From the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK and the “I can hear sea ice fanatic heads exploding already” department comes this bit of good news.
Melting sea ice may lead to more life in the sea
Melt ponds provide more light and heat for the ice and the underlying water, but now it turns out that they may also have a more direct and potentially important influence on life in the Arctic waters.
Mats of algae and bacteria can evolve in the melt ponds, which can provide food for marine creatures. This is the conclusion of researchers in the periodical, Polar Biology.
Own little ecosystems
- The melt ponds can form their own little ecosystem. When all the sea ice melts during the summer, algae and other organisms from melt ponds are released into the surrounding seawater. Some of this food is immediately ingested by creatures living high up in the water column. Other food sinks to the bottom and gets eaten by seabed dwellers, explains Heidi Louise Sørensen, who is the principal author of the scientific article, continuing:
- Given that larger and larger areas of melt ponds are being formed in the Arctic, we can expect the release of more and more food for creatures in the polar sea.
Heidi Louise Sørensen studied the phenomenon in a number of melt ponds in North-Eastern Greenland as part of her PhD thesis at University of Southern Denmark (SDU).
Bo Thamdrup and Ronnie Glud of SDU, and Erik Jeppesen and Søren Rysgaard of Aarhus University also contributed to the work.
Food for seals and sea cucumbers
In the upper part of the water column it is mainly krill and copepods that benefit from the nutrient-rich algae and bacteria from melt ponds. These creatures are eaten by various larger animals, ranging from amphipods to fish, seals and whales. Deeper down, it is seabed dwellers such as sea cucumbers and brittle stars that benefit from the algae that sink down.
For some time now, researchers have been aware that simple biological organisms can evolve in melt ponds – they may even support very diverse communities. But so far it has been unclear why sometimes there are many organisms in the ponds, and on other occasions virtually none.
According to the new study, ‘nutrients’ is the keyword. When nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen find their way into a melt pond, entire communities of algae and micro-organisms can flourish.
From the Siberian tundra
Nutrients can find their way into a melt pond in a variety of ways, For example, they can be washed in with waves of sea water; they can be transported by dust storms from the mainland (for example, from the Siberian tundra); or they can be washed with earth from the coast out on the ice, when it rains.
Finally, migratory birds or other larger animals resting on the ice can leave behind sources of nutrient.
- Climate change is accompanies by more storms and more precipitation, and we must expect that more nutrients will be released from the surroundings into the melt ponds. These conditions, plus the fact that the distribution of areas of melt ponds is increasing, can contribute to increased productivity in plant and animal life in the Arctic seas, says Professor Ronnie Glud of the Department of Biology at SDU.
Warmer and more windy
There are further factors that may potentially contribute to increased productivity in the Arctic seas:
- When the sea ice disappears, light can penetrate down into the water.
- water. When it gets warmer on the mainland, this creates more melt water, which can flow out into the sea, carrying nutrients in its wake.
BOX What the researchers did
Six melt ponds in Young Sound in North-Eastern Greenland were selected: two natural and four artificial basins. Phosphorous and nitrogen (nutrients, which are also known from common garden fertilizer) were added in various combinations to four ponds, while two served as control ponds. For a period of up to 13 days Heidi Louise Sørensen measured many different parameters in the melt water, including the content of Chlorophyll a: a pigment that enables algae to absorb energy from light. The chlorophyll content of the phosphorus- and nitrogen-enriched ponds was 2 to 10 times higher than in the control ponds and testifies to an increased content of algae.
BOX This is why the number of melt ponds is on the rise
Global warming is melting more and more sea ice, potentially forming an increasing number of melt ponds. NASA satellites have just measured the smallest ever distribution of sea ice in the Arctic. The melt ponds make the ice darker, so it absorbs, rather than reflects light and thereby it heats. This accelerates the melting process. Satellite photos show that areas with melt ponds are getting bigger each year.
###
The paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00300-017-2082-7
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Surprise, surprise, sunlight brings life.
I always wondered why the tropics were so lush and the poles so barren, now I know.
The next phase is to get the nomenclature changed
Global Warming = The Warming Globe
Climate Change = The Changing Climate
Weather Extremes = Weather
Phaw!!
That’s taking things to the extreme isn’t it?
Weather Extremes = Weather?
