From the University of Southern Denmark. This is a bit of a surprise, and may well be true, but I’m not too keen on the first couple of paragraphs. Summer sea ice extent has most surely reduced, winter sea ice the last couple of years has been near normal.
Climate change is a fact, and most of the warming is caused by human activity. The Arctic is now so warm that the extent of sea ice has decreased by about 30 pct. in summer and in winter, sea ice is getting thinner. New research has shown that sea ice removes CO2 from the atmosphere. If Arctic sea ice is reduced, we may therefore be facing an increase of atmospheric concentration of CO2, researchers warn.
Due to global warming, larger and larger areas of sea ice melt in the summer and when sea ice freezes over in the winter it is thinner and more reduced. As the Arctic summers are getting warmer we may see an acceleration of global warming, because reduced sea ice in the Arctic will remove less CO2 from the atmosphere, Danish scientists report. “If our results are representative, then sea ice plays a greater role than expected, and we should take this into account in future global CO2 budgets”, says Dorte Haubjerg Søgaard, PhD Fellow, Nordic Center for Earth Evolution, University of Southern Denmark and the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, Nuuk.
![Dorte%20Haubjerg%20S%C3%B8gaard%20studying%20sea%20ice%20in%20Greenland%20LOW[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/dorte20haubjerg20sc3b8gaard20studying20sea20ice20in20greenland20low1.jpg?quality=83)
Sea ice draws CO2 from the atmosphereOnly recently scientists have realized that sea ice has an impact on the planet’s CO2 balance.”We have long known that the Earth’s oceans are able to absorb huge amounts of CO2. But we also thought that this did not apply to ocean areas covered by ice, because the ice was considered impenetrable. However, this is not true: New research shows that sea ice in the Arctic draws large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere into the ocean”, says Dorte Haubjerg Søgaard.Dorte Haubjerg Søgaard has just completed her studies of sea ice in Greenland. The studies show that sea ice may have a major impact on the global carbon cycle, and that chemical processes have a much greater impact on the sea ice’s ability to remove CO2 than biological processes. The research is published as a series of articles in scientific journals.”The chemical removal of CO2 in sea ice occurs in two phases. First crystals of calcium carbonate are formed in sea ice in winter. During this formation CO2 splits off and is dissolved in a heavy cold brine, which gets squeezed out of the ice and sinks into the deeper parts of the ocean. Calcium carbonate cannot move as freely as CO2 and therefore it stays in the sea ice. In summer, when the sea ice melts, calcium carbonate dissolves, and CO2 is needed for this process. Thus, CO2 gets drawn from the atmosphere into the ocean – and therefore CO2 gets removed from the atmosphere”, explains Dorte Haubjerg Søgaard.
The biological removal of CO2 is done by algae binding of carbon in organic material.
Frost flowers also contribute
Another important discovery is that every winter flower-like ice formations are formed on the surface of newly formed sea ice. They are called frost flowers. Dorte Haubjerg Søgaard has discovered that these frost flowers hold extremely high concentrations of calcium carbonate, which can have a further significant impact on the potential CO2 uptake in the Arctic.
Photo top: Dorte Haubjerg Søgaard from University of Denmark/Grønlands Naturinstitut studies how sea ice removes CO2 from the atmosphere. Photo: Søren Rysgaard.
Photo below: A frost flower has emerged on new sea ice. Photo: David Barber.
Contact Ph.d. Dorte Haubjerg Søgaard, Tel: +299321200 and doso@natur.gl.
Ref:
The relative contributions of biological and abiotic processes to carbon dynamics in subarctic sea ice, Polar Biology: Dorte Haubjerg Søgaard, David N. Thomas, Søren Rysgaard, Ronnie Nøhr Glud, Louiza Norman, Hermanni Kaartokallio, Thomas Juul-Pedersen, Nicolas-Xavier Geilfus. doi 10.1007/s00300-013-1396-3.
Haven’t the last few summers been the coldest on record for the Arctic?
How many significant factors in the CO2 budget are not well considered by the climate modeling consensus?
Soil, ice, land use, fresh water systems, etc. etc.
Since world sea ice levels are high and CO2 is a well mixed gas, this has large implications that the cliamte obsessed have not even considered. Yet for them the science is settled.
As to the authors bit of self-policing, that is no more than when scientists were discovering things that falsified the young earth of biblical interpretation and felt the need to make pro-forma nods to the Church.
‘As the Arctic summers are getting warmer we may see an acceleration of global warming, because reduced sea ice in the Arctic will remove less CO2 from the atmosphere, Danish scientists report.’
Meanwhile, other Danish scientists report-
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2014.png
Talk about left hand not knowing what the right hand’s doing.
I was thinking the same thing, and also remembering that last years Arctic summer temperatures were also below average:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2013.png
Well climate has been changing ever since the big bang, which actually was a very tiny bang.
