north pole, not more.”
He should actually been stating that “In a warming world we expect there to be less sea ice at both the poles ” which is the truth.
So again, another selective statement highlighting his gospel but omitting contrary information.
Thank you for that wonderful map. It’s the best I’ve ever seen let alone hoped for.
justthefactswuwt says:
September 2, 2012 at 9:23 pm
Caleb says:September 2, 2012 at 8:30 pm
For the life of me I can’t see how open water in the arctic can make the planet warmer.
I tend to agree. The warming influence of increased isolation(insolation?) absorbed by the ocean surface would be out weighed by the heat escape from the ocean into the atmosphere
——————————–
Haven’t you just answered your own question? The initial ice loss, whatever it’s cause, leads to more open water. A storm of any strength will lead to heavier seas when there is a longer fetch than when the sea is ice locked.(This may have been Mosher’s point about stronger storms?) This causes more mixing of the ocean layers bringing the warmer waters to the surface which shows up as increased surface temperature. However, once the warmer water has been brought to the surface it will radiate heat to space at a much greater rate, which will lead to global cooling.
RE: “Billy says:
September 3, 2012 at 12:27 am
Apparently arctic temperatures are below average this year and mostly well below freezing…”
You can update that graph by clicking to Anthony’s “Sea Ice Page,” and then go to the Danish site by clicking that graph.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
The graph does show the high latitudes were slightly below normal for most of the summer. However some (including Hansen) will say changing ice to water takes a lot of available heat and turns it into latent heat. (Sigh.)
The graph also shows temperatures at high latitudes are now a bit above normal, perhaps due to open water north of 80 degrees. I wonder if any will speak of latent heat being released, as water changes back to ice. (Double Sigh.)
justthefactswuwt:
Thankyou.
This is an excellent thread mostly because of your article and – especially – your interactions in the thread. The result has been interesting and instructive information and interactions of ideas which have been almost completely on topic.
I write to encourage similar inputs from you on WUWT in future.
Richard
ghl says:
September 2, 2012 at 4:06 pm
Volcanoes can produce thermal plumes more than 10000m high in air, perhaps 1000m in water is not impossible. A thermal map would be interesting.
*********************************************************************************
Yes, I was thinking along these lines just before I read your comment. If molten lava was released at the sea floor it would lead to steam formation and then condensation leading to relatively “warm” freshwater pockets of water which would have nowhere to go but upwards.
Although they would cool quite quickly, if this was an ongoing process for even relatively short periods it would create a definite upward current of relatively warmer, less salty water.
This is only conjecture but is entirely feasible and, if volumes were sufficient, could easily break through the stratification layers of the ocean carrying warmth up to cause melting above.
Steve T
Frozen slush is completely covering the lense of the “Floating North Pole Cam” on the Sea Ice Page for several days in a row now, actually.
This didn’t happen in the past years, AFAIK.
More open water = more evaporation = more snow?
And what will happen if the additional snow falls on the surrounding continental land mass?
Will any additional snow cover there add to glaciers and let them advance?
Thus, are we perhaps witnessing the last days of the Holocene-Interglacial without even noticing?
Steve, just to make sure I wasn’t seeing things I read your comment several times and amazingly find nothing major to disagree with for the first time in ages. I do not however believe you answered any question.
UNANSWERED QUESTION #1 – referred to your quote: “And Goddard can talk about ‘recovery’.“ … What if we have already recovered to ‘normal’? What if the 1970’s were in fact the anomaly with respect to the long term mild warming since the LIA, and, moreso with the longer term warming since the Holocene began? Specifically, what if the cooler period of the 1960’s to 1970’s was a temporary ‘setback’ in mother nature’s grand plan of a warming interglacial? This is a perfectly logical hypothesis given our current knowledge of our position in time. And it allows for another inevitable cyclic but temporary setback in the next few years. It would logically follow that by the 1990’s we had already ‘recovered’ from the 1970’s, back to the slight warming trajectory we were on all along. But by starting continuous satellite measurement at the peak of the cool anomaly, observers missed the forest for the trees and their talk of a ‘recovery’ to 1979 sea-ice levels becomes a complete inversion of reality because sea-ice minimums in the 4 to 5 mkm^2 might be perfectly normal for the warmer periods. If we have already ‘recovered’, it would mean that the AGW alarmists are actually describing a PNA – Post Normal Arctic, wouldn’t it? 😉
UNANSWERED QUESTION #2 – We need to know where we are, and Where we have been, in order to know Where we are going. … All this wild speculation would be unnecessary if you would just tell us whether we are supposed to still be in the LIA today? Or are we supposed to still be in the 1970’s today? Or are we supposed to be exiting the Holocene today? Stop making us guess, and cut to the chase. NOTE: this is not my particular theory, just a rational fit for the few available facts we have, a quick, imperfect description of natural variation. The burden of proof is on AGW fanatics to prove that their hypothesis is *not* a part of natural variation. Before they can do that however, they need to know what the boundaries of our natural variation really are. This sounds pretty self-evident to me.
