Greenland 2012

[skierinvermont]

Two quick things about Dr. Spencer's blog entry:

1. He recognizes that CO2 exerts a forcing, but believes the climate sensitivity is fairly low.

2. It appears that his comments about deeper waters don't consider the Argo era data. He wrote:

While some might claim that it is because warming is actually occurring much deeper in the ocean than 700 m, the vertical profiles I have seen suggest warming decreases rapidly with depth, and has been negligible at a depth of 700 m.

Even as data is sparser as one goes below 700 meters, the papers on the topic suggest greater not lesser warming at greater depths. For example, Levitus's 2012 paper found heat content increasing 0.39 watts per square meter for the 0 m - 2000 m depth but 0.27 watts per square meter for the 0 m - 700 m depth, meaning more rapid increases in heat content were taking place below 700 m.

I think you've misunderstood that statistic Don.. correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it that statistic shows that heat content increased at a rate of .27W/m2 at 0-700 and .12W/m2 below 700m. .12W/m2 is the difference between the 0-700m (.27W/m2) and the 0-2000m (.39W/m2). .12W/m2 is the additional rate of energy increase in the 700-2000m layer.

The point remains the same though. The energy gain below 700m is not negligible.

[skierinvermont]

Regarding the background, long term warming that you're referring to, it's my opinion that solar activity has played a significant role in that.

Total solar irradiance has been increasing since the beginning of the 20th century, reaching a peak in the 90s, when global temps also surged to their highest levels.

Below is a graph of US sfc temps vs TSI over time. Pretty good correlation.

If you run that correlation through 2012, you would find that correlation breaks down completely. TSI has returned nearly to late 19th century levels over the last decade, but temperatures remain at record levels.

[skierinvermont]

The trouble with those graphs is that the monthly temperature climatologies deeper than 1500 meters have not been calculated/observed, therefore data at the 2000 meter depth doesn't exist. Add in that in 55 years, only 5% of the 1° X 1° gridcells have three observations or more for January-March at the1500 meter level. So data for these graphs is a little spars to say the least.

As I explained in the other thread, this obscure fact you are siting does not negate the legitimacy of the SEM calculations performed by Levitus et al.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Regarding the background, long term warming that you're referring to, it's my opinion that solar activity has played a significant role in that.

Total solar irradiance has been increasing since the beginning of the 20th century, reaching a peak in the 90s, when global temps also surged to their highest levels.

Below is a graph of US sfc temps vs TSI over time. Pretty good correlation.

How come the solar irradiance on the bottom chart is different from the top.

Global temps surged to their highest levels because of the most monsterous El Nino on record since 1850 at least right?

If we had an El NIno like that in 2013, are you saying global temps would be cooler?

How do global temps from 2000-2012 correlate to TSI?

[TerryM]

More data from Box emphasizes the seriousness of conditions in Greenland.

it is elementary to conclude that the ice sheet absorbed an additional 10

²⁰

Joules (1 Joule is a Watt per second) or 100 Exajoules more solar energy. According to the International Energy Agency, this monthly figure eclipses the

annual

energy consumption for the United States in year 2011 (91 Exajoules).

http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=605

Terry

It seems as though predictions re Greenland melt & therefore sea level rise may be off even further than predictions about Arctic melt have proven to be.

[Msalgado]

Eh, I took it more in the vein of the Sun puts out way more energy than we use. That doesn't mean all that ice is going to melt anytime soon.

[TerryM]

Eh, I took it more in the vein of the Sun puts out way more energy than we use. That doesn't mean all that ice is going to melt anytime soon.

Perhaps this will help. The paper was accepted last month - prior to the second Summit melt in the last 800 years.

http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=618

Terry

[The_Global_Warmer]

I was referring to the PDO.

Cool phase began in the past several years. The arctic sea ice saw a rapid decrease shortly after the Atlantic flipped warm in the mid 90s

Regarding the Pacific discussion, it was warming from 1977 to approximately 2006, but has begun to cool down just over the past several years. Most of the 1990-2010 period featured both a warm Pacific and Atlantic, hastening the arctic melt.

Can you show me specific examples? I have asked every single poster in this forum who makes this claim. Now your not claiming it's the cause or sole reason so the evidence you should be able to provide might be easier to come by.

I mean, what if the extra warmth is in the West Pacific, how does that effect the arctic sea ice?

The state of the ice at least back to 1979 can be broken down by weather patterns causing temperature changes, wind shifts, we can track solar radiation, albedo changes, we can track GHG forcing with satelittes, we can track under water heat flux with buoys, which shows us the Atlantic sector having small effect on ice thickness in the Eurasian Basin, which again is where the ice doesn't melt out and that ice is always on it's way out the Fram anyways.

So in the end we have all of these tools to track this stuff and you and other throw out correlation time series and do not provide any sort of direct evidence to support it and claim it has a 30,50, maybe 70% impact and so on.

Last year I provided ample evidence for bottom ice melt was called a liar, I provided an insane amount of data on remote sensing to show Bremen was on the money last year with the Sea Ice because of the resolution they use. While proving their algorithm matches Jaxa. I was ripped apart by a half dozen posters at least only one person ORH even bothered to argue.

Ironically NSIDC is now using them and has been for a couple years and not Jaxa.

This is what I am looking for. Why not just look for some evidence and back the claim up.

[QVectorman]

As I explained in the other thread, this obscure fact you are siting does not negate the legitimacy of the SEM calculations performed by Levitus et al.

Really? When you calculate the 95% CI for SEM, you use a t distribution with probability 0.975 and n-1 degrees of freedom. If you have a lot of points, that comes out to +/- 1.96 times your SEM. But with only three points, that comes out to +/- 4.3 times your SEM. If your SEM is a half degree, that comes out to +/- 2 degrees.

You guys just keep believing what you want and ignore the rules of science, statistics and math

[WeatherRusty]

Regarding the background, long term warming that you're referring to, it's my opinion that solar activity has played a significant role in that.

Total solar irradiance has been increasing since the beginning of the 20th century, reaching a peak in the 90s, when global temps also surged to their highest levels.

Below is a graph of US sfc temps vs TSI over time. Pretty good correlation.

The upper graph indicates an increase in TSI of 0.2 watts. If we convert TSI to radiative forcing we get 0.035w/m^2. Most unimpressive if you ask me.

Since the depth of the Maunder Minimum solar forcing is thought to have increased somewhere between 0.06-0.30w/m^2.

For comparison a doubling of CO2 produces a radiative forcing of 3.7W/m^2.

As someone else has stated, we should not ignore math and science. I agree.

[TerryM]

Just an attempt to bring things back OT

The Summit melt earlier this month was the first since 1889, then there were none until the Viking age when 4 more were experienced, then one about 300 AD.

http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/DATA/alley1.html

The albedo change noted in Box's paper has accelerated to the point that he had to extend the y axis or this July would have literally been off the charts - and the pan Greenland melting that he foresaw occurring if we had another decade of similar conditions took place as the paper was accepted for publication.

Independence Fjord is opening for the second year in a row, Peterman Glacier lost a chunk the size of Manhattan and the Watson River came close to doubling it's previous record flooding.

The IPCC vastly underestimated the rapidity at which the Arctic would melt. I think they could be even further off about Greenland's melt - and the resulting sea level rise.

Certainly not much for the Skeptic/Denier to hang his hat on, so I suppose diversion is to be expected. But it would be nice to see some of the more general discussions being discussed on one of the more general threads.

Terry

[Snow_Miser]

The upper graph indicates an increase in TSI of 0.2 watts. If we convert TSI to radiative forcing we get 0.035w/m^2. Most unimpressive if you ask me.

Since the depth of the Maunder Minimum solar forcing is thought to have increased somewhere between 0.06-0.30w/m^2.

For comparison a doubling of CO2 produces a radiative forcing of 3.7W/m^2.

As someone else has stated, we should not ignore math and science. I agree.

Of course, we know very well that there are many other ways that the sun influences climate change, and has observationally observed to have a 7x greater forcing over the solar cycle than with just TSI alone.

[skierinvermont]

Of course, we know very well that there are many other ways that the sun influences climate change, and has observationally observed to have a 7x greater forcing over the solar cycle than with just TSI alone.

False. Temperatures and forcing barely fluctuate at all over the course of solar cycles.

[Snow_Miser]

How come the solar irradiance on the bottom chart is different from the top

The TSI reconstruction on the top uses Lean et. al 2000 before 1979 and ACRIM after 1979. The bottom chart shows Hoyt and Schatten's TSI reconstruction superimposed on US temperatures.

[Snow_Miser]

False. Temperatures and forcing barely fluctuate at all over the course of solar cycles.

Really? Read Shaviv 2008 for one example, and Kirkby et. al 2000 for another.

The total forcing has been observed to be 7x as large as the TSI forcing over the course of the solat cycle, giving rise to a 0.1-0.2 degree temperature response. This strongly implies low sensitivity.

[TerryM]

Snow

We actually have a solar thread if I recall correctly & I don't recall anyone posting Greenland updates there.

If you don't find Greenland a worthy topic of discussion why do you insist on posting your solar theories on this thread?

Terry

[PhillipS]

Really? Read Shaviv 2008 for one example, and Kirkby et. al 2000 for another.

The total forcing has been observed to be 7x as large as the TSI forcing over the course of the solat cycle, giving rise to a 0.1-0.2 degree temperature response. This strongly implies low sensitivity.

Shaviv 2008 is a joke and I think you know that. His premise is to attribute the entire OHC rise to solar variability. The following words and phrases do not appear in his 13 page paper:

climate change, global warming, carbon dioxide, GHG, GHE, anthropogenic, AGW, climate forcing.

The word greenhouse only occurs once:

For example, a higher seasurface temperature is responsible for more water vapor in the atmosphere, which as a greenhouse gas, re-radiates heat back into the oceans, giving rise to a strong positive feedback.

For him to attribute ALL of the OHC rise to his favorite forcing is just wrong - wrong from start to finish - totally, totally wrong. Yet you keep invoking that paper as if it holds the wisdom of the ages. Perhaps it is time you gave it a rest.

[QVectorman]

Here is the entire quote for Terry since he dismissed it as there only being one 150 year cycle on record.

"In Greenland there have been many deep ice-core drilling projects which drilled ice to the bedrock," she wrote. "In the past 10,000 years (the Holocene), there is on average a melt layer every 150 years."

Mary Albert, executive director of the NSF Ice Core Drilling office, and Kaitlin Keegan, an engineering PhD student and a fellow in Dartmouth's polar environmental change program, are working on a paper together on the Greenland ice sheet melt.

[TerryM]

Here is the entire quote for Terry since he dismissed it as there only being one 150 year cycle on record.

"In Greenland there have been many deep ice-core drilling projects which drilled ice to the bedrock," she wrote. "In the past 10,000 years (the Holocene), there is on average a melt layer every 150 years."

Mary Albert, executive director of the NSF Ice Core Drilling office, and Kaitlin Keegan, an engineering PhD student and a fellow in Dartmouth's polar environmental change program, are working on a paper together on the Greenland ice sheet melt.

You obviously missed my earlier postings here, and perhaps my exchanges with Kaitlin. The problem was that they were using the whole of the Holocene to get the 150 year figure, when in fact there had only been one instance in 1889, and then a grouping of 4 in the Viking age. The incident was covered by the NYT and Joe Romm. The sentence you quoted was actually in response to my E-Mail. Factoring in the Holocene Maximum over 6,000 years ago skewed the figures significantly. Perhaps scanning Dr Muenchow's blog would give you a better understanding.

http://icyseas.org/2012/07/24/record-warming-and-melting-of-greenland/#comments

[QVectorman]

You obviously missed my earlier postings here, and perhaps my exchanges with Kaitlin. The problem was that they were using the whole of the Holocene to get the 150 year figure, when in fact there had only been one instance in 1889, and then a grouping of 4 in the Viking age. The incident was covered by the NYT and Joe Romm. The sentence you quoted was actually in response to my E-Mail. Factoring in the Holocene Maximum over 6,000 years ago skewed the figures significantly. Perhaps scanning Dr Muenchow's blog would give you a better understanding.

http://icyseas.org/2...nland/#comments

Good read.Thanks. So what you are saying is that it has happened several times before in the last 1000 years right

Just not approx. 7 times to avg. every 150 years?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Both the Euro and GFS offer no relief in sight. cloud cover at times and rain as well which I believe makes it worse at this point, but continued well above normal temps especially for the southern half of the ice sheet in the long run.

By days 7-10 the models develop a large Dipole Anomaly and show some signs of cooler more cloudy conditions reaching the West/Southwest side of Greenland.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I do not see the significance of focusing on this summit thing. the Summit could see no melting while 65 percent of the rest of Greenland turns dark and we get insane ice albedo feedback and massive sea level rise anyways.

On top of that, it gives people who want to stick their heads in la la land a place to dump the culmination of all of this onto it.

For instance. If the summit did see melting in 1889. Everyone knows there is no way the lead up to 1889 was nothing like 2005-2012.

What is taking place now isn't some random pattern driven event, this has been in the making for a while.

While it pains me to see our beautiful planet under go such rapid and possible grave consequences at the hand of our species. I know it's out of my hands. And watching people desperately try to hang on to some sort of denial as the evidence mounts has been interesting to say the least. Now rapid changes are taking place and the denial platform is about sunk.

I wonder how it's going to be spun when the sea level rise charts reflect this over the next few years and the arctic sea ice blows by the previous lows and more Greenland ice loss records are set.

it's not like the new albedo surface is going to magically go away. It's a positive feedback that's only going to get worse.

Let's just hope the sheet isn't this dark and dirty everywhere right below the surface

[QVectorman]

Ya honestly I have no clue how the land ever got its name "Greenland"...such a freaking mystery

[TerryM]

Friv

I can tell you why I think the melt is significant. For one thing basically all of Greenland started melting - this didn't happen in 1889 as otherwise it would have been recorded at NEEM, which is at a much lower elevation. That said, this makes it the first time this has occurred sine at least the Viking Age. _ and I don't have the figures to know if such an all encompassing event took place then.

Your hope that the sheet isn't this dark and dirty everywhere I think is in vain. A few posters, here and at Neven's have likened this to the way snow drifts or piled snow left behind after the plows melts out. It gets darker and darker as it melts & all the soot just stays on top as the snow melts away.

Skier linked me to a graph showing black carbon captured in the cores - it peaked in 1906-1910. Once we've melted that far down things will speed up considerably and i can't think of anything to stop it until ocean waves wash the soot away.

Perhaps we'll get huge snowstorms and cold summers - but I wouldn't invest in a sea shore bungalow.

Terry

[TerryM]

Ya honestly I have no clue how the land ever got its name "Greenland"...such a freaking mystery

While you apparently have never perused the Icelandic sagas.

Terry

[The_Global_Warmer]

Friv

I can tell you why I think the melt is significant. For one thing basically all of Greenland started melting - this didn't happen in 1889 as otherwise it would have been recorded at NEEM, which is at a much lower elevation. That said, this makes it the first time this has occurred sine at least the Viking Age. _ and I don't have the figures to know if such an all encompassing event took place then.

Your hope that the sheet isn't this dark and dirty everywhere I think is in vain. A few posters, here and at Neven's have likened this to the way snow drifts or piled snow left behind after the plows melts out. It gets darker and darker as it melts & all the soot just stays on top as the snow melts away.

Skier linked me to a graph showing black carbon captured in the cores - it peaked in 1906-1910. Once we've melted that far down things will speed up considerably and i can't think of anything to stop it until ocean waves wash the soot away.

Perhaps we'll get huge snowstorms and cold summers - but I wouldn't invest in a sea shore bungalow.

Terry

I agree with you. I have pretty much been sold to myself after 2010 and 2011 and studying those sat images before 2012 even started that this was about to rapidly feedback out of control.

I am not arrogant enough to sit here and say the ice sheet will be all dark in 5 years and all hell will break loose.

But I am not going to pretend like well golly gee maybe in 10 years when the "AMO" flips Greenland can gain back some ice mass through cold temps and snow fall.

Yeah, let's put down the pipe or go see a psychiatrist and get some professional help so we can move back into reality.

This is happening because of albedo changes. And while cycles play a role. The driver is increased down-welling radiation. And it has driven the ice sheet to lose it's protective layer. Now we know how it can go so quickly.

Albedo's have been changed, arctic sea ice, snow cover, glaciers. The driver is GHG forcing. It never stops, it never takes a day off. It's increasing year after year.

When it comes to Greenland. Maybe a year will have a record amount of snowfall over the darkest parts of the ice sheet and the Spring/Summer pattern prevents it from being exposed until later on in the summer and it's a weaker melt year.

Has anyone put out any ideas on how much ice mass loss we are thinking?

I am going to say after this mot recent surge I think Grace will show 800-900GT this summer.

In all seriousness if this albedo change keeps going like this and overall warming continues. We could be looking at losing 3000-5000GT of ice mass a year in a decade.

Did we not see this albedo change coming?

[Snow_Miser]

Shaviv 2008 is a joke and I think you know that. His premise is to attribute the entire OHC rise to solar variability. The following words and phrases do not appear in his 13 page paper:

climate change, global warming, carbon dioxide, GHG, GHE, anthropogenic, AGW, climate forcing.

The word greenhouse only occurs once:

For example, a higher seasurface temperature is responsible for more water vapor in the atmosphere, which as a greenhouse gas, re-radiates heat back into the oceans, giving rise to a strong positive feedback.

For him to attribute ALL of the OHC rise to his favorite forcing is just wrong - wrong from start to finish - totally, totally wrong. Yet you keep invoking that paper as if it holds the wisdom of the ages. Perhaps it is time you gave it a rest.

This is amazingly sad.

Shaviv does not attribute all of the ohc rise to solar variability, so your post is an absolute joke.

[Alpha5]

Both the Euro and GFS offer no relief in sight. cloud cover at times and rain as well which I believe makes it worse at this point, but continued well above normal temps especially for the southern half of the ice sheet in the long run.

By days 7-10 the models develop a large Dipole Anomaly and show some signs of cooler more cloudy conditions reaching the West/Southwest side of Greenland.

To be honest, I would think that the worst thing for the ice would be dry and warm conditions. Any of that rain will inevitably freeze back up.

[Vergent]

To be honest, I would think that the worst thing for the ice would be dry and warm conditions. Any of that rain will inevitably freeze back up.

It must be nice to "think" in a zero gravity environment.

[TerryM]

Some time back someone posted the #of grams of ice melted by 1 gram of rain - I don't recall the figure, but it was much larger than I had expected.

BTW - Lots of rain today in south and west Greenland - Tomorrow the north coast gets it's share.

Terry