Arctic melt Season 2018

[BornFromTheVoid]

20 minutes ago, Rambo said:

So I asked a simple polite question and my post has been deleted with no explanation at all???? What a joke.......I assume from that response then that nothing contradicting "global warming" can be posted.....thats truly shocking really!!

Loads of posts were removed, both supporting the science and against it.
I'm sure if you ask your simple polite question again, making sure it follows the section rules and is in the right thread, someone will answer it.

[Singularity]

My overall impression of the Arctic climate is one of moisture feedbacks restraining the total melt each May-Aug but toward a baseline that’s edging slowly but surely upward.

You see, the additional moisture allows extra cloud formation during all but the most anticyclonic weather patterns, reducing input from the sun to the point that the more dominant input becomes that from a combination of warming, in places increasingly saline seas and transfer of moisture from the at atmosphere via rain or fog. With abundant sunny weather unavailable to hit the increaingly fragmented, hole-riddled ice sheet, we’re left watching the gradually - and not entirely steadily - increasing air and sea temps/salinity (mostly the latter this year) take their toll, slowly, across a great many melting and freezing seasons.

That being said, the right stratospheric events and/or tropical forcing could still in theory force a very sunny June or July within at least one of the next 5 years, even with all the added moisture in the system. Unless the preceding winter(s) has(have) performed a miraculous about-face on recent tendency, I expect that this would most likely lead to a minimum in the range of 1-2 million below 2012’s record.

[jvenge]

13 hours ago, Singularity said:

My overall impression of the Arctic climate is one of moisture feedbacks restraining the total melt each May-Aug but toward a baseline that’s edging slowly but surely upward.

You see, the additional moisture allows extra cloud formation during all but the most anticyclonic weather patterns, reducing input from the sun to the point that the more dominant input becomes that from a combination of warming, in places increasingly saline seas and transfer of moisture from the at atmosphere via rain or fog. With abundant sunny weather unavailable to hit the increaingly fragmented, hole-riddled ice sheet, we’re left watching the gradually - and not entirely steadily - increasing air and sea temps/salinity (mostly the latter this year) take their toll, slowly, across a great many melting and freezing seasons.

That being said, the right stratospheric events and/or tropical forcing could still in theory force a very sunny June or July within at least one of the next 5 years, even with all the added moisture in the system. Unless the preceding winter(s) has(have) performed a miraculous about-face on recent tendency, I expect that this would most likely lead to a minimum in the range of 1-2 million below 2012’s record.

It is quite true that the damage is being done in winter and then leaving it very vulnerable if the right (or wrong) conditions hit in a summer. But.... if you look at the big melt summers, you can't find a clear temperature link to cause it. As in, even when a lot of melt is under way, the mean 2m temps are at or below normal.

So, that leaves wind patterns, storms and ocean currents I guess.

Water vapour would explain the winter issue and also the slightly cooling summers up there.

Forecast for next week or so would seem to be cold. Probably we have seen the bottom this season.

 

[summer blizzard]

Are we at minimum yet, there seems to be less discussion than prior years.

[jvenge]

5 hours ago, summer blizzard said:

Are we at minimum yet, there seems to be less discussion than prior years.

Need to see the red line at  266k or so before you can say the bottom, but given where it is and the forecast, unlikely to see it go much below tje current level.

[Singularity]

It's all about the wind and waves now, and bottom-melt which can still - for another 10 days or so - potentially take out the sort of ragged, thin ice we see across the ESS at the moment.

 

Regarding summer temps, it's true what you say @jvenge; my point regarding the input from the sun was with respect to direct solar input to the ice (once snow has melted); energy is put into that instead of raising temps. This leaves the melting process with nothing from above to stop it from cooling the air temp to near freezing.

What disturbs me most about the way the Arctic is heading is the fact that the time at which the ice is becoming thin and fragmented enough for a highly flexible ice sheet is moving earlier and earlier in the year, increasing the potential impact of the sort of weather that the moisture feedback appears to encourage when paired with increased heat release from the oceans (i.e. windstorms). Another positive feedback in action.

