Dust in the wind: Melt ponds in the Arctic hasten overall melting

I’ve often wondered if carbon soot plays a role in this. See our recent WUWT story about how black carbon’s role has been underestimated, and note that Arctic melting is listed as one of the effects. See also the tag I’ve added to the story at the bottom about what melt ponds start out as: Cryoconite holes, which form from “…particles of dust, soot or even small rocks deposited on glaciers or ice caps…”.

From the Alfred Wegener Institute (here) where they have trouble spelling the Arctic:

Melt ponds cause the Artic [sic] sea ice to melt more rapidly

Bremerhaven, 15 January 2013. The Arctic sea ice has not only declined over the past decade but has also become distinctly thinner and younger. Researchers are now observing mainly thin, first-year ice floes which are extensively covered with melt ponds in the summer months where once metre-thick, multi-year ice used to float. Sea ice physicists at the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI), have now measured the light transmission through the Arctic sea ice for the first time on a large scale, enabling them to quantify consequences of this change. They come to the conclusion that in places where melt water collects on the ice, far more sunlight and therefore energy is able to penetrate the ice than is the case for white ice without ponds. The consequence is that the ice is absorbing more solar heat, is melting faster, and more light is available for the ecosystems in and below the ice. The researchers have now published these new findings in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters

Melt ponds count among the favourite motifs for ice and landscape photographers in the Arctic. They are captured glistening in a seductive Caribbean sea blue or dark as a stormy sea on the ice floe. “Their colour depends entirely on how thick the remaining ice below the melt pond is and the extent to which the dark ocean beneath can be seen through this ice. Melt ponds on thicker ice tend to be turquoise and those on thin ice dark blue to black”, explains Dr. Marcel Nicolaus, sea ice physicist and melt pond expert at the Alfred Wegener Institute.

In recent years he and his team have observed a strikingly large number of melt ponds during summer expeditions to the central Arctic. Virtually half of the one-year ice was covered with melt ponds. Scientists attribute this observation to climate change. “The ice cover of the Arctic Ocean has been undergoing fundamental change for some years. Thick, multi-year ice is virtually nowhere to be found any more. Instead, more than 50 per cent of the ice cover now consists of thin one-year ice on which the melt water is particularly widespread. The decisive aspect here is the smoother surface of this young ice, permitting the melt water to spread over large areas and form a network of many individual melt ponds”, explains Marcel Nicolaus. By contrast, the older ice has a rougher surface which has been formed over the years by the constant motion of the floe and innumerable collisions. Far fewer and smaller ponds formed on this uneven surface which were, however, considerably deeper than the flat ponds on the younger ice.

The growing number of “windows to the ocean”, as melt ponds are also referred to, gave rise to a fundamental research question for Marcel Nicolaus: to what extent do the melt ponds and the thinning ice alter the amount of light beneath the sea ice? After all, the light in the sea – as on the land – constitutes the main energy source for photosynthesis. Without sunlight neither algae nor plants grow. Marcel Nicolaus: “We knew that an ice floe with a thick and fresh layer of snow reflects between 85 and 90 per cent of sunlight and permits only little light through to the ocean. In contrast, we could assume that in summer, when the snow on the ice has melted and the sea ice is covered with melt ponds, considerably more light penetrates through the ice.”

To find out the extent to which Arctic sea ice permits the penetration of the sun’s rays and how large the influence of the melt ponds is on this permeability, the AWI sea ice physicists equipped a remotely operated underwater vehicle (ROV “Alfred”) with radiation sensors and cameras. In the summer of 2011 during an Arctic expedition of the research ice breaker POLARSTERN, they sent this robot to several stations directly under the ice. During its underwater deployments, the device recorded how much solar energy penetrated the ice at a total of 6000 individual points all with different ice properties!

A unique data set was obtained in this way, the results of which are of great interest. Marcel Nicolaus explains: “The young thin ice with the many melt ponds does not just permit three times as much light to pass through than older ice. It also absorbs 50 per cent more solar radiation. This conversely means that this thin ice covered by melt ponds reflects considerably fewer sun rays than the thick ice. Its reflection rate is just 37 per cent. The young ice also absorbs more solar energy, which causes more melt. The ice melts from inside out to a certain extent,” says Marcel Nicolaus.