Returning to what you did say …
In your reply you first questioned my original statement that: “The AGW fanatics have the burden of proof the disprove natural variation”. Yes, that should have been phrased better and without the typo (and I did so above): ‘The AGW fanatics have the burden of proof on *them*, it is they who must prove their AGW hypothesis is NOT part of natural variation’. The reason I even mentioned it in the first place is because of so many of the AGW cult are reversing the scientific method by telling us it’s warming due to human emissions and accept it or prove them wrong. This is like saying the universe ends in a brick wall, accept it or disprove it. Right after that I pointed out that before you can even consider proving that your hypothesis is not part of natural variation, you must first be able to define the boundaries of it. So rather than immediately producing papers, lectures and TV programs about catastrophe and leaping straight to draconian expenditures of taxpayer monies, the alarmist community FIRST should have been exploring the historical records and other methods to define the wide range of variation experienced just within the current Holocene. This is contrasted with the efforts of Mann and his sycophants to sandpaper down these variations (RWP, MWP, LIA etc) into a smooth and straight hockey stick to make the ‘blade’ stand out like a sore thumb. IIRC it wasn’t too long ago that you were doing the same thing here regarding the LIA and a lack of evidence. Or you were playing devil’s advocate.
With all due respect I think you are missing the point here. While it may be interesting to try to explain the cause of all natural variation, there is no reason to do this in our current discussion. Knowing the *bounds* of natural variation is the entire point and it is obviously prerequisite in order to see if current conditions are at all unusual (and even those bounds might not be rigid because even if we learned of +/- 10° limit, we cannot rule out that mother nature was about to naturally increase the boundaries by cranking the dial to eleven). You may not like the word ‘natural’, and I don’t blame you. If I were obsessed with hanging CO2 around man’s neck I would try to duck it as well. But we have variation which is in fact natural by any definition of the word. Even the 65 mya asteroid strike is natural (but for some very miniscule chance it was launched at us by aliens I suppose), but we should stay on topic for now. Simply stated, if we see warm-cool, alternating cycles of 30 to 60 years and someone tells us of a crisis whose sole symptom falls well right within the bounds of those warm-cool cycles, we’re not buying it no matter how exotic the theory. YMMV.
Those are some very safe statements, not sure why you made them unless they are just to fill space. But each of them also has wiggle room. For example a “warming world” might be warming everywhere *but* the Arctic. Or it may have warmed one degree in the Arctic winter from -10 to -9 which would affect the total temp but not the ice. And why only one pole anyway? Numbers, statistics, averages, you gotta love ’em. The ‘world’ as you say probably is warming, perhaps by that huge 0.7 degrees that y’all fret over *since* the Little Ice Age (but again, what should it be doing?). The “we see less sea ice at the north pole” statement once again is ambiguous, is it ‘less’ volume or extent? Sea-Ice is hard enough to measure, volume must be nearly impossible to get correct. For example, there is no way we can tell if 2012 has more or less ice volume than 2007 or 2011. What if we are only noticing different annual distributions but with nearly equal volumes? This is why I am completely dumbfounded by the way you drop into the Sea-Ice Olympics. I thought perhaps you were playing devil’s advocate to tweak Steve Goddard but lately you actually sound like you believe there is actual significance to the ups *and* downs of minimum extent.
(Assuming GHS is GHG) Question 1 is the big one and unfortunately for the alarmists you just do not have enough heat to go around. From the AGW cult the answer is unanimous: all of it, every single bit of alleged temp increase is from GHG, and all of that is from GHG that humans added. The entire 0.7 degrees (well what else can they say) since the LIA is AGW, which leaves them with nothing left over for natural warming. So please, when will one of you complete the logic of your argument and finally state: ‘The LIA never naturally ended, we are supposed to still be in there, the entire 0.7 degrees is entirely from Humans, and thanks to that we are warm instead of cold.‘ There is wiggle room in that question as well: “due to GHS” covers water vapor of course and that naturally would be natural, so I assume you must mean CO2, but then again human contribution obviously cannot really be 100% of that and is no doubt far less. Question 2 has been determined already, and the answer is: absolutely boundless chicken little alarmism, whatever it takes to nab a grant, grab a headline, and ram through legislation. When a movie like “The Day After Tomorrow” comes out and is not even considered science fiction, and perfectly matches the hysteria from AGW doomsayers (which is most of them), we have crossed into new territory. This is crazy land.
Fun Fact: Every pebble you throw into the sea raises sea level. No argument on the first part of your comment, just the last which is obviously true in most cases, except for when it’s not. It sounds too much like you are certain of a constantly predictable linear trend which must be impossible eventually due to diminishing returns from the logarithmic nature of CO2 saturation. More importantly, it implies experimental isolation rather than system wide actions and reactions. Other events will likely slow or completely defeat the rigid temperature rise, such as thunderstorms from increased evaporation due to the Willis’ Thermostat Hypothesis, naturally with differing mechanisms depending on ‘system’ location. This is the nature of ‘systems’. The AGW cult seems to want to consider CO2 separate from the bigger picture leaving no room for a system to return to its own level. Lots of agenda driven leftists and eco-nuts want to consider man as separate from the rest of nature. It is a mental illness, masochistic self-flagellation.
A cursory glance at Wikipedia shows a surface current running east along the coast just north of Prudoe Bay and the North Slope drilling areas. Tiny spills are enough to pollute huge areas of the sea surface; 5ml will smooth a hectare.
Smoothed water produces less cloud, has lower albedo, reduced evaporation and its emissivity falls. It warms.
The heating in the Beaufort Sea is anomalous — nothing I’ve seen about CO2 can explain 8 deg C — so some explanation is needed. My suggestion is oil pollution.
JF
From May to late August wind was blowing from Northern Canada to the Beaufort Sea.
There was high pressure over Greenland forcing that. Because of that there was large polynya
in June. Sun and wind caused the high sea temperatures in the Beaufort Sea.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=06&fd=20&fy=2012&sm=05&sd=20&sy=2012
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/composites/comp.day.pl?var=Geopotential+Height&level=850mb&iy%5B1%5D=&im%5B1%5D=&id%5B1%5D=&iy%5B2%5D=&im%5B2%5D=&id%5B2%5D=&iy%5B3%5D=&im%5B3%5D=&id%5B3%5D=&iy%5B4%5D=&im%5B4%5D=&id%5B4%5D=&iy%5B5%5D=&im%5B5%5D=&id%5B5%5D=&iy%5B6%5D=&im%5B6%5D=&id%5B6%5D=&iy%5B7%5D=&im%5B7%5D=&id%5B7%5D=&iy%5B8%5D=&im%5B8%5D=&id%5B8%5D=&iy%5B9%5D=&im%5B9%5D=&id%5B9%5D=&iy%5B10%5D=&im%5B10%5D=&id%5B10%5D=&iy%5B11%5D=&im%5B11%5D=&id%5B11%5D=&iy%5B12%5D=&im%5B12%5D=&id%5B12%5D=&iy%5B13%5D=&im%5B13%5D=&id%5B13%5D=&iy%5B14%5D=&im%5B14%5D=&id%5B14%5D=&iy%5B15%5D=&im%5B15%5D=&id%5B15%5D=&iy%5B16%5D=&im%5B16%5D=&id%5B16%5D=&iy%5B17%5D=&im%5B17%5D=&id%5B17%5D=&iy%5B18%5D=&im%5B18%5D=&id%5B18%5D=&iy%5B19%5D=&im%5B19%5D=&id%5B19%5D=&iy%5B20%5D=&im%5B20%5D=&id%5B20%5D=&monr1=5&dayr1=1&monr2=8&dayr2=20&iyr%5B1%5D=2012&filenamein=&plotlabel=&lag=0&labelc=Color&labels=Shaded&type=2&scale=200&label=0&cint=&lowr=&highr=&istate=0&proj=Northern+Hemisphere&xlat1=&xlat2=&xlon1=&xlon2=&custproj=Cylindrical+Equidistant&level1=1000mb&level2=10mb&Submit=Create+Plot
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/composites/comp.day.pl?var=Air+Temperature&level=Surface&iy%5B1%5D=&im%5B1%5D=&id%5B1%5D=&iy%5B2%5D=&im%5B2%5D=&id%5B2%5D=&iy%5B3%5D=&im%5B3%5D=&id%5B3%5D=&iy%5B4%5D=&im%5B4%5D=&id%5B4%5D=&iy%5B5%5D=&im%5B5%5D=&id%5B5%5D=&iy%5B6%5D=&im%5B6%5D=&id%5B6%5D=&iy%5B7%5D=&im%5B7%5D=&id%5B7%5D=&iy%5B8%5D=&im%5B8%5D=&id%5B8%5D=&iy%5B9%5D=&im%5B9%5D=&id%5B9%5D=&iy%5B10%5D=&im%5B10%5D=&id%5B10%5D=&iy%5B11%5D=&im%5B11%5D=&id%5B11%5D=&iy%5B12%5D=&im%5B12%5D=&id%5B12%5D=&iy%5B13%5D=&im%5B13%5D=&id%5B13%5D=&iy%5B14%5D=&im%5B14%5D=&id%5B14%5D=&iy%5B15%5D=&im%5B15%5D=&id%5B15%5D=&iy%5B16%5D=&im%5B16%5D=&id%5B16%5D=&iy%5B17%5D=&im%5B17%5D=&id%5B17%5D=&iy%5B18%5D=&im%5B18%5D=&id%5B18%5D=&iy%5B19%5D=&im%5B19%5D=&id%5B19%5D=&iy%5B20%5D=&im%5B20%5D=&id%5B20%5D=&monr1=6&dayr1=1&monr2=8&dayr2=20&iyr%5B1%5D=2012&filenamein=&plotlabel=&lag=0&labelc=Color&labels=Shaded&type=2&scale=200&label=0&cint=&lowr=&highr=&istate=0&proj=Northern+Hemisphere&xlat1=&xlat2=&xlon1=&xlon2=&custproj=Cylindrical+Equidistant&level1=1000mb&level2=10mb&Submit=Create+Plot