Arctic Ice: How Does It Influence Our Weather?

[Methuselah]

Is it really that difficult to discuss elements of climate change without speculation?

I doubt it, Potty...it doesn't matter whether we talk about putative links between Solar minima and NH winters, making predictions with the latest computer models...All scientific predictions are based upon speculation (what will happen if I do this?) IMO: if we already knew the answers to our questions, there'd be no point in experimentation...

[Gray-Wolf]

I think maybe P.P. is not fully understanding the answers we furnished him with?

Let's put it this way. I stick my hand in the fire and say "Gee that Hurts" and P.P. demands 'proof' . I say "It hurt" and he says that is not proof that is a personal observation.

Rather than placing his own hand into the first to see the outcome P.P. demands that we look at each individual mechanism that occurs when the hand enters the fire. From the impacts on the skin and the relay of pain sensors, through the nervous system to the brain, the electro chemical signals that allow the message to travel and the response in the autonomic nervous system that flashes back the 'pain sensation'. The neurons that control the reflex muscle spasm pulling the hand away from the fire (and the electro chemical messengers that are needed to complete this response. and the interactions that allowed me to relay that message , via my language centre and the neural net/electro chemical messengers that allowed that exchange to occur.

So though we've "known" that sticking your hand in the fire hurts for as long as We have been exposed to fire it is only recently that we've been able to scientifically 'prove' that this is indeed what happens.

As for our climate we 'know' broadly , how it operates and what drives such things as the Polar Jet. we 'Know' What mechanisms play a major role in controlling it's speed (and hence it's sinuosity) so when we see one of those parameters being tweaked, whilst watching the Behaviours that we know would result from such a tweak, must we really be barred from discussing it without 30yrs of measured observation under our belts?

I'm sure that , as the years roll on, science will be better predicting where such 'kinks/slowdowns' in the Jet will occur and not just that they will occur but this will still be inside of 30yrs of observations of this new trend. Will we be nuts to accept those 'Forecasts' if it will secure food production/protect life/ limit infrastructure damages?

We need to project what we know into our future, it's what we do as human beings and has served us well throughout our races existence. Why should we abandon this methodology now?

[Methuselah]

Aye Ian, maybe, But sounding patronizing will convince no one!

[Gray-Wolf]

Aye Ian, maybe, But sounding patronizing will convince no one!

Sorry Pete? It was definitely not my intention to sound patronizing in my post? I just wanted to try and highlight that we do not need to wait for all the 'I's to be dotted and 't's to be crossed before we are able to read the letter?

As has been mentioned the title of the thread invites speculation as to whether weather events are being helped along by the energy low ice levels allows into the climate system via the albedo flip.

I do feel that some members appear to want debate stifled and I am reluctant to accept that route as 'reasonable' way of exploring the topic?

EDIT: In fact why doesn't P.P. give us an example of how to discuss the impacts of this summers ice losses on the air mass/jet behaviours that will have gone into influencing the super-storm in the manner he would have us explore it?( and if not how such mechanism can stop the extra energy from exerting impacts)

If not it would appear we have has a couple of wasted pages of discussion for no other reason than the disruption of, what I believe to be , an interesting, relevant and pertinent topic?

As we all are aware more folk read these pages than contribute and if anything is to prove 'off putting' it ,it my opinion, would have been this senseless exchange and not the topic of the possible impacts of low ice levels on such a major weather event.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Gray-Wolf

[pottyprof]

snip....................

So what you're saying then is that we can't discuss climate change without speculating? Fair enough. A simple yes or no would have sufficed. For some reason keeping things clear so people can understand is an uphill battle for some people. Why use one word when you can make things into a topic of it's own?

I understand the need to speculate and form ideas and paths. I already said that there is a need for that. It shows how little people take notice unless it suits their agenda. Can we keep the actual real world stuff separate from the speculation is all I was getting at?

[Gray-Wolf]

What about speculating about the real world stuff??? ;-)

[pottyprof]

Touché

[jethro]

Touché

How do you do that thing over the e, P?

