Greenland 2012

[SVT450R]

Unless the dirty ice magically goes away.  A slow down would be like the 2006 melt. 

 

Even with the current run of -NAO in Summer if the ice was clear of impurities albedo would lower slightly from the heights of the pure fresh snow cover because of snow grain changes but it would be pretty little. 

 

The reason the ice mass loss has dramatically accelerated is the exposure of the dirty layer.  Which isn't exactly like one sheet of impurities.  But as the ice melted impurities at different layers instead of washing out don't  They stay embedded with the mushy ice.  As the ice continues to melt more impurities gather to the point that the surface of the ice sheet almost look's black.

 

This is from 2005:  Since then the Dirty Ice layer size has more than doubled. 

 

The only way that this can be reversed is for new snow accumulation to not melt out during a Summer.  Unless the Northern Hemisphere and it's ocean's cool to levels only a volcano could produce right now it can't happen.  It might have taken a relatively short period of time during very extreme conditions vs recent CLIMO for this to be uncovered.  But once it's uncovered it is now apart of the equation. 

 

So far no matter how much I talk about this or link to the Professional's who actually have been on the GIS Ice sheet core digging an examining this phenomenon that has exploded onto the scene it's pretty much ignored here.  Yet the people working up there have been watching it expand the last decade and a big part of that is the -NAO Summers.  Which no one is debating whatsoever. 

 

However one it is has been uncovered it's impacts are way beyond a -NAO or +NAO.  since a +NAO pattern in today's warmer climate could only delay the Summer on-set of the dark layer exposure it's only effect would be a seasonal lowering of ice mass loss because wherever the dark layer has appeared the season before all of the snow on top of it will melt the next season even in a highly +NAO.  In that season maybe the rest of the higher albedo Greenland has very little or no ice mass loss.  Or some snow at lower elevations above the dark layer doesn't melt out completely.  Which is still going to take the perfect pattern. 

 

This dark layer is still here and as the Earth warms and more -NAO Summers bring the sunshine it will grow again. 

 

 

 

http://bprc.osu.edu/wiki/Greenland_Ice_Albedo_Monitoring

 

http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?cat=74

Of course the dark layer is another part of the melting process but we have yet to see what a +NAO regime will do to effect the Grace ice mass chart it's all specualtion at this point.  You also have to incorperate how the AMO will play out when it finally flips to a negative phase.  Both are major factors in Greenlands climate and at the moment at optimum phases for melting ice.

[bluewave]

And a new study out is a a little more optimistic over the next hundred years.

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/greenlands-ice-loss-slows-but-still-wont-save-coasts-15962

 

The flow of Greenland’s glaciers toward the sea may have increased significantly in the past decade, but a new report inNature finds that rate of increase is unlikely to continue. “The loss of ice has doubled in the past 10 years, but it’s not going to double again,” said lead author Faezeh Nick, a glaciologist at the University Centre in Svalbard, in Longyearbyen, Norway, in an interview.

That conclusion, based on a new, sophisticated computer model, makes the worst-case scenario of sea level rise — an increase of 6 feet or so, on average, by 2100 — look less likely to play out.

[Jonger]

8C warmer regionally...not globally. In the general arctic region, they had anomalies in the 3-5C warmer than present day...at least in their study.

There isn't much to support a complete meltout of the Greenland ice sheet within 1,000 years unless you believe the most extreme temperature scenarios and then sustain them for hundreds of years.It doesn't matter, even a 1/10 of the ice sheet melting will have severe consequences. A 1/4 melted will cause extreme global warming. We could possibly be looking at 1/8 melted out in 100 years. Someone will have to do the calculations, but I'm assuming an 1/8 of the ice melt on Greenland over 100 years would raise sea levels at least a 5 feet. And 5 feet of sea level rise will be traumatic for those along the coast. With Trillions worth of damage around the world.

I was surprised to read about how long the estimated melt of Greenland will take. This isn't likely to be much of an issue at the current melt rate for several hundred years.

