Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
The last time I was in Alaska, I had the good fortune to stop by the town of Nenana, home of the Nenana River Ice Classic. Nenana sits at the junction of the Tanana and Nenana Rivers. The dates of the ice breakup at Nenana form one of the longest-term modern temperature proxies in the area, extending back unbroken to 1917. Figure 1 shows my photo of the tripod which is set out on the ice to determine the exact tim of the breakup.
Figure 1. The tower and the tripod. The tripod is placed out on the ice before the breakup. When the ice breaks up, the tripod falls, tripping the clock. These days the tripod is actually a quadripod, or perhaps a quadruped.
Every year people pay money to bet on the exact time of the breakup, with the winner taking the pot. At present, the pot is $318,500 …
There’s a recent WUWT post by Psalmon about the Ice Classic here. Although I’d written about it previously, there were a couple of things I didn’t understand about Nenana until I’d visited the place.The first was the reason the ice breakup was so important. It was critical because both then and now, the river is navigable, and becomes a main highway for people and supplies during the summer. Until the breakup, little villages and cabins and camps along the river can’t get their supplies or travel by water. Although this is less important now with the advent of highways, there still are many places along the river that can only be reached by traveling along the river. That made the breakup a huge event in the old days.
The second thing I didn’t understand was the reason why the breakup was so sudden and complete. The map shows the Tanana River and surroundings:
Figure 2. The Tanana River and its tributaries flow north to the Yukon River. The Yukon flows from the top center to the upper left of the figure, with a portion appearing dark blue.
The reason the breakup comes suddenly is that unlike most US rivers, the rivers around Nenana are flowing north. As a result, the more southerly upriver parts of the drainage would tend to melt earlier. At some point this increasing upstream meltwater will put pressure on the downriver ice, and as the ice at Nenana rots and melts, the whole thing will break and collapse at once.
Now, you’d think that the river breakup dates would be a perfect temperature proxy. After all, urban warming surely won’t be an issue. However, nature always sides with the hidden flaw, so of course there is a confounding factor—rain. Rain can hasten the breakup significantly by melting the ice from the top. In addition to starting out warmer than the ice, rainwater pools have less albedo than ice, so they warm more for a given amount of sunlight. Rain also increases the volume of water flowing in the river, so it puts additional pressure on the ice. As a result, the breakup dates form the usual imperfect proxy for temperature.
Given all of that, here are the inverse dates of ice breakup since the Classic was first run in 1917.
Figure 3. Nenana ice breakup dates since 1917. The result for 2013 will be equal to or greater than today, May 15th. Blue dots show the standard error of the Gaussian average at the endpoint in 2013.
For me, it is clear that what we are seeing are the effects of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. This is a slow, decades long cycle in the heat distribution in the Pacific Ocean. In about 1945 the PDO shifted to the cool phase, then went back to the warm phase in about 1975, and has recently switched again to the cool phase.
Overall? I’d say there’s not a whole lot to see in the ice records. Temperatures went up a bit, down a bit, up a bit, and appear to be on their way back down again … be still, my beating heart, it’s all too exciting.
I leave you with the current photo from the Nenana Icecam, at 8:47 Alaska Daylight Time May 15, still no breakup, but goodness, it’s a lovely spring day in Alaska … makes my heart leap just to look at it.
Regards to all,
w.
DATA: the historical breakup days are available here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

A good read as always.
A phrase in one of your sentences jump-out that I very much like: “ . . . nature always sides with the hidden flaw . . . “
It reminded me of the final sentence in Richard Feynman’s appendix to the Rogers Commission report on the Space Shuttle Challenger failure:
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
Cheers,
Mark
The reason for the two humps in the break-up data is probably due to the fact that there is a strong correlation to the ENSO here (from Alaska down down to Minnesota). It has the strongest correlation of any region in fact other than the ENSO regions themselves, Australia and Indonesia. Northwest North America is one of the most impacted regions from the ENSO.
Early break-up in El Nino years, late break-up in La Ninas. 3 month lag in effect. There was weak La Nina conditions early in 2013.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/La_Nina_regional_impacts.gif
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/El_nino_north_american_weather.png/468px-El_nino_north_american_weather.png
HenryP says:
May 15, 2013 at 10:38 am
Sorry for the lack of clarity. It’s the standard error of the 11-year gaussian smooth. When you get to the end of the data using a centered 11-year smooth of some kind, the final points are an estimate of the eventual smoothed curve that you will obtain when you have the next five years of data.
That estimate, of course, has a standard error which I’ve indicated by the error bars. For a discussion of the issue, see my post “Dr. Michael Mann, Smooth Operator“.
w.
Bob says:
May 15, 2013 at 12:12 pm
Hey! That ice-cam is a terrific thing. I’m thinking about inviting neighbors over to watch for the ice-free moment. This is what life comes to when you retire.
========================================================
If you need some more excitement, I can send you a can of paint to watch dry !!
(only 25 years until I “retire”)
Mark Cates says:
May 15, 2013 at 11:44 am
I would prefer my Nenana breakfast in August, but you’re a lucky man nonetheless …
w.
Weather – even over a fair-ish chunk of Alaska, which is twice the size of Texas – isn’t climate.
But – and Willis, many thanks again! – lots of ‘bits’ of weather make up climate – in enough time.
fascinating.
Auto
Talking about ENSO and La Nina, the cold SST plume of Peru in the East Pacific at the end of the anomaly animation looks like something from the intro sequence of a James Bond movie just now.
Just thought I’d throw this in since this is all about melting ice: just found a striking correlation in recent AO index and rate of change of CO2.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=227
Now since out-gassing of sea water is a function of temperature the dip may presage a cold 2013. Most of NH seems to be feeling it already but also a rebound for 2015.
Good news since, despite wanting to see an end AGW hysteria, I’m not sure I want pay the price of a replay of the Maunder Minimum to prove the point.
Since Willis has already pointed out the tropical oceans are fairly stable in temperature and polar regions are reckoned to show polar amplification of warming, I think this may be where a lot of the increasing CO2 is coming from.
Cold water holds a lot more CO2 than warm tropical waters to start with.
Now rate of change of CO2 does not cause temperature but the other way around does fit the physics and those wiggles are specific enough for this not to be coincidence.
So that dip supports a late melt this year but don’t bet on the same thing next year.
What about the run-off of the tributaries upstream ?, if you get enough water flowing under the ice, it will either melt from below or rise enough to loosen its grips on the banks of the river, thus moving the tripod and making someone rather wealthy. No ??
Fred Harwood says:
May 15, 2013 at 11:55 am
Interesting thought, Fred. Let’s see. The coal is from the Usibelli mines, and that coal has about 1.64e+10 joules per tonne. Then 2e+5 tonnes of coal would have about 3.3e+15 joules of energy. Say 40% is used to generate electricity, so you’d assume that 60%, or 2e+15 joules of heat would be lost, mostly going into the river cooling water.
But what John Daly might not have known is that because of the extreme cold, the power plants in Fairbanks are co-generation plants. In addition to electricity, they produce both hot water and steam, for residential, commercial, and city use.
So during the time the Nenana River is frozen, much of the waste heat is going to providing steam and hot water rather than to warming the Tanana River.
Now, co-generation is typically pretty efficient. So I’d estimate that rather than 60% of the total heat content of the coal going into the river, maybe 10% heats the river water. That’s still a big number, 3.3e14 joules of heat each year. That works out to 9e+11 joules entering the river daily.
It takes about 4.2e+6 joules of energy to heat a tonne of water one degree C. So how much water is in the river? Man, I love the web … here’s the Tanana river flow in Fairbanks earlier this month. It was about 25,000 cubic feet per second. That’s about 708 cubic metres per second, which is 6.12e+7 tonnes per day.
So now, we have all the information we need. We have 9e+9 joules heating 6.12e+7 tonnes of water each day, at 4.2e+6 joules per degree per ton, crunch the numbers, the Tanana River is warmed about 0.003°C by the power plant … so even if there were ten plants and twice the waste heat per plant, it’s still in the hundredths of a degree. But there aren’t ten power plants upriver of Tanana, there are three. The other two together use about 120,000 tons of coal per year. So the heating is still trivially small.
Check my numbers, I’ve been known to make mistakes …
w.
Greg Goodman says:
May 15, 2013 at 1:12 pm
As I said in the head post,
w.
Just now gone past 1935 into third place. Second looks set to go too in another 19 hrs, the ice still looks very solid.
FWIW,
I’ve read that to be near a river during ice break-up, is a thing to behold.
Just for the sounds.
Maybe one of these days.
it’s the only tripod with four legs.
Looks like a nonopod to me (one less than the decapods doubtless waiting below to see the sun).
Thanks, Willis.
Interesting geography lesson.
Nah.
With nine legs, its got to be a Nenanapod.
A Nenananonopod?
The ice break up on the Moose River at Moose Factory, Ontario probably has long record of break up dates. This is also a north flowing river, but at lower latitude. Break up was last week for 2013.
A few things for your consideration:
Fairbanks gets most of its electricity from burning diesel these days. The Healy clean coal plant has been the center of a decade long pi$$ing contest between Golden Valley Electric (GVEA) (Fairbanks area electric co-op) and the State of Alaska since 2000. It has just recently been transferred to GVEA and may get fired up depending on how hard the EPA fights the air quality permits.
One mode of travel in the Bush during the winter is to drive diesel pickups up and down the rivers while they are iced over. Still have to be careful as there are springs.
Interior Alaska has more than a little trouble with flooding after break up, as it is not uncommon to get ice dams on the rivers and flood the surrounding countryside. This is the other reason that breakup is monitored closely – first you can’t travel on the ice any more and then the ice and ice cold water comes to visit for a while.
Still a lot of snow on the mountains around Anchorage. Rivers and creeks are going to be high for most of the summer as it melts and runs off. Cheers –
PDO oscillating? Well it looks like it mirrors the global temp trace – 1936 high, the following lows, upturn in the 80s and 90s to 1997-98 and then curving downward into cooler temps. Since it is argued that that global temp curve is a signature of CO2 increase (except for after 1997 – a pretty damning blow to CO2), I guess faithful can argue its mainly CO2 and the darn ocean began swallowing heat (for some reason) after 1997. Or, all we need are the oceanic oscillations to explain the whole shitteree.
“As I said in the head post, DATA: the historical breakup days are available here.” Awe crap , you mean I have to go through and format it all by hand !
Thanks.
BTW last years data seems to be missing ? Did you find it ?
Under the “Ice” heading of their website, they have weekly ice thickness records from January through May (or until breakup) for every week for every year since 1989.
A quick look shows no significant pattern, nor any visible changes from this year to the two recent years of most significant Arctic Ocean minimum sea ice extent: 2007 and 2012.
So, is minimum Arctic sea ice extents really indicative of any “temperature proxy” anywhere else in the Arctic at all?
The graph appears to me reasonably honest. It appears to me as usable
to support a contention for a warming trend, or for lack of warming in the
past 25 years.
Keep in mind that this is a specific location, as opposed to a region or
the world as a whole. I would give more weight to satellite-based
determinations of global lower troposphere temperature. I see those,
despite the century-class 1998 spike, indicating 12 years of lack of
warming as opposed to the bantied-about 15-17 years.
Not that I think manmade global warming exists to the degree that most
advocates of its existence insist upon, but I see that it exists, as surely as
a roughly ~65 year (if temporarily so) natural cycle – which shows up
well in HadCRUT3.
Greg Goodman says:
May 15, 2013 at 7:07 pm
Here you go, we’re a full service website …
w.