Greenland 2012

[The_Global_Warmer]

Yes a -NAO typically will do that. But this situation is already enhanced by record warm SST to the South of Greenland and the weak snow growth so far in the main melt regions of Greenland.

And the idea that loss of sea ice will bring more -AO which means more HP's over Greenland and less precip = less protective snow = faster melt season = continual albedo driven Dipole Patterns.

What the models show now is just stupid. The Euro also super torches the Southern 1/3rd of Greenland.

Typically a big rebound in ice mass from snowfall is right after the min. 2010 was similar to this and had a weak rebound. Those scientists selling more -AO's might be on to something.

[tacoman25]

Yes a -NAO typically will do that. But this situation is already enhanced by record warm SST to the South of Greenland and the weak snow growth so far in the main melt regions of Greenland.

And the idea that loss of sea ice will bring more -AO which means more HP's over Greenland and less precip = less protective snow = faster melt season = continual albedo driven Dipole Patterns.

What the models show now is just stupid. The Euro also super torches the Southern 1/3rd of Greenland.

Typically a big rebound in ice mass from snowfall is right after the min. 2010 was similar to this and had a weak rebound. Those scientists selling more -AO's might be on to something.

The loss of ice = more -AO/-NAO is a nice theory, but I think the lower solar activity leading to more high latitude blocking has more long term evidence.

Again, it seems as though too many in the climate science community want to try to attribute anything and everything that happens to man-made causes in some way. This ignores the fact that the earth has clearly gone through periodic, cyclical, and abrupt climate changes throughout its history.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The loss of ice = more -AO/-NAO is a nice theory, but I think the lower solar activity leading to more high latitude blocking has more long term evidence.

Again, it seems as though too many in the climate science community want to try to attribute anything and everything that happens to man-made causes in some way. This ignores the fact that the earth has clearly gone through periodic, cyclical, and abrupt climate changes throughout its history.

The evidence is paltry, true.

But when we do compare the period since 2007 to historical periods we have no other like this one. Which also coincides with record low albedos in Greenland and warmer Sea's on every side but the Northern side.

By your last statement though, of course true. In this case there is no evidence of another abrupt climate change expect what man is doing.

We are going to push Co2 well over 600PPM and Methane who knows how far when the arctic clathrates and permafrost destabilize.

[tacoman25]

The evidence is paltry, true.

But when we do compare the period since 2007 to historical periods we have no other like this one. Which also coincides with record low albedos in Greenland and warmer Sea's on every side but the Northern side.

By your last statement though, of course true. In this case there is no evidence of another abrupt climate change expect what man is doing.

We are going to push Co2 well over 600PPM and Methane who knows how far when the arctic clathrates and permafrost destabilize.

Yes, as well as the lowest solar activity in a long time. My point was that there is plenty of evidence that previous periods of low solar activity also brought about increased high latitude blocking, so I would lean towards the theory with more evidence at this point.

[csnavywx]

Solar activity has rebounded since the '09 min, correct? I don't think anybody is forecasting a large max this time around, but we're not in the doldrums like we were a couple of years ago.

The Greenland low to mid-level ridging phenomenon from 2007-2012 (Jun-Aug) period is pretty robust compared to any other given period in the data set (hence the ECMWF doing a piece of research on that atm).

[tacoman25]

Solar activity has rebounded since the '09 min, correct? I don't think anybody is forecasting a large max this time around, but we're not in the doldrums like we were a couple of years ago.

The Greenland low to mid-level ridging phenomenon from 2007-2012 (Jun-Aug) period is pretty robust compared to any other given period in the data set (hence the ECMWF doing a piece of research on that atm).

It's rebounded from the minimum, but the cycle and overall activity is still well below previous cycles of the past 100+ years.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Surface albedo changes would trump solar changes and its no where close.

[csnavywx]

Surface albedo changes would trump solar changes and its no where close.