That will never do, the alarmists couldn’t possibly agree to it. What happens if it rains tomorrow? It’s bound to be Noah’s encore.
There is a constant action and feedback loop going on between available CO2 volume and life. More CO2, more life, results in less CO2 and less life. Man-made input can affect this loop but it will only result in a bigger feedback. Natural inputs are far larger.
In general, more atmospheric CO2 is good for our planet. The pluses far outweigh the downside risks.
However, like all significant change, there is a tendency by many who really have no natural advantage in society, in that they do not offer anything that society wants or needs, to distort regulations to get advantage over others. Business that follows such trends supports these regulations in order to seek government based rent. Government always pays because it can collect at the point of a gun or print and debase.
Major changes can affect an economy to the point of chaos as essential services are not funded as funds are diverted to service rent seekers.
Healthy economies have few rent seekers.
Yeah, this should have been filed under the “No S*** Sherlock” department.
Phosphorous and nitrogen were added….
Makes your head explode…doesn’t it
Breaking…..scientists discover tomatoes grow faster if fertilized
No wonder Denmark has such ridiculously high tax rates. They are funding ridiculous research. At least they have symmetry.
no sh*t
Phosphorus–the element–has two o’s; phosphorous–the adjective, indicating a compound of phosphorus–has three.
Interesting article, though I question the offhand assumption that the melt ponds increase year by year.
Yeah, Duh! Like the fact that Earth in Hot House mode is always lush, lots of plants, lots of animals (herbivores and omnivores) living on those plants, and lot of carnivores and omnivores living on the herbivores.
Most people don’t realize an inter-glacial is relatively sparse, just not as bad as a full-on glacial.
Why would the warmista’s heads explode? After all, they do not view more life as a good thing. They are anti-CO2, which is anti-life.
yep, containers with vacuous spaces implode.
Except polar bears. There are never enough polar bears. Try to keep up.
I’m hurt that no one agonizes over the Penguin and Walrus
http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130717213344/chipmunkstunesbabiesallstarssadventuresseries/images/3/3b/Tennessee_Tuxedo_%26_Chumley.gif
Try to imagine a small iceberg supporting the characters in the picture.
But polar bears eat ice, don’t they? So if there is less ice, there will be fewer polar bears.
You answered your own question.
Why just imagine – here you go, Chum(ley)!
http://s2.postimg.org/obz7lv9uh/chumley.png
Even Arctic ocean is ‘blooming’ as it is getting warmer
http://www.pcnen.com/portal/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Arktik.jpg
https://phys.org/news/2017-03-mystery-arctic-green-ice.html
The greening of ice algae.
Hmmmmmm, Green, from a frozen wasteland.
Did anyone tell our green cousins this? Or do they just ignore the fact that sunlight/heat/CO2/O2 are givers of life, at least to us normal homo sapiens?
Hmmmmmm, maybe they associate green with gangrene.
Thats it! The solution!
They are all Syphilitic, infested with gangrene, and only see green as evil.
Job done.
I’ll get my own coat thanks……………
HotScot,
The ‘greens’ are the race of ‘humans’ who escaped from Green-land. Since now they inhabit much warmer habitats, they genuinely suffer from the thermophobia, i.e. they are genetically predisposed to be born as the frigophiles, hence the ‘greens’ tendency to proclaim even the slightest of the warming as catastrophic event for the all living creatures, and the cause of every storm, flood, drought, more or less snow, more or less ice, etc, i.e every imaginable ‘run of the mill’ weather event.
Jeez… could that be “soilent green”? Oh Mann!
Oops, meant “Soylent Green”…
I like the first spelling, as in they are soiling their environment.
A lesser amount of Arctic sea ice , similar to pre-LIA norms, would be totally and absolutely beneficial to everyone trying to live in the Arctic region.
Transport, commerce, fishing would all become the norm, rather than a rare occurrence for a short period of the year.
Unfortunately, the AMO is turning, and the promised RECOVERY from the extremes of the LIA has paused, may not actually eventuate
The extraction of Carbon from atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is necessary to sustain life.
Ice does not promote photosynthesis. The melt water pools allow for algae to extract the carbon that carbon based life forms need.
CO2 is the base of the food chain for all carbon based life forms.
There is a rising trend in arctic sea ice extend the last 12 years.
Possibly not so much more ponds in the future…
As if melting arctic ice is a bad thing. One commenter in particular thinks it is a sign of the end of the world 🙂
Arctic ice (and for that matter, Antarctic ice) is only good for one thing. A nice cool Gin and Tonic, with some tropical Lime and Lemon slices.
Bliss.
Salty sea ice?
Water rejects salt when it freezes. Older sea ice is fresh enough that Eskimos drink it.
Besides, it means you can save the step in margarita preparation of salting the rim.
Interesting thesis. But countered by other recent work showing that ice algae (which grow on the underside of sea ice without a nutrient dependency) are up to 50% of primary productivity in the high Arctic. Unsurprisingly those papers said lower levels of summer sea ice would therefore reduce Arctic ocean productivity. That of course ignores the other 50% of Arctic phytoplanckton and alge primary productivity that are free water rather than sea ice dependent. IMO there is so much yet to learn about Arctic ice, ice algae, ocean algae and meltpond algae that both the pro and con ‘conclusions’ are more in the realm of speculation.
Then, IMLO, that “other recent work” is a prime example of FUBAR researchers claiming a fictitious “fear-mongering percentage” in a silly attempt to give credibility to their claims.
I thought this would be from the “department of the bleeding obvious”.
It should be obvious that less sea ice is a good thing, except in Cuckoo CACAland.
Unfortunately, the trend is upward for sea ice in both hemispheres. It could accelerate steeply once the effects of the super El Nino of 2015-16 are blown off.
BTW, even in the pack of lies perpetrated by corrupt NOAA’s book-cooking NSIDC, Arctic sea ice has grown for three straight days now. Its phony “data” show 14.140 million square kilometers for March 24, 14.111 M sq. km. for March 25 and 14.093 M sq. km. for March 26, but 14.100 M sq. km. for March 27, 14.120 M sq. km. for March 28 and 14.140 M sq. km. for March 29, ie back to the March 26 level.
Griff’s “certain” prediction for a new record low Arctic sea ice extent this summer is looking ever iffier.
Sorry. Meant back to March 24 level.
I’m guessing that the extra melt pond algae makes a small contribution compared with the already existing algae in the sea.
I suspect a PR flack is making this paper sound more important than it actually is.
cB, good thought. Melt ponds are small water volumes compared to Arctic summer surface waters in the photic zone, and summer ice bottoms. Still, kudos to this European Uni for not being AGW alarmist. A small breath of fresh air. To show how twisted European Uni PR things get, see essay Good Bad News in ebook Blowing Smoke.
A little about Arctic light from a Canuk
Watch the sunset, anywhere. Just after sunset there is still plenty of light, enough to play baseball. That is what the Arctic looks like even if the sun is technically down.
It doesn’t rise and stay up except at the Pole. Each day the sun gets closer and closer to the horizon then drops away again. There is a lot of light during ‘dark season’.
Once the sun is up and the parties are over, it goes around just below the horizon so it looks a lot like sunrise even if it is technically ‘down’. So in summer a village may have 22 hours of sun-up and 2 hrs of sun just below the horizon. There is a lot of light in the Arctic.
Perhaps I misunderstand you but your statement as I read it is wrong.
Anywhere north of the Arctic Circle has at least one day where the sun does not go below the horizon. link I’ve been there and seen it for months at a time.
Technically all places get the same amount of daylight time, an average of about 12 hours a day. It is more evenly spread at the equator, and less evenly at the poles is all.
Here is a report on Polar Night from the Aurora Research Institute.
It clears up some misconceptions. For instance in summer you play golf at midnight in Yellowknife on the 21st of June. Yellowknife is 450 km south of the Arctic Circle. You do not get Polar night until you go as far north as Resolute in Canada.
https://nwtresearch.com/sites/default/files/the-polar-night.pdf
“Every year, as global warming increases, ”
I’m puzzled – so is “global warming” now accepted on this site, after the 17/18 years of cooling? Or is the reference solely down to the recent El Nino and we’re now cooling again? Can someone please enlighten me?
Look carefully at the lead post. The quote is from the Uni PR. The irony being pointed out is that a good thing supposedly came from this warming, again according to the Uni PR.