[pottyprof]

Quickest way I've found is type without it into google and take one of the links.

http://www.utexas.edu/learn/html/spchar.html

Copy and paste list

Edited October 31, 2012 by pottyprof

[Methuselah]

What about speculating about the real world stuff??? ;-)

Nowt wrong with speculation, Ian...So long as it says so, on the tin?

[4wd]

Hold down 'alt gr' for é - and some other accents á ó ú

The French won't be impressed if it points the wrong way though.

[knocker]

Quickest way I've found is type without it into google and take one of the links.

http://www.utexas.ed...tml/spchar.html

Copy and paste list

Or

shortcuts.pdf

[pottyprof]

Now we know why Sandy was strange.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/31/superstorm-sandy-secret-engineering-by-iran-syria_n_2049411.html?1351697412

Well it's the nearest thing we have for proof for a while anyway....

[stewfox]

What about speculating about the real world stuff??? ;-)

Forget the drival (Guardian comments) but its interesting to have a climate sceptic New environment secretary.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/oct/11/owen-paterson-environment-guardian-profile

The problem is we have had too many speculations stated as facts and this cry wolf has put people of as well as government.

[knocker]

Why Seas Are Rising Ahead of Predictions

GSA Annual Meeting Presentation: Could Estimates of the Rate of Future Sea-Level Rise Be Too Low?

Boulder, Colorado, USA - Sea levels are rising faster than expected from global warming, and University of Colorado geologist Bill Hay has a good idea why. The last official IPCC report in 2007 projected a global sea level rise between 0.2 and 0.5 meters by the year 2100. But current sea-level rise measurements meet or exceed the high end of that range and suggest a rise of one meter or more by the end of the century.

"What's missing from the models used to forecast sea-level rise are critical feedbacks that speed everything up," says Hay. He will be presenting some of these feedbacks in a talk on Sunday, 4 Nov., at the meeting of The Geological Society of America in Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.

One of those feedbacks involves Arctic sea ice, another the Greenland ice cap, and another soil moisture and groundwater mining.

"There is an Arctic sea ice connection," says Hay, despite the fact that melting sea ice -- which is already in the ocean -- does not itself raise sea level. Instead, it plays a role in the overall warming of the Arctic, which leads to ice losses in nearby Greenland and northern Canada. When sea ice melts, Hay explains, there is an oceanographic effect of releasing more fresh water from the Arctic, which is then replaced by inflows of brinier, warmer water from the south.

"So it's a big heat pump that brings heat to the Arctic," says Hay. "That's not in any of the models." That warmer water pushes the Arctic toward more ice-free waters, which absorb sunlight rather than reflect it back into space like sea ice does. The more open water there is, the more heat is trapped in the Arctic waters, and the warmer things can get.

Then there are those gigantic stores of ice in Greenland and Antarctica. During the last interglacial period, sea level rose 10 meters due to the melting of all that ice -- without any help from humans. New data suggests that the sea-level rise in the oceans took place over a few centuries, according to Hay.

http://www.geosociety.org/news/pr/12-82.htm

[stewfox]

Why Seas Are Rising Ahead of Predictions

GSA Annual Meeting Presentation: Could Estimates of the Rate of Future Sea-Level Rise Be Too Low?

Then there are those gigantic stores of ice in Greenland and Antarctica. During the last interglacial period, sea level rose 10 meters due to the melting of all that ice -- without any help from humans. New data suggests that the sea-level rise in the oceans took place over a few centuries, according to Hay.

http://www.geosociet...ws/pr/12-82.htm

Do you think there funding is going to run out ? Record Antartica ice cover and more snow doesnt suggest much for concern and no real evidence of land ice melt there or in Greeland.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Do you think there funding is going to run out ? Record Antartica ice cover and more snow doesnt suggest much for concern and no real evidence of land ice melt there or in Greeland.

Do you really think there's no evidence of land ice melt in Greenland?

[knocker]

Do you think there funding is going to run out ? Record Antartica ice cover and more snow doesnt suggest much for concern and no real evidence of land ice melt there or in Greeland.

No real evidence. I find that incredible as there is loads of it. Just take this year. It's fine dismissing AGW but to ignore empirical evidence makes the discussion rather pointless.

In late July, NASA announced that satellites had detected signs of melting across virtually the entire surface of the Greenland Ice Sheet in mid-July, even at the two-mile-high summit of the ice cap—a first for the satellite record and a historically rare occurrence based on ice core data.

The unusual melting event followed several months during which high pressure systems repeatedly parked over Greenland. As many a weather forecaster has explained, high pressure generally leads to calm winds and sunny skies, both of which boost temperatures during the all-day sunshine of mid-summer at high latitudes.

The map on the left shows the difference from average pressure at the 700 millibar pressure level from May-July 2012 compared to the 1981-2010 average. Gold colors indicate higher-than-average pressure. A large dome of high pressure camped over Greenland and the Northwest Atlantic this summer. The influence on temperatures (map on right) was dramatic. Temperature anomalies at the same altitude were as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than average over Greenland. ...........................................................................................................................................................................

Research published earlier this year found that since the late 1950s, the 6 warmest summers and 5 of the 6 largest melt years in Greenland have occurred since 2000. A similar “dome†of persistent high pressure was common to each of the episodes, but it is probably not the sole cause of the unusual warmth and melting.

Scientists continue to investigate how the anomalous atmospheric circulation pattern interacts with other climate conditions, including natural cycles of ocean temperature in the North Atlantic and human-caused climate change, to influence the summer melt rate on the Greenland Ice Sheet.

http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/article/2012/summer-weighing-heavily-on-greenland-ice-sheet

Or.

Year after year, surface melting, combined with the collapse of ice shelves and the increasingly rapid flow of Greenland glaciers, is contributing to sea level rise. According to the 2011 Arctic Report Card, ice mass loss from Greenland in 2011 was about 430 gigatons—enough ice to raise global sea level by just over 1 millimeter.

http://www.climatewa...lting-2000-2011

Edited November 2, 2012 by knocker

[Interitus]

When sea ice melts, Hay explains, there is an oceanographic effect of releasing more fresh water from the Arctic, which is then replaced by inflows of brinier, warmer water from the south.

"So it's a big heat pump that brings heat to the Arctic," says Hay. "That's not in any of the models."

This bit could do with some clarification as to what effect is being described. Stating that it's not in any of the models is maybe because it's counter to the accepted processes?

[Gray-Wolf]

I would imagine that it is a dicumented process Interitus? If little teams like Catlin are looking into such exchanges within the ice field then I imagine the large oceanographic teams are doing so on a much grander scale (via sat imaging etc?)

We have to accept the basics of thermodynamics in that hot flows to cold and cold to hot. If we are seeing more hot in the system that will not 'make' more cold but slowly warm the lower temps until the system balances again?

At present that system is still undergoing warm forcing and , in the north at least, the ice that used to work all year to 'cool' warm water is now absent for part of the year. this must allow for the warm to 'back up' over the months when there is no extra cooling due to ice.

The Oceans are vast and take a long time to react to change but by the same yardstick take a lot to 'stop' once in motion.

[jethro]

Does anyone really worry about a sea level rise of 1mm per year? Seriously? We're hardly going to be caught out, if that's the rate of the rise we've got years to build defences for all those low lying, at risk areas. I'm not the world's best brickie/waller but even I could build a flood defence given those time constraints.

[The PIT]

If the sea levels are rising ocean currents will not distrute it equally around the world. Add in natural land sinking and rising new land being deposited makes it a ratehr complex issue.

[jethro]

If the sea levels are rising ocean currents will not distrute it equally around the world. Add in natural land sinking and rising new land being deposited makes it a ratehr complex issue.

And all those issues will presumably have been taken into account when measuring and deciding upon 1mm per year. I'm not being funny but given how difficult it must be to measure, surely 1mm must be within the margin of error?

[laserguy]

Does anyone really worry about a sea level rise of 1mm per year? Seriously?

Would now be good time to start dusting off me ol' dinghy?

[Gray-Wolf]

J' , as Pit rightly points out sea level is not 'flat' around the planet and averages are 'averaged' across the globe. Global temps have a pitiful year rise, on average , but look at the temp rises we see across the Arctic Basin esp. the record days?

New York saw a water equivalent of a record temp day with it's inundation on Monday.

As Pit rightly points out it is becoming hairy for areas of the world where Sea level issues already exist.