Something tells me the current rate of 2ppm co2 isn't going to last much longer. This will be a footnote in a history book someday.... In order for it to be a footnote, we have to act though.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Of course the dark layer is another part of the melting process but we have yet to see what a +NAO regime will do to effect the Grace ice mass chart it's all specualtion at this point.  You also have to incorperate how the AMO will play out when it finally flips to a negative phase.  Both are major factors in Greenlands climate and at the moment at optimum phases for melting ice.

 

 

Summer ice mass loss on GIS

 

2002:lost 375GT

2003:lost slightly over 375GT

2004:lost slightly over 400GT

2005:lost slightly over 500GT.

2006:lost 275GT

2007 lost slightly over 450GT. 

2008 lost 350GT

2009 lost 250GT

2010:lost slightly below 600GT

2011:lost around 550GT

2012:lost slightly below 750GT

 

NAO:

 

2002: 0.69 0.65 0.36

2003: 0.24 0.16 -0.22

2004:-0.59 1.16 -0.74

2005: 0.26 -0.48 0.35

2006: 1.15 0.93 -2.35

2007:-1.01 -0.55 -0.31

2008:-1.09 -1.24 -1.62

2009:-0.91 -2.11 -0.37

2010:-0.52 -0.39 -1.69

2011:-0.98 -1.48 -1.85

2012:-2.25 -1.29 -1.39

 

 

2012's gawdy -NAO looks great to blame it.  2008 and 2008 had very negative NAO's for June and July, 2008 was very negative all Summer and lost less ice mass than 2002-2005.

[PottercountyWXobserver]

I wouldn't be surprised to see a 1,000GT melting season by 2016.

[PottercountyWXobserver]

We're already locked into a large sea level rise over hundreds/thousands of years...but 5 feet by 2100 has little basis to go on. 5 feet just by Greenland's contributon alone by 2100 is even more outlandish.

I said if it were to melt just 1/8 of its current ice total. If Greenland were to entirely melt, most estimates are about 22-28 feet rise. 1/8 would be around 3-3.5ft and another 1-2ft due to thermal expansion. It really isn't that far out of the realms of possibilty for 1/8 of the ice sheet to melt out by 2100, especially if the albedos continue to worsen or if the arctic melts out by 2050.

[The_Global_Warmer]

And a new study out is a a little more optimistic over the next hundred years.

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/greenlands-ice-loss-slows-but-still-wont-save-coasts-15962

 

The flow of Greenland’s glaciers toward the sea may have increased significantly in the past decade, but a new report inNature finds that rate of increase is unlikely to continue. “The loss of ice has doubled in the past 10 years, but it’s not going to double again,” said lead author Faezeh Nick, a glaciologist at the University Centre in Svalbard, in Longyearbyen, Norway, in an interview.

That conclusion, based on a new, sophisticated computer model, makes the worst-case scenario of sea level rise — an increase of 6 feet or so, on average, by 2100 — look less likely to play out.

 

That is extremely mis leading. 

 

There computer model study is about out-let glaciers not the direct surface melting on the GIS ice sheet.

[bluewave]

That is extremely mis leading. 

 

There computer model study is about out-let glaciers not the direct surface melting on the GIS ice sheet.

 

That was the focus of the paper, but there is a new paper currently under peer review on surface melting.

The estimate that I saw suggested that melt last summer added about 1 mm to current sea level

rise. So you would really need to accelerate the surface melt to have a significant impact on a short

timescale like 100 years. Hopefully the new paper will have some projections of what future surface

melt may be this century.

 

http://grist.org/climate-energy/finally-some-not-terrible-climate-news-greenland-not-melting-any-faster/

 

 

At the same time, the inland top of the ice sheet was thawing at record levels; last summer, for the first time in 150 years, its entire surface was melting. By summer’s end, this water alone raised sea levels all over the world by a millimeter.

 

 

 

Box, who helped make the documentary Chasing Ice, said he isn’t surprised to find that disintegrating glaciers are less important in the overall scope of Greenland’s melt problem than runoff from the ice sheet surface.

