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.
ghl says: September 2, 2012 at 4:06 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/02/sea-ice-page-upgrades-observations-and-questions/#comment-1070210
You’ve got that right? (in my opinion) and I would be most interested in seeing the geo-themals over time that cause those volcano’s to go boom . . . so high!
Wow, there’s talk here that man is the cause of warming just because some trends roughly agree. A “fools paradise”.
This 4 minute video with Steve McIntyre reading a ClimateGate email shows that even some ClimateGate scientists have doubts about man changing climate.
While the MacKenzie River outflow could reasonably be a bit warmer than average, a close look at the Beaufort temperature maps suggest the high temps in that area are more likely from an outlier bouy temp that is being worked into temp map. Note that the inland temps for the MacKenzie river are much less than Hot spot. Further, the hot spot is well west of the Delta.
USGS water temps for the nearby rivers in Alaska were recently in the 50 to 53 F range; a fair match to the color coded temps for the MacKenzie (10 to 12 C). No where near the color code’s 18 C temp at the Hot Spot. There is no similar spot anywhere near the arctic.
I’d say the Beaufort temp is being biased by a bad reading that hasn’t been screened out as an outlier.The tight temperature gradient near the hot spot should be a red flag for an outlier. It’s been displaying the same error for weeks.
I think this map of reported temperatures is a clearer reference for my observations than the anomoly map.
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_sst_NPS_ophi0.png
If what is happening to Arctic ice was from “global” warming it would also affect Antarctic ice in the same way. But it is not. The circumference of Antarctic ice is in a growing trend. So the opposite is happening to Antarctic ice.
What is happening in the Beaufort Sea is peculiar to that area. It is not global.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/02/sea-ice-page-upgrades-observations-and-questions/
Steve: makes me think of the discussions of the past called “where’s the missing heat”?
Are supposed scientists and statisticians really arguing about the amount of Arctic ice being non-normal for the Holocene after having observed the ice by satellite for such an extremely brief period? If the sea tides were being looked these observations would be of less than 5 minutes yet this is deemed statistically significant enough to forecast high and low tide levels and whether these levels are normal? This seems to be the approach with climate ‘science’ one tree core and they will tell you global temperature; 30 years observation of Arctic ice in several thousand and they will tell you the ‘normal’ level of ice. In any other field of science this would be laughed at.
Other evidence is of course ignored such as Viking farms being uncovered by melting ice on Greenland that were functioning arable farms for over a century. We also know that the Holocene ‘Optimum’ was considerably warmer than current temperatures. ‘Normal’ is a meaningless word as it is being used in this discussion.
I thought there was a NASA study about two years ago that concluded that a good share of the melt was due to soot (likely from industrializing Asian countries). I am also under the impression that mainstream science has ruled out undersea volcanoes as signficant cause of melt.
By the way, increased CO2 causing increased temperatures causing Arctic melt has several weak spots — not the least of which is the huge divergence between observed Arctic ice and the projections of CO2 based models.
I would like to see a chart/graphic/metric of the result of calculations of the following concept:
Sea ice location is also an important piece of information in climate science when coupled with solar insolation information (which is derived simply from the date and time). For example, given an equal area of sea ice, but located at different latitudes, the amount of reflected sun light will be different. Within the arctic circle there is the additional complexity of the 24 hour constant daylight or constant night depending on the time of year.
The calculations to be made would combine the location of sea ice with the insolation for a given moment in time. You could have a few different graphs of this type of calculation, for example one for the arctic circle only, and one for Northern Hemisphere total, for example. I do not know what the calculated numbers would be but one idea for the arctic circle calculations is to “normalize” the number so that it falls between 0 and 1, where at the moment winter starts and the entire arctic is dark your number is 1 and should all the ice disappear by the moment summer starts, that would produce a number of 0 (or vice versa). All other possible conditions in the arctic circle in this example should produce a number between these two extremes, such as say 0.8, or 0.734 🙂 (I don’t know actual numbers yet as oddly no one has ever presented this kind of data to the general public. It’s hard to believe that I am the only one who has ever thought of doing this seemingly important piece of science, especially when I keep hearing the term “Polar Amplification”, and hear of dark waters absorbing the sunlight with nary any hint to the amount of sunlight).
I have tried to explain this concept once before on WUWT in a comment one or two years ago, but I got no replies. I hope I have explained it better this time. I also have come to understand that I will probably have to be the one to write all the software to carry out these calculations if I ever want to see such scientific data.
Well it just so happens that I have spent many, many years on peripheral and relevant studies that should enable me to carry out this software development task in a somewhat timely manner… hopefully.
I would like to have some input from the WUWT community on my idea and whether or not I have explained it sufficiently.
Greenland and Alaska are part of Canada! 🙂
Alternate sources of Sea Surface Temperature data do NOT show any Hot Spot on the coast west of the MacKenzie Deta. And therefore, no region of aggressive gradient to smooth it into the map.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/plots/satsst.arc.d-00.png
justthefactwuwt: In the article you posted, you mused about the direct effect of industrial activity and population on the temperature of the river. Of course in a warming world, the river will also warm; what I doubt is that the industrial activities you mentioned have any noticeable effect on their own. The extractive industries, along with almost all of the population (which is tiny — a small city), are hundreds of kilometers from the river mouth. Any heat they impart to the waters would have long since dissipated by the time it gets to the delta.
Steven Mosher wrote “It’s [AGW is] simple physics.”
Is this simple physics explained anywhere? Seems unlikely to me that “simple physics” can directly account for global temperature increase from an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere of a chaotic open system. I wonder how this “simple physics” accounts for any biological response to increased CO2.
Climate Beagle, not for the first time, Mosher will only make grand cryptic pronouncements and run away. He never answers awkward questions. He’ll then re-appear in another thread and adopt the same tactics. That’s his modus operandi.
Great Discussion !
So, if ……
Chinese-burnt coal is contributing significantly to the increased ice melt in the Arctic.
And Obama is doing his utmost to stop coal-fired electical generation in the US-where coal is more “cleanly burnt”.
Then more US coal will be shipped to China-where coal is burnt in the “dietiest” way imagineable
And Obama ends up contributing to greater Arctic Ice-Melt.
Romney/Rand should have a field day with this !
@ur momisugly Mosher
Nobody denies summer Arctic sea ice extent is smaller than last year. Indeed this measurement is a fact. However, what is debatable and debated is the climatological meaning of this fact. In their paper Kinnard et al. 2011 claimed that Arctic sea ice extend has not been that small for 1450 y a claim that can be argued. However in their demonstration they also showed that the extent of Arctic sea ice shrinked during the LIA, hardly a warming period…
The finding that Arctic sea ice extent and/or area was shrinking during this global episode of cooling such as the LIA confirms evidence from research on the last glaciation. It was shown that during the onset of glaciation, a period of relative warmer conditions affected the Svalbard islands before glacial conditions finally were established. Leroux easily explained that relief channelized warm air advection increased as a consequence of colder, higher pressure more powerful air masses descending from the Arctic, displacing more warm air at its periphery.
BTW, during the Dust Bowl 1930s during which atmospheric circulation was in an accelerated mode, DMI nautical charts showed a similar -because of the atmospheric dynamic involved- pattern of summer Arctic sea ice reduction, even accounting for the uncertainty of mapping.
Since the climatic shift of the 1970s, well expressed by pressure measurements around the globe -way more robust than temperature- we have also entered a phase of rapid mode of circulation, hence increased remobilization of the pack seen in satellite animations. I wish also to add that “multiyear ice” is referring to 7 y and older ice. If the claimed stability was indeed a feature, how come we cannot map 100 y, 50y old sea ice? The intensity of atmospheric circulation explains the periods of quiescence and periods of mobilization of the pack. It also explains the shape a melting pack takes during a mobilization period. And these periods do not correspond to warming phases but on the contrary to cooling phases and increased gradient between polar and equatorial regions. And please do not quote the temperature reanalysis at the 500hPa level as proof of the opposite since it has been well demonstrated that cold air masses are lenticular shaped and their thickness is 1.5km, which is well below the 500 hPa level. In fact this is the “trick” of all these studies…
So before attributing one factual consequence to one cause, one needs to look beyond temperatures series.