But as to this icy CO2 thing, it is well known that the seasonal cycle of CO2 in the Arctic, is more than three times the amplitude of the ML cycle, and the south polar amplitude is almost zero.
Now years ago, I proposed that the cause of the big arctic cycle (there’s no trees in the arctic ocean), was the segregation coefficient of CO2 between water and ice in the freeze / melt cycle. The same thing that causes the ice to be fresh water rather than salt (besides those brines).
That idea was pooh-poohed by someone who is a CO2 expert, at Scripps as I recall (seemed like a nice chap).
But I don’t see plant growth explaining the 18-20 ppm of CO2 cycle in the north polar region.
Now I dunno, whether this new study either supports, or refutes MY theory, but it is interesting, and obvious from the first few paragraphs, that the author(s) were clearly intoxicated at the time of writing that.
There is a large exchange of air masses between the mid-latitudes and the high North via the Ferrel cells.
The seasonal variation at Schauinsland, Southern Germany is as big as at Barrow. Anyway, it is plant growing that is dominant, even at Barrow, as the opposite δ13C and CO2 changes show (see the graph above).
That will also make the oceans under the ice less alkaline if co2 reduces PH. So with retreating ice you must see an increase in PH. And with recovering ice we will see a reduction. So the acidification of the oceans must be a sign of recovery then since the sea ice is increasing !
It seems to me that if the melting of sea ice filled with calcium carbonate requires CO2 from the atmosphere, then the conclusion that the melting of Arctic sea ice (lower winter limits) will not create the result claimed by the authors.
The claimed effect is only available if the ice melts. There is NO reason to think that having thicker multi-year ice will increase the drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere. Quite the opposite.
Suppose the Arctic ice melted entirely each summer. Then the melting would be complete each year. At the moment only a portion of the ice melts. With the entire sea ice cap melted, that would give the extraction of the maximum amount of CO2 possible.
In winter the water would freeze again and the process would continue, presumably with a lower total extent depending on the severity of the winter. Fine. What is the total mass involved?
The cycling of the mass of ice (Delta ICE) from melting to freezing is the key, not the temperature at which it takes place or the extent of sea ice in any one year. The idea that if it was thicker when it melted means that the summer temps should be higher than usual, and melt more, and that winters should be colder and freeze more. That is the only way to increase the pumping through the system. The only way to decrease the pumping is to re-freeze and re-melt a smaller total mass, which is not yet evident, is it? Any ice-free Arctic winter days yet?
The analysis fails on this point. In general the claim is that having a reduced extent (limit) means having less mass of ice that is cycled through the melt-freeze process. But if it melts back father, there is the same Delta Ice and there is no change in CO2 pumping.
On the other hand long-frozen sea ice stuck to the sea floor in Antarctica might melt and result in a permanent, once-off pumping of CO2 into the ocean, after which it will cycle in the same way as the Arctic, resulting in a much great drawdown than before.
Pardon me for asking such a stupid question but how would a melting ice cap prove that co2 is responsible for warming the planet uncontrollably in the first place?
In the good news department I have discovered what has so far been a flawless predictor of impending rain. I observed large numbers of people walking down my street and noticed that every time they pull out and open umbrellas or cover their heads with newspapers the rain begins immediately. When the umbrellas start closing and the newspapers come down the rain invariably stops. Clearly, based on the evidence, umbrellas and newspapers regulate precipitation.
I deserve a Nobel Peace prize for this discovery.
“Pardon me for asking such a stupid question but how would a melting ice cap prove that co2 is responsible for warming the planet uncontrollably in the first place?”
It doesn’t. In fact, the only means by which CO2 is claimed to facilitate Arctic melt if by temperature increase. But the temperatures during the melt season have decreased. Winter temperatures, however, have increased slightly at the same time (and at a higher rate). The temperatures, though, aren’t likely to be responsible for the increased melt – unless, of course, you are talking about a reduction in evaporation which results in great exposure to the sun for melting… a result of lower temperatures.
These effects, however, are quite possible due to CO2. But not, necessarily, by any radiative qualities it possesses, but by its specific heat alone. You’d expect warmer lows and lower highs as a result of CO2, with the delta of change being greater at lower temperatures (relative to Earth’s conditions – Venus is another story).
A) There was no comparison of CO2 uptake for whole season cycle. I mean open sea compared to time to time ice covered and melting sea.
B) There was no measurement of CO2 outflow at freezing process. High concentration of ikaite in frost flowers is sign of CO2 outflow.
C) Claims concerning global CO2 are not directly found in publications but in the press release.
D) It seems that mainly the increase of CO2 uptake at melting process is more or less compensation of slower uptake of ice covered sea.
E) You can read more in plain Finnish here:
http://roskasaitti.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/miksi-jaatutkimukset-uutisoitiin-harhauttavasti/