“Heidi Louise Sørensen studied the phenomenon in a number of melt ponds in North-Eastern Greenland as part of her PhD thesis at University of Southern Denmark (SDU).”
Invalid scientific method. No models involved.
Griff??? you out there?
A post without Griffs comment is no post.
He needs the Guardian to cover this to guide him.
A post without Skankhunt42, er, I mean Griff, is pure bliss, IMHO.
The next climate science re-discovery it is going to be … Watermelon snow!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermelon_snow
Known since Aristotle, this algae is waiting to be rediscovered by some eco-nuts who will come down from the mountains shouting “Gaia is bleeding!”
BTW, I find this paragraph from wiki particularly interesting:
I get the same color floating at the edge of my from my Bass/Bluegill pond. The county agent says it’s blue-green algae and can sometimes be toxic, though I’ve never lost a fish to it, even in extreme drought.
cut and paste confounds me at times…
One more piece of good news. By the time the melt ponds appear the sun is already at such a low angel of inclination that the water may reflect more (not less) of the incoming sunlight than the surrounding ice. This provides a negative feedback (not positive) and causes less ice melt than without ice ponds.
Yes, it still hasn’t sunk in to researchers that the meltwater ponds only look dark because the reflection is specular and concentrated in a narrow sheath that requires the observer being in the right place to observe it. Depending on the angle of incidence of the sunlight, the reflection from water can be higher than from snow or ice. These broad-brush statements betray that biologists haven’t been introduced to Fresnel’s equation for reflection.
Anyone who has looked out over a body of water near sunrise or sunset can easily grasp this concept.
It’s a hoax. But if it is happening it’s a good thing.
Mc Clod strike again
dubious intelligence rules with that guy.
Like most warmists, McClod confuses wit with intelligence.
The problem is he doesn’t have much of either.
I’m going to guess that you actually believe there is something wrong with that statement.
It’s a hoax.
Even if it isn’t a hoax it’s nothing to worry about.
Ergo, there is nothing to worry about.
Forrest,
I’ve felt for some time that decreasing cloudiness is a better explanation for melting ice than the slight increase in atmospheric temperatures above ice that is well below the melting point.
The Arctic is mostly cloudy, the Antarctic is nearly always clear. Climate models mostly miss that.
Forrest and lenbilen,
I haven’t taken the time to explore the historical situation with respect to cloudiness in the Arctic. The Arctic has a reputation for being cloudy (hence the need for Viking sailors to use their famous sunstone), but that could be changing.
Anecdotally, when I first got interested in the general global warming topic, I found a USGS website for Glacier National Park (MT). It claimed that most of the glaciers were in retreat. The exception to that was on the north side of the park, where there were two ice fields that had essentially been stable for a century. What that told me was that glaciers exposed to potential sunlight were melting, while those in the shadow of the mountains were not. That is, it wasn’t ambient air temperature that was the culprit, but instead, heating from sunlight. That particular website disappeared not long after I found it and the current one does not support my recollection of the stable ice fields. This appears to be another example of politically correct ‘facts’ being released by government agencies.
lenbilen, climate models don’t do clouds.
Heidi Louise Sørensen, Bo Thamdrup, Ronnie Glud, Erik Jeppesen and Søren Rysgaard — they’ve got the coolest names in Denmark, don’t they?
Absolutely.
Having seen the underside of the melting Ice Pack & the associated explosion of Life associated with the Spring dozens of times, I can personally confirm this.
More examples of beneficial natural climatic changes and variability…… Isn’t it a grand design.
I’m worried — if too much arctic sea ice melts, then frozen, prehistoric animals will awaken from their long snoozes to devastate civilization as we know it. No matter how you slice it, therefore, climate change MUST be catastrophic. (^_^)
Sheer mythology, you say? — Well, we ARE talking about climate … “science” … aren’t we?
Yeah but…yeah but…..yeah but…….It’s the WRONG kind of life innit?!!!
I wonder how much co2 the algae and bacteria use. Wouldn’t the “greening of the arctic’ be an additional CO2 vacuum cleaner of sorts?
In Ayr, Australia, after Cyclone Debbie struck and passed, a dead bull shark was found in a large puddle. I pass this along not really knowing what to say about it.
Eugene WR Gallun
If the shark wasn’t melting, then it wasn’t a melt pond.