“Ice loss from melting and subsequent meltwater runoff has been the dominant loss factor in recent years,” he wrote in an email. “Runoff will grow with warming as glaciers retreat out of the warming sea.” Indeed, another study confirming surface melt as the primary source of Greenland’s woes is currently in peer review, he said.

[ORH_wxman]

I said if it were to melt just 1/8 of its current ice total. If Greenland were to entirely melt, most estimates are about 22-28 feet rise. 1/8 would be around 3-3.5ft and another 1-2ft due to thermal expansion. It really isn't that far out of the realms of possibilty for 1/8 of the ice sheet to melt out by 2100, especially if the albedos continue to worsen or if the arctic melts out by 2050.

 

 

Based on what? Do you realize that in the last decade alone, Greenland has maybe lost 0.10% of its ice sheet mass?

[TerryM]

At the same time, the inland top of the ice sheet was thawing at record levels; last summer, for the first time in 150 years, its entire surface was melting.

 

We hashed this out last year - and had the NY Times retract the statement as I recall.

 

The only way to get the 150 yr figure is to take things back to the HTM when such occurrences were fairly regular. IIRC it was ~1000 BP the last time this happened.

 

Terry

[ORH_wxman]

At the same time, the inland top of the ice sheet was thawing at record levels; last summer, for the first time in 150 years, its entire surface was melting.

 

We hashed this out last year - and had the NY Times retract the statement as I recall.

 

The only way to get the 150 yr figure is to take things back to the HTM when such occurrences were fairly regular. IIRC it was ~1000 BP the last time this happened.

 

Terry

 

 

The 1889 melt event is well documented. It is brought up multiple times in the paper that came out last autumn regarding the 2012 surface melt event.

[The_Global_Warmer]

That was the focus of the paper, but there is a new paper currently under peer review on surface melting.

The estimate that I saw suggested that melt last summer added about 1 mm to current sea level

rise. So you would really need to accelerate the surface melt to have a significant impact on a short

timescale like 100 years. Hopefully the new paper will have some projections of what future surface

melt may be this century.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/finally-some-not-terrible-climate-news-greenland-not-melting-any-faster/

At the same time, the inland top of the ice sheet was thawing at record levels; last summer, for the first time in 150 years, its entire surface was melting. By summer’s end, this water alone raised sea levels all over the world by a millimeter.

Box, who helped make the documentary Chasing Ice, said he isn’t surprised to find that disintegrating glaciers are less important in the overall scope of Greenland’s melt problem than runoff from the ice sheet surface.

“Ice loss from melting and subsequent meltwater runoff has been the dominant loss factor in recent years,” he wrote in an email. “Runoff will grow with warming as glaciers retreat out of the warming sea.” Indeed, another study confirming surface melt as the primary source of Greenland’s woes is currently in peer review, he said.

Technically last Summers melt season lost just below 750GT of ice mass. That's like 2.1MM. However for the entire Season basically 12-13 from May 2012 to April 2013 would be less because of new snow.

Data from weather monitoring says new snow was extremely low this past winter. Not a big deal in ice mass loss in the big scheme but there is very little fresh snow covering the glacier this year.

We have already started talking about it in March and it was Mis-interpreted a bit. I was only concerned about how fast the Dark layer would be exposed.

The current +NAO has saved May of 2013 from having the earliest and most explosive melt in May on modern record up there.

Gonna go check the weather forecast for GIS real quick. Models are hinting at a Huge 1045HP edging North enough to pull some warm air and Sunny skies.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Looks like around Day 3 to Day 6 there will be a break to Southerly warmer weather. Before more cold swings in. The Euro and GFS are all over the place in the medium range.

This couldn't have come at a better time. Soar insolation is booming 24hrs a day right now up there.

The cold helps but it's the clouds that have been the key. Now cloudy and warm works to. But cloudy and cold is better than sunny and cold.

[The_Global_Warmer]

At the same time, the inland top of the ice sheet was thawing at record levels; last summer, for the first time in 150 years, its entire surface was melting.

 

We hashed this out last year - and had the NY Times retract the statement as I recall.

 

The only way to get the 150 yr figure is to take things back to the HTM when such occurrences were fairly regular. IIRC it was ~1000 BP the last time this happened.