...and now we also have news that the massive movement and some melting of ice along much of the Greenland and Canadian coastlines may well be a manifestation of a deep water heat storage finding its way to the surface as it moves up against the continental landmass. That heat storage having built up as a result of excess open water in the peripheral Arctic ocean, as these areas take in plenty of solar energy even during quite cloudy summers (let alone during sunny ones... but we've yet to really see that variation in action!) and tend to see downwelling (via Ekman pumping, I believe it has been said?). 

 

So much going on, and so little sign of much being done about it. There's just too much else going on in the world, and too much conflict over this, that and the other, for humankind to pool its resources in the ways required.

[jvenge]

5 hours ago, Singularity said:

It's all about the wind and waves now, and bottom-melt which can still - for another 10 days or so - potentially take out the sort of ragged, thin ice we see across the ESS at the moment.

 

Regarding summer temps, it's true what you say @jvenge; my point regarding the input from the sun was with respect to direct solar input to the ice (once snow has melted); energy is put into that instead of raising temps. This leaves the melting process with nothing from above to stop it from cooling the air temp to near freezing.

What disturbs me most about the way the Arctic is heading is the fact that the time at which the ice is becoming thin and fragmented enough for a highly flexible ice sheet is moving earlier and earlier in the year, increasing the potential impact of the sort of weather that the moisture feedback appears to encourage when paired with increased heat release from the oceans (i.e. windstorms). Another positive feedback in action.

...and now we also have news that the massive movement and some melting of ice along much of the Greenland and Canadian coastlines may well be a manifestation of a deep water heat storage finding its way to the surface as it moves up against the continental landmass. That heat storage having built up as a result of excess open water in the peripheral Arctic ocean, as these areas take in plenty of solar energy even during quite cloudy summers (let alone during sunny ones... but we've yet to really see that variation in action!) and tend to see downwelling (via Ekman pumping, I believe it has been said?). 

 

So much going on, and so little sign of much being done about it. There's just too much else going on in the world, and too much conflict over this, that and the other, for humankind to pool its resources in the ways required.

I guess the issue with the arctic is there is no doomsday scenario as with Greenland or Antarctica. Nobody can really say why an ice free arctic would be bad in summer. Some might try and handwave some tenuous link to coastal erosion, but thats about it.

[Singularity]

6 hours ago, jvenge said:

I guess the issue with the arctic is there is no doomsday scenario as with Greenland or Antarctica. Nobody can really say why an ice free arctic would be bad in summer. Some might try and handwave some tenuous link to coastal erosion, but thats about it.

I'm not so sure - taking away such a large area of atmospheric heat sink seems like a means for accelerating the warming of the global climate, or at least the N. hemisphere climate, even further.

Trouble is, Arctic-rest of hemisphere/world interactions are something the models struggle to resolve due to the heavy dependence on feedback processes. Even a slight error can quickly amplify into a large one, making resolving it more akin to handling the day-to-day weather patterns as opposed to the usual, less sensitive nature of long-term climate prediction.

Without high confidence results, it's hard to persuade governments to take action on that over other major issues.

 

Also I'm wondering how the exposure of coasts to open ocean that have spent thousands of years shielded by sea ice would not lead to a big increase in coastal erosion? Or are you implying that the impacts on humankind would be negligible? That angle I can get my head around, provided one classifies the small local populations being disrupted as negligible compared to the global population.

Edited August 31, 2018 by Singularity
Erosion

[4wd]

The area of globe covered by sea ice is barely 1%, it will always be ice for most of the year.
In any case the Arctic loses more heat where it is open water than when it is covered in ice.
There is only a very short period when the sun is hgh enough to cause any heating on darker water, and that's June which doesn't coincide with higher open areas in August.

[Lettucing Gutted]

6 hours ago, jvenge said:

I guess the issue with the arctic is there is no doomsday scenario as with Greenland or Antarctica. Nobody can really say why an ice free arctic would be bad in summer. Some might try and handwave some tenuous link to coastal erosion, but thats about it.

As well as the "positive" feedback involving reduced albedo, the biggest doomsday scenario resulting from Arctic Sea ice loss is the massive release of methane from the Arctic seabed.

[jonboy]

6 minutes ago, Lettucing Gutted said:

As well as the "positive" feedback involving reduced albedo, the biggest doomsday scenario resulting from Arctic Sea ice loss is the massive release of methane from the Arctic seabed.

and that has never happened before!!!! Don't think so

[Gray-Wolf]

I think folk need to look at the energy pouring out of a nino to get an idea of the amounts of energy now captured/released from the Arctic that never used to exist on the planet?

Ice reflects over 80% of incoming energy without it interacting with our climate system.

open water soaks up over 90% of incoming energy.

Over high summer the Arctic receives more energy than seen at the equator

If you accept that our weather is held in a shallow skin of atmosphere then new 'nino's worth of energy each year surely makes a change?

But the ESS methane resource is growing in importance each year as we take ever more evidence of its destabilisation.

Back in 1982 my A level geography teacher told me these reserves were safe for thousands of years......... things have changed!

[Methuselah]

33 minutes ago, jonboy said:

and that has never happened before!!!! Don't think so

It has happened before, Jonboy...which is precisely why we can have a fairly good idea of how potentially devastating it might be. To human society in particular...?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Another concern with an ice free Arctic Ocean would be that there would be much warmer air masses in the vicinity of Greenland, potentially adding somewhat to the melt rate of the Greenland ice sheet.  Unlike the Arctic Ocean, substantial melting of the Greenland ice sheet would certainly contribute significantly to global sea levels.

[jvenge]

17 hours ago, Singularity said:

I'm not so sure - taking away such a large area of atmospheric heat sink seems like a means for accelerating the warming of the global climate, or at least the N. hemisphere climate, even further.

Trouble is, Arctic-rest of hemisphere/world interactions are something the models struggle to resolve due to the heavy dependence on feedback processes. Even a slight error can quickly amplify into a large one, making resolving it more akin to handling the day-to-day weather patterns as opposed to the usual, less sensitive nature of long-term climate prediction.

Without high confidence results, it's hard to persuade governments to take action on that over other major issues.

 

Also I'm wondering how the exposure of coasts to open ocean that have spent thousands of years shielded by sea ice would not lead to a big increase in coastal erosion? Or are you implying that the impacts on humankind would be negligible? That angle I can get my head around, provided one classifies the small local populations being disrupted as negligible compared to the global population.

Firstly I mentioned ice free in summer, as that seems to be the more near to medium term chance. I don't know where to begin re ice free all year around. Since there is no prospect of that likely in my life time, not worth me speculating now.

Coasts are eroding World wide and have been since the last glacial period. So, trying to point to coastal erosion as an issue is just not alarming enough. No sea rise from it. Also, considering how pot holes behave, there is likely a case for a freeze and thaw doing more damage than a continuous freeze or no freeze. So it would be unclear how that would end up.

Also, extreme ice and cold is generally bad for a local population. So, ultimately, localities being more habitable due to less extreme conditions is only going to be a net positive. Any increase in erosion (no sea rise) is not going to counter the benefits of a more temperate local climate. Not saying its right, as I personally think it is horrible to lose such a habitat, but the aesthetics aside, it would be a net positive.

2 hours ago, Thundery wintry showers said:

Another concern with an ice free Arctic Ocean would be that there would be much warmer air masses in the vicinity of Greenland, potentially adding somewhat to the melt rate of the Greenland ice sheet.  Unlike the Arctic Ocean, substantial melting of the Greenland ice sheet would certainly contribute significantly to global sea levels.

Could be, but an equally more likely scenario if to go with yours is that the increase in air moisture would lead to increased precipitation as snow fall/rain, which then freezes and adds to the mass. See the past two years. I understand precipitation to be increasing in Antarctica as well. So, it isn't so simple.