What might happen in the future considering these new findings? Marcel Nicolaus: “We assume that in future climate change will permit more sunlight to reach the Arctic Ocean – and particularly also that part of the ocean which is still covered by sea ice in summer. The reason: the greater the share of one-year ice in the sea ice cover, the more melt ponds will form and the larger they will be. This will also lead to a decreasing surface albedo (reflectivity)  and transmission into the ice and ocean will increase. The sea ice will become more porous, more sunlight will penetrate the ice floes, and more heat will be absorbed by the ice. This is a development which will further accelerate the melting of the entire sea ice area.” However, at the same time the organisms in and beneath the ice will have more light available to them in future. Whether and how they will cope with the new brightness is currently being investigated in cooperation with biologists.

Notes for Editors:

The original publication is entitled:

M. Nicolaus, C. Katlein, J. Maslanik, S. Hendricks: Changes in Arctic sea ice result in increasing light transmittance and absorption, Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 39, Issue 24, December 2012, Article first published online: 29 DEC 2012, DOI: 10.1029/2012GL053738 (Link: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL053738/abstract)

HD-capable film material is available on request. Please find printable images below and more images under this link: http://bit.ly/105eHDH

Further background information on the melt pond research project of the AWI sea ice physics working group is available at: http://www.awi.de/en/research/research_divisions/climate_science/sea_ice_physics/sea_ice_in_the_climate_system/sea_ice_properties/melt_ponds/

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

From Gavin Lear, at LearLab:

(12th February 2012) The Ecology of Antarctic Cryoconite Holes

Cryoconite holes form as particles of dust, soot or even small rocks deposited on glaciers or ice caps absorb solar radiation, melting the snow or ice beneath. Over time small ponds are created in the ice. As the cryoconite holes become deeper, a permanent layer of ice may form over the liquid water, remaining in place for many decades. Consequently, these communities, which may contain abundant microbial life have become cut off from the outside world. How does the lack of immigration into these communities alter the abundance and diversity of organisms within these isolated waterbodies? We’re using a combination of DNA-fingerprinting methodologies and next-generation DNA sequencing to investigate the ecology of these unique, and poorly studied waterbodies.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

55 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Greg Goodman
January 19, 2013 2:26 am

Their second photo here seems to give the lie to the whole paper:
http://www.awi.de/typo3temp/pics/67df1ab585.jpg
Now this is just visible light but it’s clear that the melt pool is reflecting considerably MORE of the low level incident light than the surrounding ice. Since the sun is always low in the sky here (when it is visible at all) this is not just early morning , it’s like this for all of the 6 month long “day”.
At low angles of incidence all wavelengths will experience much higher surface reflection. There seems to be a trivial and naive assumption that because snow/ice is white it is reflecting more light than “dark” water. What ice does is scatter light. Water reflects it like a mirror so unless you are in the right place you will not see it and water appear “dark”. As the photo shows when you are in the right place you find the water is brighter than the ice.
Marcel Nicolaus explains: “The young thin ice with the many melt ponds does not just permit three times as much light to pass through than older ice. It also absorbs 50 per cent more solar radiation. This conversely means that this thin ice covered by melt ponds reflects considerably fewer sun rays than the thick ice. Its reflection rate is just 37 per cent. The young ice also absorbs more solar energy, which causes more melt.
It is totally unclear how they reach the conclusion of “absorbs 50 per cent more” . They did not measure absorption and I see no mention of them measuring reflected light. All they measured was transmission. From that it is not possible to draw conclusions about absorption and reflection. They are giving figures like 62% and 37% which implies they have measured it with an accuracy of the order of 1% . However, I see noting presented here that shows they took ANY measurements of reflected radiation. [b]This appears to be total speculation.[/b]
Neither do they evaluate upward radiation. That which absorbs also emits. Water emits more IR than ice. What about evaporation? They talk of energy budget but clearly they have not made the slightest attempt to establish one. It is absolute speculation and assumption.
Now if we look at rate of change of ice extent/area in the Arctic, we see a different story:
http://i49.tinypic.com/xudsy.png
The dramatic melting of 1997-2007 had ended and the prior pattern of oscillating between losing/gaining ice on a circa 5y scale seems to be re-establishing itself.
Now if the increased exposed area of sea water and water in the melt pools is absorbing more solar radiation this would constitute a positive feedback that would be accelerating the melting. It is abundantly and unquestionably clear that this is not happening.
We are told that the Arctic is warming faster than more temperate latitudes (which aren’t warming at all) , so it can’t colder air that has stopped the “runaway” melting.
It seems the inescapable conclusion is that open water provides a NEGATIVE FEEDBACK that has stabilised the Arctic to the new, warmer temperatures by an increased exposed sea area (and melt pools).
Now the study is valid and interesting from the biological point of view of how much light gets through and how this may affect sub ice lifeforms.
The rest is usual unfounded climate alarmist spin. OK, they’ve earned their grant money for next year.

mogamboguru
January 19, 2013 3:40 am

So the german Alfred-Wegener-Institute finally took a step back from computer-model-induced alarmism and is doing real empirical science in loco again, instead?
How refreshing…
Professor Mojib Latif at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel, Germany, who is a climate alarmist par Excellence and is THE go-to-guy for german politicians regarding “Climate Change”, must be spinning in his comfy office chair, actually:
http://www.wirtschaftsland-sh.de/en/quality-of-life/detail-view/article/prof-mojib-latif-the-face-of-climate-change-in-germany/
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! HILARIOUS!

Richdo
January 19, 2013 4:12 am

The natural salinity characteristics of first year sea ice versus multi year ice should not be ignored when considering the relative abundance of melt pools.

January 19, 2013 4:33 am

RE: Goode ’nuff says:
January 18, 2013 at 10:36 pm
We’ll just send you and ten thousand others up there with drills. Drill holes in the ice at the bottom of the melt-water pools, the water drains down, and the problem is solved. Not only do you get to save the world, but the unemployment rate is lowered.
We’ll start with ten thousand employees from the EPA. They want to protect the environment, don’t they?

Gail Combs
January 19, 2013 4:34 am

E.M.Smith says:
January 18, 2013 at 10:11 pm
I posted this to a different thread, but it is more relevant to this one about arctic ice….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here is NOAA’s total global snow accumulation for the Holocene and the temperature too: graph Overall the snow accumulation IS INCREASING and the temperature DECREASING. The warmists alway forget to present the long view

beesaman
January 19, 2013 4:42 am

But doesn’t the melting water flush the deposits away?

Doug Huffman
January 19, 2013 5:02 am

I remember what may be a related phenomena in sun-cups, that form in any disturbance to the smooth surface of snow. A footprint or a feather on the smooth surface melted a cup.
Crossing Sierra Nevada glaciers in the summer was strenuous exercise for the insubstantial rims between sun-cups collapsing under a hiker’s weight. Isolated footprints seemed to start a field of sun-cups.

Berényi Péter
January 19, 2013 5:04 am

“Cryoconite holes form as particles of dust […] deposited on glaciers or ice caps absorb solar radiation, melting the snow or ice beneath.”
Yeah, that’s why there’s several hundred times more Aeolian (air-borne) dust during ice ages than in interglacials. To make sure enough cryoconite holes are formed to cover entire continents with a mile thick layer. Sure as hell.
see Temperature and atmospheric dust – EPICA ice-core
/sarc cubed
Clueless clowns

Gail Combs
January 19, 2013 5:18 am

E.M.Smith says:
January 18, 2013 at 11:47 pm
….As soon as the Arctic FAILS to melt we enter the next glacial. That’s how the cycle works. We only get an interglacial when there is enough sun north of 65 to melt the Arctic ice cap…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Length of Arctic Melt Season for last three years is shorter than normal for the last three decades. graph
This years growth of ice in Hudson Bay is faster than last four years. graph
The Northern Hemisphere Autumn Snowfall is on the rise too, compared to the lower levels prior to 1995. graph
Even the EPA’s chart of the global Sea Surface Temperature (SST) shows the rise in temperature stalled around 1998 graph
However the Sea Surface Temperature record is as munged up as the rest of the temperature records. Judith Curry has an excellent guest post On the adjustments to the HadSST3 data set Please note that the original data shows a 10-11 year variation that has been ‘adjusted out’ Since the Arctic melt is primarily due to ocean not air temperature and the sun has gone into a funk according to NASA graph as Eliza pointed out January 18, 2013 at 9:58 pm, I really wish the scientists would forget the politics and actually STUDY the darn climate. It is COLD that kills not warmth.

Conclusion
HadSST3 contains a series of adjustments. With the exception of the war-time glitch, they are not obvious from study of the record. Their existence is based on speculation and hypothesis. Calculation of the biases involves inverting a significant portion of written record’s meta-data for the period of the principal adjustment and ignoring detailed studies on the proportion and timing of changes in data sampling methods as well a speculation as to the magnitude of the various effects.
The principal effect of these adjustments is to selectively remove the majority of the long term variation from the earlier 2/3 of the data record and to disrupt circa 10-11y patterns clearly visible in the data. These changes are fundamentally altering the character of the original data….
A number of different analyses suggest that a simple correction to the war-time period (as was used before the creation of the Hadley Centre) provides a more coherent and credible result.
Comparison to studies of non SST data suggest that much of the variation in ICOADS is quite possibly due to real climate signals, not instrument bias. These variations require proper investigation, not a priori removal from the climate record.

Gail Combs
January 19, 2013 5:25 am

Speaking of Arctic Ice and Dust. Here is another dust/ice study. (Pay-walled)

Sun/dust correlations and volcanic interference
Abstract
We examine the relationship between the GISP2 dust profile, a proxy for the Northern Hemisphere atmospheric dust load, and the Wolf sunspot number, a proxy for solar activity. The two records are positively correlated, but the phase of the relationship is disturbed by the effects of explosive volcanism. Similar correlation failures have already been noted for many other climatic indicators. Our work suggests that a large fraction of the correlation failures may be attributed to explosive volcanic activity.

Bruce Cobb
January 19, 2013 6:12 am

I see they have the usual positive feedback loop or Trenberth’s “Arctic sea ice death spiral” nonsense. Too bad they have to mix pseudoscience in with actual science.

Caz in BOS
January 19, 2013 6:55 am

Surely an analysis of correlation between seasonality (insolation), short-term weather and the rate (acceleration) of melting would reveal whether black carbon absorption of visible light is indeed a major culprit.
If so, then the rate of melting would peak in late June. I know that the extent of ice reaches a minimum in late September, but what about the rate of melting? When does it peak? Meanwhile, if the peak melting rate occurs later, correlated with the arrival of solstice-warmed gulf-stream water, then the black carbon contribution is lost in the noise.
Also, if black carbon absorption of visible rather than natural fluctuations of UV light was the culprit, then there ought to be daily changes in the melting rate in accordance with cloud cover. I do not know these data, but it seems a reasonable experiment.

Doug Huffman
January 19, 2013 7:40 am

I’m not certain what is meant by “rate (acceleration)[sic]”. A rate is in general a ratio. An acceleration is a change in that ratio, itself a ratio mathematically equivalent the next higher power of the denominator.

Billy Liar
January 19, 2013 8:01 am

I wonder how much of the ‘fragile’ Arctic environment was pounded to ice chips by the voyage of the Polarstern. This happens every year: more and more icebreakers smash up the ice in the Arctic all the way to the pole doing ‘research’ and they come home wondering what causes the change in the Arctic.
It’ll be OK. Stop ‘researching’ it for a while or at least measure your impact.

January 19, 2013 9:09 am

Doug Huffman says:
January 19, 2013 at 5:02 am
I remember what may be a related phenomena in sun-cups, that form in any disturbance to the smooth surface of snow. A footprint or a feather on the smooth surface melted a cup.
Crossing Sierra Nevada glaciers in the summer was strenuous exercise for the insubstantial rims between sun-cups collapsing under a hiker’s weight. Isolated footprints seemed to start a field of sun-cups.
==========================================
Indeed. Mountaineers have more visceral names usually with an …ing ending for these holes. They are obviously formed around pebbles, even insects. They have discovered the way ice melts.
Fed scientists descend in helicopters straight from their offices and pronounce new names for the obvious. Let them spend a weeklong approach on skis and their powers of observation will improve.

Doug Huffman
January 19, 2013 9:49 am

Only faintly apropos, I walked the John Muir Trail south from the first of July and through the thaw, in perhaps the first party that year not equipped for winter mountaineering. We were kicking steps in rotten snow up a long forgotten pass when a flight of jets mistook our shaken fists for waves. They waggled their wings, and we listened to and felt the snow groaning for long minutes after their roar had disappeared.

higley7
January 19, 2013 10:36 am

Many scientists have an overblown idea of how much solar energy arrives in the Arctic. At it’s peak solar energy is at 17% due to the low angle and 17% of that due to having to travel through so much atmosphere. That renders solar energy at 3% of that at high noon elsewhere and ignores outright reflection.
There is no way the this meager input can do what they say. Instead, warm water pumped in from the south, as by the NAO, and warm air moving in from the south, during Spring and Summer, is much more effective at causing the annual melting. Water, in particular, is very effective as the warmer water would stay near the top of the water column and stay in contact with the underside of the ice. Spongy ice as it melts more likely is produced by melting from below.
Also, solar energy absorbed by open water would be very quickly dispelled by evaporative cooling. And it is important to realize that the low angle also results in significant reflection of solar energy back into space.

Rachelle
January 19, 2013 11:11 am

In the early ’70’s I stumbled across an MIT publication on climate modification that discussed, among other things, a Soviet proposal to sow soot on the polar ice to change the albedo and increase the rate of melting to make Siberia more hospitable – – Miami on the Arctic Sea maybe.

GregM
January 19, 2013 2:50 pm

Why is arctic research centres located in places like Bremerhaven and Colorado? Is it possible to get to know the ice properly by studying it from satellites and from an expedition now and then? Just asking.
German icebreaker Polarstern by the way, didn´t make it to the north pole this September 2012 They had an accident onboard and had to turn back for medical care. Chinese icebreaker Xuelong (Snow Dragon) from reasons unknown didn´t make it either.
Swedish Oden made it to the north pole for the 7:th time.
Interesting travelblog from two meteorologists with nice pictures here:
http://www.smhi.se/Bloggar/Arktisexpedition-2012-reseblogg/author/ulfchristensen/
In swedish, but perhaps google can translate (gets weird sometimes).
In the blog they say turquoise ice is very thick multi-year ice which should be carefully avoided.

GregM
January 19, 2013 3:23 pm

Why are arctic research centres….

January 19, 2013 5:21 pm

Interesting, but doesn’t explain why the older Arctic sea ice is, the faster it is melting.
2012: Between mid-March and the third week of August, the total amount of multiyear ice within the Arctic Ocean declined by 33%, and the oldest ice, ice older than five years, declined by 51%.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/09/arctic-sea-ice-falls-below-4-million-square-kilometers/
Hint: Embedded black carbon and increased solar insolation from decreased clouds.

January 19, 2013 7:17 pm

higley7 says:
January 19, 2013 at 10:36 am
“There is no way the this meager input can do what they say. Instead, warm water pumped in from the south, as by the NAO, and warm air moving in from the south, during Spring and Summer, is much more effective at causing the annual melting.”
Agreed.
UAH North Pole lower troposphere since from Dec 1978:
http://snag.gy/RwQte.jpg (point 251 is ~Jan 2000)
from: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
The NAO has become more negative since the late 1990’s:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/month_nao_index.shtml
and the summers with the greatest sea ice loss and have a stronger negative NAO, 1958 included, which had much melt ponds:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/norm.nao.monthly.b5001.current.ascii.table
Negative NAO is really not a global warming signal.

Goode 'nuff
January 19, 2013 7:47 pm

Re: Caleb 4:33 am
Don’t know what brought that on, maybe because I was talking to Climate Ace. Apparently not any some hardly know what an Arkansas snipe hunt is all about. That’d be when you invite some annoying know it all out into the wilderness or onto some uninhabited island to catch snipe and then runnoft and leave them there, lost, all by their lonesome.
He sure didn’t get it.
About the soot on the ice and melting, volcanic activity increased in the region since 1995, especially Russia. So I suspect stratospheric dust loading and unloading has been responsible for climate disruption, call me old school. When the dust settles out of the stratosphere there is warming in the lower atmosphere and on the ice.
That’s why it’s nice to have samples and have analysis of them. 🙂

Editor
January 19, 2013 11:50 pm

@Gail Combs:
Oh you are just a bundle of good news and joy… /sarcoff>;
Seriously, to anyone with a brain that works the data are pretty darned clear. Look at the 10,000 year scale, we are marching inevitably toward the next glacial, we are well past the “tipping point” on insolation, and it’s just a matter of the next big cold ‘dip’. (That will arrive no mater what we do as it is driven by things who’s scale makes what we do entirely a big fat zero.)
There ARE ‘short term’ excursions (unfortunately, both hot and cold) where short term is about 60 years, and medium term of about 200 years. We’ve had a nice warm one on BOTH cycles for a while now, and it’s time for both of them to turn down at the same time ( i.e. the look to have come into sync). Using a 30 year average on that kind of fundamental data structure is beyond stupid and verging into either insanity or malice (depending on motivation – which can not be known).
The only “good” news out of any of this is that the Fat Lady is starting to sing. Even if it will take the better part of a decade to be heard.
Oh Well. At least I live in a naturally warm place 😉 Oh, and when the gulf stream has a slow down, which it regularly does, and Europe goes into the meat locker (which it will do) Florida and the US Desert Southwest improve. So might want to pick out that Florida condo oar “cactus ranch” now…