 

Terry

 

 

 

I wouldn't worry about that.  As soon as the glaciologists broke with that news.  It was reserve spun by Watt's and friends.  They used that it happened in the 1800s to over shadow what was really happening. 

 

The people who break out on the sudden slow down of OHC rise.  Typically saying the 0-2000M is extremely unreliable.  But also that the 0-700M has dramatically slowed.  SST's have gone up and down but haven't gone passed heights reached over the last 15 years.  And only have short term effects.

 

On the graph below the marked leveling off was at the end of 2003 into 2004.  OHC 0-700M peaked from Fall-Winter of those years.  Only to pass that level again in the summer of 2011.  Since then it has dropped back off and the last update Oct-Dec it was dead even with the 2003-04 peak.  Thermal expansion in the top 0-700M has essentially stopped since then.  The 0-2000M shows a 3MM SLR change the last 10 years.

 

The plateau is actually easily visible on SLR charts.  Now I have no idea how much if any role thermal expansion plays below 2000M. 

 

Between 2004 and the Summer of 2005 global sst's rose to a peak of .375C on the weeklies.  But were mostly between .25 and .30   Then dropped going into 2006 but not a ton just to .15 to .22 or so and in-between.   We can't forget GIS had a decent melt season in 2005.  We also know almost every glacier on Earth is losing mass every year.  Unlike GISS and Antarctica our estimates on those are crap.  Our estimates on the poles may be crap too. 

 

Anyways from 2006 to early 2008 Sea Levels essentially evened off for a couple years.  Yet global sst's plunged by late Dec 2007.  Sea level's should have gone down a bit.  Thermal expansion shows 1MM or less SLR during that time.  Maybe some rain waters made their way back to the ocean? 

 

I am going with the overwhelming obvious answer is that land ice loss off-set that plunge for the most part.  Then SSTs rebounded and the SLR responded but remember SSTs are a variable unless they move beyond their previous peak.  They didn't they only rose to match the peak in 2005 and didn't spend near as much time up there.  We know from 2005-2010 SLR from OHC-2000 is 2.5MM according to this graph below, which is weighted so it might of been less.

 

Sea levels in 2010 were 15MM roughly higher than 2005.  Obviously the rain water factor matters.  But with SST's at ideal comparable levels the obvious answer is that melting land ice picked up most of the tab.  There is no SST/SLR rise lag.  Heat expands the mass or it doesn't.  \

 

Then we see during 2010 Sea Levels fall about 5-7M from the early 2010 peak.  SST's fell abruptly.  At the same time we set back to back global records for land rainfall/precipitation.  It was enough to throw off the rising sea's even with rapidly accelerating ice mass loss.  Obviously things even out.  SST's eventually in 2012 rose back to 0.3 for a moment now have been sitting between .2 and .25C for 8 months.  We got a nice 1MM or so bump from OHC since 2010.

 

Since SSTs are actually lower than the peak in 2005 and 2010 it would diminish that effect comparably speaking.  I expect a slight dip because the SH melt season is much weaker than the NH. 

 

It's not extraordinary.  It would just put the amount of Ice Mass loss from land ice around 7.5 to 9 million tonnes.  From the thermal expansion/sst peak to now.  Personally it's not hard to accept that we flushed that much land ice in 9 years.  What is worrisome is that is heavy ended to now. 

 

It's easy to be lazy an pretend OHC hasn't almost leveled off.  OHC chart says 3MM from 0-2000M.  SLR charts say 30MM total.  That fits the OHC trend before it stopped.  OHC says SLR should have dramatically slowed with the level of land ice melt we had been going by.  With OHC contributing 3MM. 

 

I doubt the OHC estimates are wrong since global temps haven't gone up.

 

I added another SLR chart below that is updated into April of 2013.  The one above it only goes to January 2013.

 

If humans have inadvertently started to darken the worlds glaciers with pollution, expecially the NH ones.  The albedo numbers don't lie.  The melt acceleration will be tremendous.