Rightly or wrongly, the Arctic isn't a priority. Not just in words, but in actions.

[Methuselah]

8 hours ago, Thundery wintry showers said:

Another concern with an ice free Arctic Ocean would be that there would be much warmer air masses in the vicinity of Greenland, potentially adding somewhat to the melt rate of the Greenland ice sheet.  Unlike the Arctic Ocean, substantial melting of the Greenland ice sheet would certainly contribute significantly to global sea levels.

Indeed, Ian...An 'interesting' belief that 'sceptics' seem to share, is that once Climate Change has reached the point where it favours an increased Greenland MB, it'll simply stay that way for ever...A very silly piece of straw-clutching IMO...

[Rambo]

11 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

Indeed, Ian...An 'interesting' belief that 'sceptics' seem to share, is that once Climate Change has reached the point where it favours an increased Greenland MB, it'll simply stay that way for ever...A very silly piece of straw-clutching IMO...

I'm assuming by "sceptics" you mean people who don't share the same opinion as you?

[Methuselah]

2 minutes ago, Rambo said:

I'm assuming by "sceptics" you mean people who don't share the same opinion as you?

No. By 'sceptics' I mean those who are really Deniers...Genuine scepticism is at the very heart of science. Denial isn't...

[Rambo]

10 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

No. By 'sceptics' I mean those who are really Deniers...Genuine scepticism is at the very heart of science. Denial isn't...

Something has to be 100% proven for there to be "deniers" surely? 

[Methuselah]

4 minutes ago, Rambo said:

Something has to be 100% proven for there to be "deniers" surely? 

Nothing in science is ever 100% proven, Rambo...The object is to disprove a theory/hypothesis; repeated failure to disprove it only adds weight to it. I'm sure that if someone could produce a genuine/repeatable body of experimentation that disproves the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, people would listen...?

But, anyway, we oughtn't overload this thread with CC argument - we'll end up getting our posts removed...

[Rambo]

Oh god yes, I forgot.....anything said against CC is a big no no around here...I'll keep quiet! BAAAA

[DAVID SNOW]

On ‎01‎/‎09‎/‎2018 at 21:36, Ed Stone said:

Nothing in science is ever 100% proven, Rambo...The object is to disprove a theory/hypothesis; repeated failure to disprove it only adds weight to it. I'm sure that if someone could produce a genuine/repeatable body of experimentation that disproves the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, people would listen...?

But, anyway, we oughtn't overload this thread with CC argument - we'll end up getting our posts removed...

If human activity is directly linked to ice loss etc then how on earth can we survive into the future with an ever growing global population?

It can't in my opinion, take a look at a duck pond for example, it starts with the breeding season producing many goslings, but ending up with two or three  that may grow to reproduce themselves, their environment and resources dictate this, mother nature doing here stuff, humans with their self destructive arrogance will fail.

[Rambo]

19 hours ago, DAVID SNOW said:

If human activity is directly linked to ice loss etc then how on earth can we survive into the future with an ever growing global population?

It can't in my opinion, take a look at a duck pond for example, it starts with the breeding season producing many goslings, but ending up with two or three  that may grow to reproduce themselves, their environment and resources dictate this, mother nature doing here stuff, humans with their self destructive arrogance will fail.

"IF"

[Snipper]

On 02/09/2018 at 22:46, DAVID SNOW said:

If human activity is directly linked to ice loss etc then how on earth can we survive into the future with an ever growing global population?

It can't in my opinion, take a look at a duck pond for example, it starts with the breeding season producing many goslings, but ending up with two or three  that may grow to reproduce themselves, their environment and resources dictate this, mother nature doing here stuff, humans with their self destructive arrogance will fail.

Too many humans about. Sooner those responsible for breeding like rabbits realise their wish to over populate the world causes problems the better. 

[knocker]

 

Edited September 8, 2018 by knocker