Greenland 2012

[PhillipS]

didn't see this posted:

Greenland ice sheet albedo feedback:

thermodynamics and atmospheric drivers

Abstract

abstr Greenland ice sheet mass loss has accelerated in the past decade responding to combined

glacier discharge and surface melt water runoff increases. During summer, absorbed solar energy,

modulated at the surface primarily by albedo, is the dominant factor governing surface

melt variability in the ablation area. Using satellite–derived surface albedo with calibrated

regional climate modeled surface air temperature and surface downward solar irradiance, we

determine the spatial dependence and quantitative impact of the ice sheet albedo feedback over

twelve summer periods beginning in 2000. We find that while albedo feedback defined by the

change in net solar shortwave flux and temperature over time is positive over 97% of the ice

sheet, when defined using paired annual anomalies, a second order negative feedback is evident

over 63% of the accumulation area. This negative feedback damps the accumulation area response

to warming due to a positive correlation between snowfall and surface air temperature

anomalies. Positive anomaly–gauged feedback concentrated in the ablation area accounts for

more than half of the overall increase in melting when satellite derived melt duration is used to

define the timing when net shortwave flux is sunk into melting. Abnormally strong anticyclonic

circulation, associated with a persistent summer North Atlantic Oscillation extreme since 2007

enabled three amplifying mechanisms to maximize the albedo feedback: (1) increased warm

(south) air advection along the western ice sheet increased surface sensible heating that in turn

enhanced snow grain metamorphic rates, further reducing albedo; (2) increased surface downward

shortwave flux, leading to more surface heating and further albedo reduction; and (3)

reduced snowfall rates sustained low albedo, maximizing surface solar heating, progressively

lowering albedo over multiple years. The summer net infrared and solar radiation for the high

elevation accumulation area approached positive values during this period. Thus, it is reasonable

to expect 100% melt area over the ice sheet within another similar decade of warming.

http://bprc.osu.edu/...iew round 2.pdf

It was posted, together with Dr Box's Meltfactor.org website, but it doesn't hurt to bump it back up. Thanks.

[Vergent]

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

Actually it was (grams ice melted) / (grams condensation) which equals (latent heat evaporation)/(latent heat of fusion) or 540c/g / 80c/g = 6.75 grams of ice melted per gram of condensation.

0.0C rain on ice does not melt ice it only makes it wet, there is no phase change. But, usually, when it is raining, the dew point is above freezing so, condensation is happening as well. That is what melts the ice.

[skierinvermont]

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.

Well I just got through reading Shaviv and the first thing I noticed was that his graphs showing an 11-yr periodicity to SLR, SSTs and OHC do not jibe with any graphs of actual SLR, SST, or OHC data I have seen before. In other words, the data he used looks completely different than the data I have seen from reputable sources. He must have manipulated the data in some ways.

I then spent over an hour looking for ANYBODY that had bothered to read and respond to Shaviv's paper (which by the way was so poorly reviewed or not reviewed at all that it contains numerous typos and does not adhere at all to the standard format for writing scientific papers). I could not find ANY published responses. I did eventually find the thread on WUWT and I perused the comments section for anybody else that had noticed the same thing I had. I eventually found several comments by Leif Svalgaard (who used to be a darling of the WUWT community but has since gone rogue). Leif noticed the same thing I did.

He eventually, after failing to receive a response to his queries about where this very strange OHC, SST, and SLR data came from, accuses Shaviv of what amounts to professional misconduct:

How about comparing with Shaviv’s Figure 2. He shows a clear cyclic variation of the sea level [although not too well correlated with the solar cycle]. In my plot [which reflects the actual data as I have downloaded them from reputable sources] there is no such variation, so his graph looks like pure fantasy to me, unless some fancy smoothing, bandpass filtering, adjusting, or other massagings that we are not told about were applied.

In other words, Leif confirmed my initial suspicion. Shaviv has modified the data in some way, or straight up invented it.

Shaviv claims there is a strong correlation between SLR and the 11 yr solar cycle. All you have to do is look at the SLR data to observe that this is not the case. There is no 11 yr periodocity in SLR data:

This contrasts strongly with Shaviv's figure which magically finds a perfect 11-yr periodocity in the SLR data. Truly magical indeed!

[skierinvermont]

1x by Willie Soon

2x by Nicola Scarfetta

1x by Shaviv himself

And we all know what fine work they have produced in the past. Together the three have great expertise in data contortion. I came up with a few more using google scholar but none are credible.

The idea that there is a strong correlation between OHC, SLR, or SST and the 11 yr solar cycle is silly to anybody that is familiar with the data. For one thing, the data is not precise enough for such a correlation to the sun to be detected whether it existed or not.

[SN_Lover]

Vikings would have probably loved to see this day come. Too bad they did not adapt with the Mini Ice Age.

[Snow_Miser]

[quote name='skierinvermont' timestamp='1343417404' post='1670015'

Shaviv claims there is a strong correlation between SLR and the 11 yr solar cycle. All you have to do is look at the SLR data to observe that this is not the case. There is no 11 yr periodocity in SLR data:

[/size][/font][/color]

This contrasts strongly with Shaviv's figure which magically finds a perfect 11-yr periodocity in the SLR data. Truly magical indeed!

LOL how the heck can you claim that there is no 11 year periodicity in the SLR, when you do not have the 11 year solar cycle for comparison in that chart you posted? Shaviv's graph seems to show a nice correlation, so until you post a chart showing SLR and the 11 year solar cycle, this entire post of your's is moot.

So then you can come to the idiotic conclusion that Shaviv manipulated data. You are sounding like some of the irrational skeptics when they talk about data manipulation for the temperature recor over the last 150 years.

[skierinvermont]

LOL how the heck can you claim that there is no 11 year periodicity in the SLR, when you do not have the 11 year solar cycle for comparison in that chart you posted? Shaviv's graph seems to show a nice correlation, so until you post a chart showing SLR and the 11 year solar cycle, this entire post of your's is moot.

So then you can come to the idiotic conclusion that Shaviv manipulated data. You are sounding like some of the irrational skeptics when they talk about data manipulation for the temperature recor over the last 150 years.

You honestly cannot see the difference between the Shaviv graph of dSLR/dt and Leif's graph (which looks like every other graph I've seen)?

I'm quite confident that every other sane poster on this forum will be able to see that the Shaviv graph bears no resemblance to actual SLR data. If you would like I can overlay the 11 year solar cycle on Leif's graph, but I hardly think that is necessary. Every sane poster on this forum can see that the Shaviv 'data' is not real SLR data. I feel no need to demonstrate this any further than has already been demonstrated. You will not convince a single rational poster on this forum that the Shaviv data is valid. In fact, your attempts to do so only make you and your position look more irrational.

[ben4vols]

I did eventually find the thread on WUWT and I perused the comments section for anybody else that had noticed the same thing I had. I eventually found several comments by Leif Svalgaard (who used to be a darling of the WUWT community but has since gone rogue). Leif noticed the same thing I did.

He eventually, after failing to receive a response to his queries about where this very strange OHC, SST, and SLR data came from, accuses Shaviv of what amounts to professional misconduct:

How about comparing with Shaviv’s Figure 2. He shows a clear cyclic variation of the sea level [although not too well correlated with the solar cycle]. In my plot [which reflects the actual data as I have downloaded them from reputable sources] there is no such variation, so his graph looks like pure fantasy to me, unless some fancy smoothing, bandpass filtering, adjusting, or other massagings that we are not told about were applied.

In other words, Leif confirmed my initial suspicion. Shaviv has modified the data in some way, or straight up invented it.

I've always enjoyed reading Leif's take on the Sun and it's effects. What do you mean about him going rogue?

[Msalgado]

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.

The amount of energy in a gram of liquid water dwarfs the amount of energy in the amount of atmosphere occupying the same amount of volume. For Hot and dry to be worse for the ice it would have to be quite warm. If the rain is falling is even a couple of degrees above the freezing point its going to be carrying a ton of energy that will go into melting that ice.

I believe (I don't remember exactly) but the specific heat of a KG of air is about 1 KJ per Kg. Water on the other hand, is about 4KJ per Kg. Of course, air is also much less dense than liquid water so that further increases the difference in energy per volume.

[skierinvermont]

I've always enjoyed reading Leif's take on the Sun and it's effects. What do you mean about him going rogue?

A recent comment of his on WUWT says he believes the sun has nothing to do with the past century of increasing temperature. He has made many similar comments in recent years.

All that solar/geomagnetic/cosmic ray stuff related to temperature is simply falsified by recent data: the sun is now as quiet as it was a century ago, geomagnetic activity and interplanetary magnetic fields are at record lows, cosmic rays at record high, and yet temperatures are much warmer now than a century ago. This does not mean that the rise is man made, just that it is not solar made.'

http://wattsupwithth...un-et-al-paper/

The WUWT clowns are up in arms all over him of course.

[ben4vols]

A recent comment of his on WUWT says he believes the sun has nothing to do with the past century of increasing temperature. He has made many similar comments in recent years.

All that solar/geomagnetic/cosmic ray stuff related to temperature is simply falsified by recent data: the sun is now as quiet as it was a century ago, geomagnetic activity and interplanetary magnetic fields are at record lows, cosmic rays at record high, and yet temperatures are much warmer now than a century ago. This does not mean that the rise is man made, just that it is not solar made.'

http://wattsupwithth...un-et-al-paper/

The WUWT clowns are up in arms all over him of course.

I think he is right. Those that push the solar connection will either make or brake in the next few years.

[PhillipS]

There is a good post on the NASA Earth Observatory webpage about the flooding in Greenland. The text accompanying the photos answered one of the questions I had about whether the flood was caused by melting of the surface of the ice sheet (yes) or coming from beneath the ice sheet (no).

[donsutherland1]

A recent comment of his on WUWT says he believes the sun has nothing to do with the past century of increasing temperature. He has made many similar comments in recent years.

All that solar/geomagnetic/cosmic ray stuff related to temperature is simply falsified by recent data: the sun is now as quiet as it was a century ago, geomagnetic activity and interplanetary magnetic fields are at record lows, cosmic rays at record high, and yet temperatures are much warmer now than a century ago. This does not mean that the rise is man made, just that it is not solar made.'

http://wattsupwithth...un-et-al-paper/

To his credit, Leif is a realist. He saw that the recent large "lab experiment" of sorts available to test the solar link to observed temperature increases, the deep and prolonged solar minimum, failed to produce the kind of outcome that would have demonstrated that the sun was largely or wholly responsible.

[donsutherland1]

I think he is right. Those that push the solar connection will either make or brake in the next few years.

As far as Leif is concerned, the solar hypothesis has already been broken.

[nzucker]

As far as Leif is concerned, the solar hypothesis has already been broken.

I don't really agree...the great solar minimums of the 1600s and 1800s were on the order of centuries, or at least decades. This dip in solar activity was only starting to get serious around 2008, and it hasn't lasted that long. It would be impossible to judge its climate impact at this point.

[PhillipS]

I don't really agree...the great solar minimums of the 1600s and 1800s were on the order of centuries. This dip in solar activity was only starting to get serious around 2008, and it hasn't lasted that long. It would be impossible to judge its climate impact at this point.

The SC24 minimum has come and gone. December 2008 was the lowest point and now we are headed for a maximum, which we should reach early next year.

And here is the link to the NASA prediction for solar activity over the next few years.

The solar minimum came and went without much impact on the global temperature record. And since the surface temperature record responds very quickly to changes in forcings, if the solar minimum were going to make much of a difference we would already be seeing it in the observational record. Didn't happen, so solar is ruled out as the dominant driver of global warming.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I don't really agree...the great solar minimums of the 1600s and 1800s were on the order of centuries. This dip in solar activity was only starting to get serious around 2008, and it hasn't lasted that long. It would be impossible to judge its climate impact at this point.

That is not all what was being discussed.

[nzucker]

The SC24 minimum has come and gone. December 2008 was the lowest point and now we are headed for a maximum, which we should reach early next year.

And here is the link to the NASA predictionfor solar activity over the next few years.

The solar minimum came and went without much impact on the global temperature record. And since the surface temperature record responds very quickly to changes in forcings, if the solar minimum were going to make much of a difference we would already be seeing it in the observational record. Didn't happen, so solar is ruled out as the dominant driver of global warming.

I wouldn't call solar the dominant driver of warming, but you can't rule out its influence because of the Cycle 24 minimum, and you certainly can't compare the Cycle 24 minimum to times like the Dalton or Maunder when the solar minima lasted for decades and decades. The maximum for SC 25 should be a relatively low one, but we're still nowhere near the type of minimum we had around 1810 or back in the mid 1600s. So we can't falsify a theory about solar influences on temperature based on what happened in 2008 since that's such a small-scale downturn historically.

[TerryM]

While some of the higher areas are getting snow, in southern Greenland it's still raining. The rain at the north coast has abated, but the pole and Alaska are getting more then their share.

Sounds like an apocalyptic weather forecast for the next century - but it's what the Canadian weather maps show for today.

ftp://cisclient.cis.ec.gc.ca/PrecipitationType-Arctic_experimental_forecast_visualizations/PTYP_006.png

Snow anywhere in Greenland will help with the albedo anomaly, but rain is not so good. Paul K at Neven's makes a compelling argument that rain squalls in the Arctic are transporting enormous amounts of energy into the area.

Slightly Off Topic, but now might be a good time to watch for changes in the remnants of the Ward-Hunt Ice Shelf. It's early in the season, but I saw what may have been a crack in the western half yesterday through the rain clouds. It's not supposed to be raining there today so we may get a clear view. Disraeli Fjord has melted out for much of it's length.

The fast ice below Flade Isblink is fractured, but that area did hold together last year and the gyre is compacting it from the south. The slowdown - or halt of Fram transportation, coupled with recent rains, make the opening of Independence Fjord again almost a sure thing, but the MYI between the islands could go too.

NEEM reported melt at the surface yesterday, the second this year and 4th since the late 19th century. Summit reported a high of 0-F but I don't know if they experienced another melt.

MODIS isn't showing Greenland yet, but it looks as though at least the east coast may be cloud free.

Terry

[Msalgado]

Sounds like an apocalyptic weather forecast for the next century - but it's what the Canadian weather maps show for today.

Terry, I love that I get so much data from your posts but lines like this likely turn off more people than anything. The world is not coming to an end if it rains at the North Pole. The rhetoric just gets terrible.

[TerryM]

Terry, I love that I get so much data from your posts but lines like this likely turn off more people than anything. The world is not coming to an end if it rains at the North Pole. The rhetoric just gets terrible.

Sorry if it turned you off. I had written the preceding paragraph, paused, and on reading it couldn't help but being reminded of the voice over's in some of those old apocalyptic movies.

The fast ice in front of Humboldt Glacier is gone, we'll see if any more of the "Horn" erodes. I just received a reply confirming that the gyres in Kane Basin and Hall Basin are permanent, year round features that extend in depth and aren't dependent on wind.

Dr. Muenchow is heading into Nares within the next week or so to retrieve his recording instruments, so we should have a clearer picture of currents their when he (or Allison) have time to process all the new data.

http://icyseas.org/

Found an old paper on the Flade Isblink area from 1952 that connects the then permanent fast ice near NORD to the (then permanent) Ellesmere fast ice - and it's got some nice, early photos.

http://arctic.synergiesprairies.ca/arctic/index.php/arctic/article/view/3881

Terry

[Snow_Miser]

Sorry if it turned you off. I had written the preceding paragraph, paused, and on reading it couldn't help but being reminded of the voice over's in some of those old apocalyptic movies.

Good grief, rain at the North Pole means the apocalypse? Did snow falling in the northern half of Florida in January 2010 mean that the world was going to end?

It is called weather.

[bluewave]

Europe looks to open up Greenland for natural resource extraction.

http://www.guardian....tural-resources

[TerryM]

Arctic.io has added a Zoomable Greenland Glacier map - We've seen the map before, but the Zoom feature adds a lot. Their satellite interface is outstanding, particularly for things right at the split using MODIS - also an easy way to check back a week or so on various features. - be sure you set the date correctly.

Terry

[left_gulley]

Both the GFS and Euro show a continued torch for Greenland. I expect to see more data coming out soon that shows anomalously high Greenland melting this week and next.

Maybe this is Greenland's 2007?

[PottercountyWXobserver]

If I was a real estate investor, I would seriously consider buying land on the southern western coast of Greenland. Especially in Nuuk and Sisimiut.

[dabize]

If I was a real estate investor, I would seriously consider buying land on the southern western coast of Greenland. Especially in Nuuk and Sisimiut.

Just not at the shoreline............

[salbers]

Good grief, rain at the North Pole means the apocalypse? Did snow falling in the northern half of Florida in January 2010 mean that the world was going to end?

It is called weather.

In the good old colder days it used to snow more to the south in Mexico, including at lower elevations. This type of southern snow (beyond North Florida) seems less prevalent now - though I'm going off topic here. There may be a thread on this in either American or Eastern Wx...

[Alpha5]

If I was a real estate investor, I would seriously consider buying land on the southern western coast of Greenland. Especially in Nuuk and Sisimiut.

Which is probably why you're not a real estate investor....

[TerryM]

Maybe this is Greenland's 2007?

Too much cloud cover today to see what is happening - but it's interesting that none of the coastal temps dropped below freezing in the last 24 hours.

Terry