 

If you're going to tell me I am wrong explain why ohc and global temps have been steady during the 9-10 year period and SLR has risen 30MM.  Over that long with SSTs actually a bit lower.  Short term variance is useless to try and write it off. 

 

 

[PottercountyWXobserver]

-NAO for the summer is rearing its ugly head? Whether this means anything and continues into JJA is yet to be seen. Based on past trends and arctic amplification, my money is on another -NAO summer.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Models keep struggling with blowing up the NA Side HP over the Greenland greater region.

 

One blows up and and heads into the Arctic towards Russia.  Another blows up West over Canada and slowly builds East.  Another blows up over Europe and slides North East into the Kara region.

[LithiaWx]

[The_Global_Warmer]

Like all good things.  Greenland is about to unthaw as well.

 

southern half especially.

 

 

 

 

[LithiaWx]

Like all good things.  Greenland is about to unthaw as well.

 

southern half especially.

 

 

 

 

Maybe..... Those 850's aren't all that warm...

[ORH_wxman]

Any update on the Greenland melt this year?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Any update on the Greenland melt this year?

 

https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/

[ORH_wxman]

https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/

 

 

I was looking for greenland ice graph. I thought NSIDC had a new one.

 

 

edit: nevermind, found it...thanks.

 

http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

[The_Global_Warmer]

Using modis Greenland has been saved so far by huge May cold.

 

It reminds me of 2011.  I expect the melt to be 550-600GT as it stands now.  If things go wild sunny and warm for two months then 750GT+

[PhillipS]

Using modis Greenland has been saved so far by huge May cold.

 

It reminds me of 2011.  I expect the melt to be 550-600GT as it stands now.  If things go wild sunny and warm for two months then 750GT+

 

I wouldn't put too much weight on the NSIDC graph at this time because they are still adjusting their algorithms.  You may recall that they were showing heavy early ice melt and then retracted those plots because they were showing surface snow melt as glacial ice melt.  The current figures are better, but I won't be surprised if there are further adjustments.  Remote sensing from satellites usually needs a period of of 'ground-truthing' calibration and this melt season should give them the data needed to dial in the algorithms.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I wouldn't put too much weight on the NSIDC graph at this time because they are still adjusting their algorithms.  You may recall that they were showing heavy early ice melt and then retracted those plots because they were showing surface snow melt as glacial ice melt.  The current figures are better, but I won't be surprised if there are further adjustments.  Remote sensing from satellites usually needs a period of of 'ground-truthing' calibration and this melt season should give them the data needed to dial in the algorithms.

 

Agree.

 

We can see on Visible satellite melt areas not picked up by the remote sensing at this point.  But the widespread melt hasn't' started yet.

 

 

The terra 3-6-7 images show how thin the snow layer is.

 

Once the melt kicks off it will be vigorous

[LithiaWx]

Agree.

We can see on Visible satellite melt areas not picked up by the remote sensing at this point. But the widespread melt hasn't' started yet.

The terra 3-6-7 images show how thin the snow layer is.

Once the melt kicks off it will be vigorous

its going to be a bloodbath

[LithiaWx]

Like all good things. Greenland is about to unthaw as well.

southern half especially.

Greenland didn't unthaw.... It's still in the deep freeze.

[The_Global_Warmer]

This doesn't look like the deep freeze to me:  I don't think there is a real appreciation by many to what is happening up there.  Conditions have been extremely great for Greenland the last month.  With barely any warmth the surface melting goes above normal. 

 

Given how damn cold it's been, we may see another week or so go below normal.  But it will take minimal warming for Greenlands melt to go wild.  Which it will.  We have June, July, and August to go.

 

It really doesn't matter, most of the actually land ice loss is within 30KM of the ice edge south of 70N. 

 

we could hold steady at climo melt are and still see 600GT get wasted.

 

 

 

 

[LithiaWx]

Like all good things.  Greenland is about to unthaw as well.

 

southern half especially.

 

 

 

 

The models performed very poorly. Greenland didn't unthaw, quite the opposite it remains vodka cold and the melt is behind schedule.

[Snow_Miser]

Latest update: