|
Post by magellan on Jan 15, 2013 2:37:12 GMT
The only 'spiral I know off is a circular, year on year plot for Arctic ice volume? My point was what happens to the energy that was once employed melting snow/ice when there is no snow/ice left to melt? Surely this is not difficult to understand as a question? In the 1950's say, ice was present across the basin in vast quantities and atmospheric heat was spent on the job of attacking that ice all summer long. The global heat engine is driven by the temp difference between pole and equator so we shift warm air to the pole and cold air flows to the equator. If we are losing the ice then ,for part of the year, the energy that used to be employed melting ice can only warm ocean and air can it not? If , say in the 1950's we looked at the sunlight coming in over the pole most of it got reflected straight back into space. today? Well the predominant ice type accepts 3 times (and more) the suns energy through it than the predominant ice type back then and for a portion of the year the basin is half emptied of ice allowing a vast swathe of that once reflected solar to be absorbed by the ocean? In the 1950's global GHG levels were significantly lower than today's so any energy re-emitted into the atmosphere leached into space far easier than it can today under higher GHG levels. All in all I see 'new energy' added into the system by a lowering of the albedo and a redeployment of energy once utilised in melting ice. I think that this is a big push on the climate system and growing all the while. How will we see this 'push' stopped and then reversed? All in all I see 'new energy' added into the system by a lowering of the albedo and a redeployment of energy once utilised in melting ice. I think that this is a big push on the climate system and growing all the while. Where is this 'new energy' hiding? I requested, politely at that, what data supports your statements. The only 'spiral I know off is a circular, year on year plot for Arctic ice volume? Serreze said this in September 2008: Arctic Ice in "Death Spiral," Is Near Record LowThe ice is in a "death spiral" and may disappear in the summers within a couple of decades, according to Mark Serreze, an Arctic climate expert at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado. That was after he said this in April 2008: North Pole Could Be Ice Free in 2008"There is this thin first-year ice even at the North Pole at the moment," says Serreze. "This raises the spectre – the possibility that you could become ice free at the North Pole this year." These people don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 15, 2013 4:07:52 GMT
maggelan: IF the Arctic became ice free during the summer, would that really be anything unusual in climate terms?
In my opinion, no it wouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 15, 2013 6:04:23 GMT
maggelan: IF the Arctic became ice free during the summer, would that really be anything unusual in climate terms? In my opinion, no it wouldn't. No, and I forget, what is the catastrophe that's supposed to occur when the Arctic is ice free? I'm just tired of these prima donnas with overinflated egos constantly shooting off their mouths as if they know more than 10% of how the climate works.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 15, 2013 17:28:45 GMT
I agree, it probably isn't a big deal. But despite favoring the idea that the current melt may have a few more years to run I am kind of doubting the Arctic is going to be ice free. It seems the Arctic is shedding more multi-year ice and gaining more surviving first year ice. The system is working like one of those rotating charbroilers at Burger King. 1st year ice above about an average of 80 degrees north or so survives the summer at any age, but the system is in constant motion so eventually over the years all the ice moves to lower latitudes or positions in relationship to AMO currents where it is melting. So unless some big superstorm blows all the ice out the straits, which doesn't seem likely the ice may get broken up and scattered enough to come close to qualifying as less than 15% coverage but its probably not going to melt. There is an interesting dynamic in the above chart. Note that 2003 the first year in the chart and was the iciest year also both winter and summer. For the winter maximums of 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 has come earlier as a group than anything since. Then 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 are in a distinct group with maximums occurring later in the spring. Interestingly 2003 was the warmest year for the oceans overall and has been cooling since. The later melt may be related to a now cooling AMO. Opening of the ice seems to me to be creating a negative feedback that might continue for quite sometime eventually cooling the oceans enough to reverse the ice trend. It may take quite a while because its cooling from the bottom up and we are seeing maybe other evidence of that with the emergence of La Nina dominant upwelling. Pulling out my divining stick and trying to get the feel of this pattern, I am putting the ice minimum at 2019 or thereabouts (ignoring likely solar effects that may push it a little earlier or perhaps with the awakening of cycle 25 maybe even a little later if the sun starts to normalize). Indeed the biggest problem is a lack of data. If we had satellites in the 1930's and 40's we might have a much better handle on all this. While the warmists have cows over waiting another couple decades to see what is really happening, it seems its going to be a required apprentice time for climate science.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jan 15, 2013 19:09:05 GMT
C;mon Mags, icy, Siggy this is a 'discussion forum' and so surely we can 'discuss' and not just cuss?