ARRRGGHH! Because the WordPress text box was three lines tall I misplaced a sentence in there. This text …
… should have followed “UNANSWERED QUESTION #1” obviously. The point being that the hypothesis that we might have already returned to ‘normal’ is not my particular theory, just a plausible hypothesis given the available information. There is not enough information to know the answer IMHO. However common sense (and KISS theory) tells me that it is far more likely than AGW doomsday scenarios.
PeteB says: September 3, 2012 at 2:09 am
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%.
I have very, very, little confidence in the ‘conventional wisdom’, as I stated here;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/30/earths-climate-system-is-ridiculously-complex-with-draft-link-tutorial/
Here is the current list of Potential Climatic Variables;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/potential-climatic-variables/
how many of them do you think have been incorporated into the models, and of those, how many do you think are accurately represented? For example,;
“Many atmospheric general circulation models (GCMs) and chemistry–climate models (CCMs) are not able to reproduce the observed polar stratospheric winds in simulations of the late 20th century. Specifically, the polar vortices break down too late and peak wind speeds are higher than in the ERA-40 reanalysis. Insufficient planetary wave driving during the October–November period delays the breakup of the southern hemisphere (SH) polar vortex in versions 1 (V1) and 2 (V2) of the Goddard Earth Observing System (GEOS) chemistry–climate model, and is likely the cause of the delayed breakup in other CCMs with similarly weak October-November wave driving.”
“In the V1 model, the delayed breakup of the Antarctic vortex biases temperature, circulation and trace gas concentrations in the polar stratosphere in spring. The V2 model behaves similarly (despite major model upgrades from V1), though the magnitudes of the anomalous effects on springtime dynamics are smaller.”
“Clearly, if CCMs cannot duplicate the observed response of the polar stratosphere to late 20th century climate forcings, their ability to simulate the polar vortices in future may be poor.”
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/EGU2009-651.pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010JGRD..11507105H
“It is unclear how much confidence can be put into the model projections of the vortices given that the models typically only have moderate resolution and that the climatological structure of the vortices in the models depends on the tuning of gravity wave parameterizations.
Given the above outstanding issues, there is need for continued research in the dynamics of the vortices and their representation in global models.”
http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/waugh+polvani-PlumbFestVolume-2010.pdf
Given the facts above, I find the claims in the paragraph below the be “very likely” erroneous:
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. …
But all the predictions “that Northern Polar regions would warm at a much faster rate than the global mean” are predicated on natural positive feedbacks, thus, if true, they would have occurred regardless of the cause of the original warming. As such, what I am arguing is that even if 100% of the global warming was caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, then the additional 2 K/C warming seen in the Arctic would be due to natural feedbacks, or other natural causes, e.g. there is a lot of evidence that the longer-term decrease in Sea Ice and associated increase in atmospheric temperatures, is caused by Wind and Atmospheric Oscillations:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/16/the-economist-provides-readers-with-erroneous-information-about-arctic-sea-ice/
I’m still not sure why we care if North Polar sea ice is gone during a brief time in the summer. Polar Bears don’t seem to care.
If it’s due to albedo concerns, I really don’t see albedo as a huge player. A winter or two ago much of the northern hemisphere was covered with snow and ice, yet this didn’t lead to a drastic drop in temperatures, nor plummet us into another glacial period. Can anyone show definitively that albedo is that much of an issue? Or why we care about sea ice?
Simple solution. Type up your replies offline in your favorite text editor. Spellcheck, proofread, etc (or ect, if you have something stuck in your throat), then copy and paste. et voila!
jorgekafkazar on September 3, 2012 at 12:47 pm said:
Ah, yes. The insidius Dihydrogen Monoxide. Nasty stuff, that. Kills millions every year. I’ve been patitioning the government to ban it for years. Did you know it can even corrode steel? And while it’s not as strong a GHG as Carbon Dioxide on a molicule per molicule bases, it can easily get up to even higher concintrations in the atmosphere. Best to outlaw it completely.
Dang it, post that last comment on the wrong thread. Laptops busted and I’m trying to do this on my phone.
Crashex says: September 3, 2012 at 7:18 am
While the MacKenzie River outflow could reasonably be a bit warmer than average, a close look at the Beaufort temperature maps suggest the high temps in that area are more likely from an outlier bouy temp that is being worked into temp map. Note that the inland temps for the MacKenzie river are much less than Hot spot. Further, the hot spot is well west of the Delta.
Could be a sensor failure, but I would need to see evidence of that, before accepting that as an explanation. In terms of the inland temps being lower than the hot spot, that is a valid and valuable observation, which would say that the hot spot is definitely not solely caused by runoff. However, in terms of inland temps, looking at the Mackenzie River on this anomaly map;
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/rtg_high_res/color_anomaly_NW_ophi0.png
clearly there are some significant positive temperature anomalies inland on the Mackenzie River. In terms of alignment of the hot spot and the delta, it definitely looks like it is centered to the West of the Mackenzie River Delta:
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/rtg_high_res/color_sst_NW_ophi0.png
However, there are a multitude of currents in play;
http://www.divediscover.whoi.edu/arctic/images/ArcticCurrents-labels.jpg
and the location of any hotspot would be expected to move, depending on which way the currents are flowing.
Also, tangentially related;
Here’s an animation of the effect they claim:
USGS water temps for the nearby rivers in Alaska were recently in the 50 to 53 F range; a fair match to the color coded temps for the MacKenzie (10 to 12 C). No where near the color code’s 18 C temp at the Hot Spot. There is no similar spot anywhere near the arctic.
I’d say the Beaufort temp is being biased by a bad reading that hasn’t been screened out as an outlier.The tight temperature gradient near the hot spot should be a red flag for an outlier. It’s been displaying the same error for weeks.
I certainly cannot discount the possibility of a sensor failure. Perhaps you can check with Robert.Grumbine@noaa.gov, who is responsible for “data-management and analysis techniques” on the RTG data set:
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/rtg_high_res/
Your discussion on”currents” is a distraction, red herring argument. Currents do not increase the temperature of the water. They may redistribute the relatively warmer water to different areas and cause bumps in an anomaly map as the relatively warm water is transported to a region of typically colder water, but the currents do not increase the the measured temperature by 8 to 10 C.
You asked for “evidence” and I presented it. The Hot Spot is an anomalously high temperature, substantially greater than the typical river outflow temperature and the recently measured river water temperatures. USGS now shows the nearby Alaskan rivers at 40 to 43 F. It is greater than the indicated temperature for the MacKenzie on the same map and offset geographically well away from the Delta. There is no similar temperature level along the coast of the entire Arctic perimeter nor along the west coast of North America as far south as San Fransisco.
If you cannot present a natural cause for a 20F spike in water temperature in a small local area without known volcanic activity than any logical assessment would lead you to suspect bogus data from a failed sensor or a software masking fault. Yes, it would be nice to be able to point to a specific sensor data record; but the mapping software and data is a black box that only NOAA knows for sure.
I sent an inquiry to Mr. Grumbine, but have not gotten a reply to date. I’m likely relegated to a spam folder. Someone at NOAA has likely seen the blog post, maybe they’ll mention it to him.
It’s just an example of the sloppy science that pervades this topic. The mapping software processing has not properly screened the data for outliers and the chaperones are happy to churn out bogus high biased results because it fits the meme.
NSIDC can see in the Mosaic images and the IMS methods that the vaunted satellite measurements of the ice area have large bias errors this year, grossly under reporting the actual size of the ice field. A scientist would take this unique opportunity to adjust the software parameters to more accurately measure the ice area and reprocess all historical data with the revised method to report a more accurate tend. But, the word out of the organization responsible for the measurement is;: yeah, we know there’s a bias error; sure, its greatest at the key point in the season that we claim is most critical; no, we ignore the premise that a bias level that increases with lower absolute area measurements can influence the reported trend–we like our method best (because it pays our bills at home). Besides, it’s probably going to melt in another week or two. Yeah, we know our data is wrong today and it’s plotted per day, so yeah the local trend is admittedly wrong; we expect that the actual data will catchup to our erroneous levels later.???
Wow Look!! A new record low! Just like we hoped!
Sloppy science.
Well, this is “on topic” – seems that Tamino is also going through his “Arctic Sea Ice: Turning Points” post this week (Posted on September 1, 2012 | 37 Comments so far):
His lead in:
“…Perhaps the most obvious “turning point” in Arctic sea ice is the stunning decline at the summer minimum of 2007. The annual minimum extent for every year since then has been less than for every year before then. To many, it marks a new era for the ice pack covering the Arctic ocean. The post-2007 era has been makedly [sic] different from what happened before…”
Along the way, he posts charts (all starting in 1980) trying to prove a point:
“…But if you look at the annual minimum of Arctic sea ice volume rather than extent, the decline has been more consistent. There was indeed a large decrease in 2007 with no year post-2007 as high as any year pre-2007 — but there was also a dramatic decline in 2010 with no year post-2010 reaching pre-2010 levels.
Was there a qualitative change in the ice pack in 2010, one which might rival the qualitative change in 2007?
An interesting quantity to study is the ratio of the volume of Arctic sea ice to its area (volume data from PIOMAS, area data from Cryosphere Today). In a sense this is a measure of average thickness, but it doesn’t include areas of open sea so it’s the average thickness only for areas which have at least some ice. Still, it shows a consistent decline over the years.
We can use windowed Fourier analysis to study many quantities, including the annual-mean ratio of volume to area. This too shows the decline, revealing just how dramatic it has been. It also shows that the change in 2010 was greater than in previous years, so when it comes to thinning of the ice pack 2010 seems to be the “turning point” year.
We can also look at the timing of the seasonal cycle of volume/area ratio. One way is to examine the phase (time of year) of the maximum point of the fundamental Fourier component of the seasonal cycle. Although there’s a steady decline prior to 2010, with the peak coming earlier in the season, it isn’t until 2010 that we see a truly dramatic change.
It’s not just the timing of the seasonal cycle which has changed, its very shape has been transformed. And, the change during 2010 was stunning, with no year post-2010 matching any year pre-2010.
The Arctic is changing dramatically, right before our eyes. Not only did the extent and area “fall through the floor” in 2007, the volume did so in both 2007 and 2010. And the very shape of the seasons has changed, in ways that may not be reversed for a very long time, if ever. In those terms, 2010 far exceeds 2007 in its stunning impact…”
And, there’s the usual choir agreeing with every aspect.
And, like almost every Tamino post, there’s the mandatory WUWT tirade:
Poster michel said on September 3, 2012 at 7:28 am:
“…Watts gets much attacked here, but actually if you go to his sea ice pages you find loads of stuff from the authoritative sources showing exactly the things pointed out here. The decline and rate of decline and context are clearly shown…”
Tamino’s response “…And if you read his posts you’ll see constant denial of what’s happening to Arctic sea ice, like blaming it all on the storm, calling it a “natural cycle,” repeated claims that it was just like this in the 1930s, changing the subject to Antarctica or to 8,000 years ago, etc. Perhaps the worst, which shows his blatant and immovable denial, is the idiotic refusal to believe Walt Meier about MASIE/IMS not being appropriate for trend/year-to-year comparisons — for no other reason than that he didn’t want to face the fact that the record was smashed this year and we didn’t even have to wait for September for that to happen. The guy is doing everything he can to deny the truth — and that is why he gets “much attacked here.”…”
I’m still waiting for his post concerning a paper published in Science that found summer Arctic Sea Ice extent during the Holocene Thermal Maximum 8,000 years ago was “less than half of the record low 2007 level.” The paper finds a “general buildup of sea ice from ~ 6,000 years before the present” which reached a maximum during the Little Ice Age and “attained its present (year 2000) extent at 4,000 years before the present” – this paper being the basis behind the “8,000 years ago” statement.
To help them out (since they do read here), here’s the link:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6043/747.abstract
the title:
A 10,000-Year Record of Arctic Ocean Sea-Ice Variability – View from the Beach
the authors:
Svend Funder, Hugues Goosse, Hans Jepsen, Eigil Kaas, Kurt H. Kjær, Niels J. Korsgaard, Nicolaj K. Larsen, Hans Linderson, Astrid Lyså, Per Möller, Jesper Olsen and Eske Willerslev
finally the abstract:
Abstract
“…We present a sea-ice record from northern Greenland covering the past 10,000 years. Multiyear sea ice reached a minimum between ~8500 and 6000 years ago, when the limit of year-round sea ice at the coast of Greenland was located ~1000 kilometers to the north of its present position. The subsequent increase in multiyear sea ice culminated during the past 2500 years and is linked to an increase in ice export from the western Arctic and higher variability of ice-drift routes. When the ice was at its minimum in northern Greenland, it greatly increased at Ellesmere Island to the west. The lack of uniformity in past sea-ice changes, which is probably related to large-scale atmospheric anomalies such as the Arctic Oscillation, is not well reproduced in models. This needs to be further explored, as it is likely to have an impact on predictions of future sea-ice distribution…”
So it seems that Tamino isn’t up-to-date on all the latest peer-reviewed papers (and this one was only published on 5 August 2011). Maybe he missed it – it didn’t tie anthropogenic causes to those “record” lows, so he wouldn’t have paid any attention to it.
Then again, maybe he has. There’s no search feature to see if he’s commented on the paper. Maybe now that it’s been mentioned on WUWT, he will.
numerobis says: September 3, 2012 at 8:32 am
justthefactwuwt: In the article you posted, you mused about the direct effect of industrial activity and population on the temperature of the river. Of course in a warming world, the river will also warm; what I doubt is that the industrial activities you mentioned have any noticeable effect on their own.
In terms of the industrial activities mentioned;
The process of Tar Sand Oil Extractions is very energy intensive, for surface extractions;
For Steam Extraction, it is even more energy intensive, i.e.;
In reference to the energy needed to extract oil from the Alberta Tar Sands and its impact on the Mackenzie River Delta, the Sierra Club is up in arms to;
In this article;
And, according to this compilation;
The other industrial activity that appears large enough to have a significant impact on McKenzie river temperature and flow is water usage, i.e.
I agree with R Taylor says: September 2, 2012 at 2:54 pm
With all of this said, it would be very difficult to separate out the local anthropogenic influences on MacKenzie River warming and flow changes, versus those due to global climatic changes. However, there still appears to be sufficient evidence to consider local anthropogenic influences as a potential factor.
The extractive industries, along with almost all of the population (which is tiny — a small city), are hundreds of kilometers from the river mouth. Any heat they impart to the waters would have long since dissipated by the time it gets to the delta.
In terms of the distance traveled, and associated dissipation;
Also the Tar Sand deposits are far from the MacKenzie River Delta;
http://www.borealbirds.org/images/mackenzie-map.jpg
but, there does appear to be natural gas extraction in around the Delta.
Regardless, my simple question on the distance that warmed river water can travel is, dissipated to where? It appears that summer atmospheric temperatures are generally warmer than river temperatures, thus where would the heat added upstream dissipate to?