I'd ask again What becomes of the energy that was once employed in melting ice over the melt season once the ice has melted? I is a simple conservation of energy question is it not?
We used to call the Arctic 'The air con of the world' because it served that function, it took warm air and cooled it (against ice) so moderating the planets heat.
Now here in the UK only shops use air con units so you guys can help me out here. What would happen if it was 95f outside and then your air con stopped Working? I'm asking that as I'm thinking it would get warm in the room previously serviced by the air con unit?
And then what of the energy that the ocean is now able to absorb? Will this not raise the R.H. across the basin? Will it not raise the temp of the ocean surface waters?
I kind of imagine a very different planet once we get a seasonal ocean in the basin due to all of the imbalances it must drive in the 'old workings' of the system. Little things like 'convection'. We did not used to grow clouds across the Arctic basin did we? With open water and incoming energy we can get free convection there. With free convection comes atmospheric motion not brought into the basin but created there. How does this interact with the air-masses that want to follow their old paths up into the basin? I would imagine it to be a bigger thing than 'nothing' icy?
What of the N.A.D.? at present , if you look at surface temps, we seem to be running the N.A.D. deep into the basin at the surface (no wonder Kara and Barrentsz don't want to Freeze and Svalbard is still ice free!) . With the Atlantic anomalously warm we must have a situation where the N.A.D. isn't shedding as much heat as it travels north and so can penetrate into the basin much further before cooling and descending into the depths? And what of humidity above the current? We must have quite a swathe of the European side of the basin with humidity levels unheard of over winter? Must we really wonder why cold isn't staying long in the basin this winter? I've not seen a fortnight of joined together -40's anywhere in the basin so far this season?
So , if I'm understanding you Guys Correctly you are saying the heat once cooled by the mountainous Paleocryistic ice, though redundant now, does nothing? That heat now absorbed into the ocean either through FY ice or directly does nothing more than change into infra Red energy and is then instantly lost to space in equal measure? The same goes for the sun warming land that was once snow covered and was reflected back into space. Even though no longer 90% reflective the land surface just converts the energy to 'heat' and then instantly radiates it back into space with no impacts to the climate system in it's short stay?
I see it all very differently you see.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 15, 2013 20:18:52 GMT
C;mon Mags, icy, Siggy this is a 'discussion forum' and so surely we can 'discuss' and not just cuss? I'd ask again What becomes of the energy that was once employed in melting ice over the melt season once the ice has melted? I is a simple conservation of energy question is it not? We used to call the Arctic 'The air con of the world' because it served that function, it took warm air and cooled it (against ice) so moderating the planets heat. Now here in the UK only shops use air con units so you guys can help me out here. What would happen if it was 95f outside and then your air con stopped Working? I'm asking that as I'm thinking it would get warm in the room previously serviced by the air con unit? And then what of the energy that the ocean is now able to absorb? Will this not raise the R.H. across the basin? Will it not raise the temp of the ocean surface waters? I kind of imagine a very different planet once we get a seasonal ocean in the basin due to all of the imbalances it must drive in the 'old workings' of the system. Little things like 'convection'. We did not used to grow clouds across the Arctic basin did we? With open water and incoming energy we can get free convection there. With free convection comes atmospheric motion not brought into the basin but created there. How does this interact with the air-masses that want to follow their old paths up into the basin? I would imagine it to be a bigger thing than 'nothing' icy? What of the N.A.D.? at present , if you look at surface temps, we seem to be running the N.A.D. deep into the basin at the surface (no wonder Kara and Barrentsz don't want to Freeze and Svalbard is still ice free!) . With the Atlantic anomalously warm we must have a situation where the N.A.D. isn't shedding as much heat as it travels north and so can penetrate into the basin much further before cooling and descending into the depths? And what of humidity above the current? We must have quite a swathe of the European side of the basin with humidity levels unheard of over winter? Must we really wonder why cold isn't staying long in the basin this winter? I've not seen a fortnight of joined together -40's anywhere in the basin so far this season? So , if I'm understanding you Guys Correctly you are saying the heat once cooled by the mountainous Paleocryistic ice, though redundant now, does nothing? That heat now absorbed into the ocean either through FY ice or directly does nothing more than change into infra Red energy and is then instantly lost to space in equal measure? The same goes for the sun warming land that was once snow covered and was reflected back into space. Even though no longer 90% reflective the land surface just converts the energy to 'heat' and then instantly radiates it back into space with no impacts to the climate system in it's short stay? I see it all very differently you see. Since the "unprecedented melting" of the Arctic, global warming has stopped. What of the N.A.D.? at present , if you look at surface temps, we seem to be running the N.A.D. deep into the basin at the surface (no wonder Kara and Barrentsz don't want to Freeze and Svalbard is still ice free!) I already posted several times the NODC OHC for the NA is DROPPING. Unless I'm misinterpreting the chart, that means the NA not retaining more heat. Does the AMO have anything at all to do with Arctic climate? (no wonder Kara and Barrentsz don't want to Freeze and Svalbard is still ice free!) You only left out a few places..... sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/r05_Kara_Sea_ts.pngsidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/r06_Barents_Sea_ts.pngsidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/r01_Beaufort_Sea_ts.pngsidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/r02_Chukchi_Sea_ts.pngsidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/r03_East_Siberian_Sea_ts.pngsidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/r04_Laptev_Sea_ts.pngsidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/r07_Greenland_Sea_ts.pngsidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/r08_Baffin_Bay_Gulf_of_St._Lawrence_ts.pngsidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/r09_Canadian_Archipelago_ts.pngsidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/r10_Hudson_Bay_ts.pngsidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/r11_Central_Arctic_ts.pngsidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/r12_Bering_Sea_ts.pngsidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/r13_Baltic_Sea_ts.pngsidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/r14_Sea_of_Okhotsk_ts.pngsidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/r16_Cook_Inlet_ts.png
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 15, 2013 21:13:53 GMT
I think that Graywolf's question is answered.
The energy in the warm water that was all cocooned up by the ice is now radiating out to space with nothing to stop it. This results in a faster loss of ocean heat content. If the winds keep up then the ice may not form as rapidly and even more energy will be lost as the surface mixing and convection moves cooler water down and warmer water up. At the angle of insolation at the moment the sea surface will just reflect or refract incoming energy as effectively as the ice.
I think this is commonly called a 'negative feedback'
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 16, 2013 2:59:40 GMT
hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/05/new-paper-confirms-wind-controls-arctic.htmlStrong summertime anticyclonic wind anomalies over the Arctic Ocean, with anomalous flow toward the Fram Strait, during summer months of 2007 contributed to the record-low the Arctic sea-ice extent observed in September of that year. Had the summer winds over the Arctic during the summers of 2010 and 2011 been the same as those in 2007, September sea ice extent would have reached new record lows in those years as well. By regulating the flow of ice toward and through the Fram Strait, variations in low-level winds over the Arctic have contributed to the month-to-month, year-to-year, and decade-to-decade variability of sea ice extent.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 16, 2013 3:00:50 GMT
hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/03/new-paper-finds-decreased-arctic-sea.htmlArctic sea ice cover has decreased dramatically over the last three decades. Global climate models under-predicted this decline, most likely a result of the misrepresentation of one or more processes that influence sea ice. The cloud feedback is the primary source of uncertainty in model simulations, especially in the polar regions. A better understanding of the interaction between sea ice and clouds, and specifically the impact of decreased sea ice on cloud cover, will provide valuable insight into the Arctic climate system and may ultimately help in improving climate model parameterizations. In this study, an equilibrium feedback assessment is employed to quantify the relationship between changes in sea ice and clouds, using satellite-derived sea ice concentration and cloud cover over the period 2000–2010. Results show that a 1% decrease in sea ice concentration leads to a 0.36–0.47% increase in cloud cover, suggesting that a further decline in sea ice cover will result in an even cloudier Arctic.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 16, 2013 3:57:13 GMT
I'd ask again What becomes of the energy that was once employed in melting ice over the melt season once the ice has melted? I is a simple conservation of energy question is it not?
We used to call the Arctic 'The air con of the world' because it served that function, it took warm air and cooled it (against ice) so moderating the planets heat.
I see it all very differently you see. You sure do! Your view is contrary to basic thermodynamics. Air being cooled by ice does not moderate, increase, or decrease the planet's heat it simply moves the heat from the air into the water. I don't know a single scientist promoting such rock silly notions of yours.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 16, 2013 4:31:20 GMT
It seems to me if PIOMAS is as pristine as we're led to believe, the Arctic is like a big ice cube and all this new energy is being introduced causing a death spiral R, by September 2014 the Arctic should be ice free. After all, the brightest minds in climate science predicted it every after 2007, and according to PIOMAS in 2012 the ice volume is about 1/2 what it was in 2008, therefore what little ice is left should melt extremely fast. Break out the bubbly! psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/data/
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 16, 2013 5:03:09 GMT
Graywolf: The reason I am not worried about the Arctic being ice free in the summer is that there were several 1,000 years during the early Holocene where it was ice free.
Did we have large methane releases? No, we didn't.
Did we have runaway global warming? No, we didn't.
Was the circulation pattern different than it is now? Yes, it was.
Did the Greenland Ice Sheet melt away? It would appear that it did not.
Is there really anything that we can do presently to keep ice in the Arctic? No, there is not.
Is CO2 the cause of the current slow warming? Prob not. Does it add to the rate of increase. Physics shows it should.
Will the earth warm 7.0C, as the latest wild exageration states? No, it won't.
That is why I have a hard time getting excited. Mankind benefits each and every day from fossil fuels. Life span has increased world wide. Living standards throughout the world are slowly getting better. The diet of most in the world is much much improved over even 50 years ago.
Climate is a long term item, not 20 years, not 30 years. There may be step changes as short as 10, but overall length of time within parameters that enable mankind to flouish is what we have to look at.
Clearly, the warmer temps have resulted in more food production, less labor intense items, advances in science because the world has been pretty stable.
Just some things to think about.
I am still mulling over your questions about heat displacement.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 16, 2013 14:56:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jan 16, 2013 20:35:39 GMT
Hi Siggy!
I've got to look at the shortfall in grain production , and the price hikes we've endured, over the past 4 years as 'extreme weather' impacts crop output? I even saw a U.S. article saying that some of the corn crops you were able to harvest were blighted with a carcinogenic 'mold'? Any truth in this report?
Mt own beloved 'Chips' (you'd call them fries) have seen a price hike as so much of the crop rotted in the ground last year so I have to wonder about the 'warmer world' producing more yeild?
As for 'heat' energy. If you look at the land surfaces that used to hold year round snow patches, now melted, where does the energy that is now being accrued by this land now go? We don't only have the energy that used to be spent melting the snow each year (whilst it was an enduring snow patch and not just seasonal snow cover) but also this new 'heat' that the land is able to now produce?
We know the permafrost is melting across the north and the 'melted biomass' now drying to the point that we see the kind of fires we have recently witnessed across russia and Canada over the last 5 years ( we had images of the 'black carbon from Canada drifting over Greenland last summer?) so is this where the enerrgy is being set to work? The paper on 'black carbon' may be a warning about the impact of these fires on the Greenland ice sheet and it's lowering albedo??
Our current record snow levels across the northern hemisphere will be a great interest come spring. Let us see if our current trend of earlier melt out dates is impacted by the increase in snow or whether we now have enough of a change to maintain the earlier melt out dates? I remember record U.S. snow levels not impacting this trend 3 or 4 years ago?
Plenty more to go at but No.1 son demands my return!
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Jan 16, 2013 21:30:54 GMT
Hi Siggy! Mt own beloved 'Chips' (you'd call them fries) have seen a price hike as so much of the crop rotted in the ground last year so I have to wonder about the 'warmer world' producing more yeild? As for 'heat' energy. If you look at the land surfaces that used to hold year round snow patches, now melted, where does the energy that is now being accrued by this land now go? We don't only have the energy that used to be spent melting the snow each year (whilst it was an enduring snow patch and not just seasonal snow cover) but also this new 'heat' that the land is able to now produce? graywolf, I am not in "Siggy's" league, but due to your fear that warmer temps are rotting your 'chips,' I was wondering if you've tried growing them in ice? Give that a try. Let us know how that works out.
As far as your concern that land is accruing heat... I suggest just throwing a frozen chicken on it. Let it sit and cook a while.
You get dinner. You suck heat out of the earth and into your chicken. Planet saved.
It's a win-win as I see it."Would you like a leg?""Yes. Hold the dirt, please."
|
|