Yeah, it's on the order of -0.25 W/m2 from 2000-2009 of total solar forcing. From 2009-present, it's a little less than +0.10 W/m2 from what I can see.

[tacoman25]

Yeah, it's on the order of -0.25 W/m2 from 2000-2009 of total solar forcing. From 2009-present, it's a little less than +0.10 W/m2 from what I can see.

I'm not talking about solar forcing in terms of temps. I'm talking about the correlation between lower solar activity and more blocking in the high latitudes. I'd be happy to refer you to some literature if you'd like.

[tacoman25]

Surface albedo changes would trump solar changes and its no where close.

Based on what? Not if we are talking about blocking/slowing the polar jet.

[TerryM]

North west coast of Greenland is taking it again. 35F with wind gusts of over 100 MPH (161 kph) at Mittarfik according to Ogimet with highs of 42F further south. Every time I think the melt is over more of these pop up.

100 mile an hour winds, liquid precipitation and 35F temperatures will melt a bunch of ice, and I wouldn't want to be out in a fjord in conditions like this - the waves have to be driving seawater over the sills and under the ice all along the coast.

The NEW Polynia seems to have opened wide - primarily due to to wind gusts that may have broken the recording device - 363 kpm (226 mph) at Nord if verified won't set a Greenland record - but would be close.

This is not your fathers Arctic - or even your older brothers.

Terry

[The_Global_Warmer]

SW Greenlland is blazing. No snow cover, 00z Temps in the low to mid 40s.

Look at the SST's off the SW coast of Greenland.

Nuuk

Sea Surface Temperature

2012-11-03 00:00 UTC

Up coming pattern change looks to finally end the melt season in Greenland.

But 6+ weeks of snow pack build up have been lost

[salbers]

Yes a -NAO typically will do that. But this situation is already enhanced by record warm SST to the South of Greenland and the weak snow growth so far in the main melt regions of Greenland.

And the idea that loss of sea ice will bring more -AO which means more HP's over Greenland and less precip = less protective snow = faster melt season = continual albedo driven Dipole Patterns.

What the models show now is just stupid. The Euro also super torches the Southern 1/3rd of Greenland.

Typically a big rebound in ice mass from snowfall is right after the min. 2010 was similar to this and had a weak rebound. Those scientists selling more -AO's might be on to something.

I'm curious what the source is for the top figure.

Also, it's interesting to see the spurt upwards of global sea level this year, coinciding with the record Greenland melting.

[TerryM]

The lows to the north and south of Greenland have both weakened, though 966 is still pretty deep. Rain on November 11 through the south & gusts of 129 km/h can't be doing much for the snow. I'm sure that there's been a net accumulation of snow over the last month, but I'm equally sure that it's no where near the norm.

Nares Strait finally appears to have frozen enough to prevent further advection but the high winds blowing across northern Greenland toward Fram have torn the buoy loose at Cape Morris Jessup that had been grounded through the melt season. It'll be interesting to see how long it takes to be advected, or whether it runs aground again. Some of the tracks are showing as much movement in the last 2 days as in the past 10 while 409520 has moved further in the last 10 days than in the preceding 60.

Terry

[TerryM]

Narsarsuaq at 13C or 55F in rainy Southern Greenland was warmer than anywhere in Canada today & the east coast of Greenland as far north as 70 N was above freezing.

Terry

[SVT450R]

Embracing Data 'Noise' Brings Greenland's Complex Ice Melt Into Focus http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121127191252.htm

Few grabs from the article.

''In addition, the enhanced detail of where and how much ice melted allowed the researchers to estimate that the annual acceleration in ice loss is much lower than previous research has suggested, roughly increasing by 8 billion tons every year. Previous estimates were as high as 30 billion tons more per year.''

"GRACE data is notoriously noisy and spatially spread out, and this has resulted in 'ad hoc' methods for processing mass changes of Earth's ice sheets that have wildly different values," said MacAyeal, who is familiar with the Princeton work but had no role in it.

"In other words, each particular investigator ends up getting a different individual number for the net change in mass," he said. "What this research does is figure out a way to be more thoughtful and purposeful about exactly how to deal with GRACE's notorieties. This method would allow researchers to standardize a bit more and also to understand more precisely where they are, and where they are not, able to resolve ice changes."

Details such as these can help scientists better understand the interplay between Greenland's glaciers and factors that influence melt such as ocean temperature, daily sunshine and cloud coverage, Harig said. That understanding can in turn help researchers determine how the Greenland ice sheet responds to climate change -- and how much more ice loss to expect. At current melt rates, the Greenland ice sheet would take about 13,000 years to melt completely, which would result in a global sea-level rise of more than 21 feet (6.5 meters), Harig said.

[Jonger]

Embracing Data 'Noise' Brings Greenland's Complex Ice Melt Into Focus http://www.scienceda...21127191252.htm

Few grabs from the article.

''In addition, the enhanced detail of where and how much ice melted allowed the researchers to estimate that the annual acceleration in ice loss is much lower than previous research has suggested, roughly increasing by 8 billion tons every year. Previous estimates were as high as 30 billion tons more per year.''

"GRACE data is notoriously noisy and spatially spread out, and this has resulted in 'ad hoc' methods for processing mass changes of Earth's ice sheets that have wildly different values," said MacAyeal, who is familiar with the Princeton work but had no role in it.

"In other words, each particular investigator ends up getting a different individual number for the net change in mass," he said. "What this research does is figure out a way to be more thoughtful and purposeful about exactly how to deal with GRACE's notorieties. This method would allow researchers to standardize a bit more and also to understand more precisely where they are, and where they are not, able to resolve ice changes."

Details such as these can help scientists better understand the interplay between Greenland's glaciers and factors that influence melt such as ocean temperature, daily sunshine and cloud coverage, Harig said. That understanding can in turn help researchers determine how the Greenland ice sheet responds to climate change -- and how much more ice loss to expect. At current melt rates, the Greenland ice sheet would take about 13,000 years to melt completely, which would result in a global sea-level rise of more than 21 feet (6.5 meters), Harig said.

I remember reading once that a warmer coastal greenland would lead to more inland snowfall. Bottom line, if there is enough ice there to create a gravitational pull, it won't melt fast enough to matter. Fossil fuels will be LOOOOOOONG gone before this becomes an issue.

[TerryM]

Embracing Data 'Noise' Brings Greenland's Complex Ice Melt Into Focus http://www.scienceda...21127191252.htm

Few grabs from the article.

''In addition, the enhanced detail of where and how much ice melted allowed the researchers to estimate that the annual acceleration in ice loss is much lower than previous research has suggested, roughly increasing by 8 billion tons every year. Previous estimates were as high as 30 billion tons more per year.''

"GRACE data is notoriously noisy and spatially spread out, and this has resulted in 'ad hoc' methods for processing mass changes of Earth's ice sheets that have wildly different values," said MacAyeal, who is familiar with the Princeton work but had no role in it.

"In other words, each particular investigator ends up getting a different individual number for the net change in mass," he said. "What this research does is figure out a way to be more thoughtful and purposeful about exactly how to deal with GRACE's notorieties. This method would allow researchers to standardize a bit more and also to understand more precisely where they are, and where they are not, able to resolve ice changes."

Details such as these can help scientists better understand the interplay between Greenland's glaciers and factors that influence melt such as ocean temperature, daily sunshine and cloud coverage, Harig said. That understanding can in turn help researchers determine how the Greenland ice sheet responds to climate change -- and how much more ice loss to expect. At current melt rates, the Greenland ice sheet would take about 13,000 years to melt completely, which would result in a global sea-level rise of more than 21 feet (6.5 meters), Harig said.

Other grabs include:

The Princeton researchers found that Greenland lost roughly 200 billion tons of ice each year during the seven-year period studied, which falls within the range reported by other studies.

Which may indicate that 2010 data wasn't included. - 2010,2011 & 2012 data, when it's released probably will show that linear extrapolations aren't valid - making the bolded a rather meaningless statement.

http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~born/share/ngrl_melting_cryosphere_R1.pdf

links to a study of Greenland melt in the Eemian period & emphasizes the regional differences in ice sheet loss.

Terry

[PhillipS]

Embracing Data 'Noise' Brings Greenland's Complex Ice Melt Into Focus http://www.scienceda...21127191252.htm

Few grabs from the article.

''In addition, the enhanced detail of where and how much ice melted allowed the researchers to estimate that the annual acceleration in ice loss is much lower than previous research has suggested, roughly increasing by 8 billion tons every year. Previous estimates were as high as 30 billion tons more per year.''

"GRACE data is notoriously noisy and spatially spread out, and this has resulted in 'ad hoc' methods for processing mass changes of Earth's ice sheets that have wildly different values," said MacAyeal, who is familiar with the Princeton work but had no role in it.

"In other words, each particular investigator ends up getting a different individual number for the net change in mass," he said. "What this research does is figure out a way to be more thoughtful and purposeful about exactly how to deal with GRACE's notorieties. This method would allow researchers to standardize a bit more and also to understand more precisely where they are, and where they are not, able to resolve ice changes."

Details such as these can help scientists better understand the interplay between Greenland's glaciers and factors that influence melt such as ocean temperature, daily sunshine and cloud coverage, Harig said. That understanding can in turn help researchers determine how the Greenland ice sheet responds to climate change -- and how much more ice loss to expect. At current melt rates, the Greenland ice sheet would take about 13,000 years to melt completely, which would result in a global sea-level rise of more than 21 feet (6.5 meters), Harig said.

Several thoughts on the article and your excerpt:

The study analysed a 7 year period of GRACE data (which I believe is the full dataset), which is a short-term period for climatology. As has been discussed on a number of threads in this forum, it is impossible to have much confidence in projections of short-term trends into the distant future. Given the observed non-linear trends in arctic sea ice melting, it won't be surprising to see similar trends in Greenland over the longer term.

The article was very clear that the new analysis shows that Greenland's rate of melting is accelerating, so the portion you quoted and highlighted is very misleading and disingenuous when taken out of context. From the article:

The researchers tested their method on GRACE data for Greenland recorded from 2003 to 2010 and brought the complexities of the island's glaciers into clearer focus. While overall ice loss on Greenland

consistently increased between 2003 and 2010

, Harig and Simons found that it was in fact very patchy from region to region.

In addition,

the enhanced detail of where and how much ice melted allowed the researchers to estimate that the annual acceleration in ice loss is much lower than previous research has suggested, roughly increasing by 8 billion tons every year.

Previous estimates were as high as 30 billion tons more per year.

The current melt rate, for the 7 year analysis period, was about 200 billion tons each year. At an acceleration of 8 billion tons per year per year, in about 25 years (2035) we'll be seeing melting rates around 400 billion tons each year. Projecting further into the future that acceleration means around 2060 the melting rate will be around 600 billion tons each year, and around 2085 the Greenland melting rate will be around 800 billion tons each year (about 4 times the current melt rate).

Of course projecting long trends from short baselines is rarely accurate. If the acceleration increases, which is a distinct probability given the behavior of ice, then Greenland's annual melt could be much higher.

[TerryM]

From the article:

"The researchers tested their method on GRACE data for Greenland recorded from 2003 to 2010 and brought the complexities of the island's glaciers into clearer focus"

&

"The Princeton researchers found that Greenland lost roughly 200 billion tons of ice each year during the seven-year period studied"

From the abstract:

"Here, we present a spatially and temporally resolved estimation of the ice mass change over Greenland between April of 2002 and August of 2011"

It's unclear if they're working with data from 2003 through 2009 - 7yrs, 2003 through 2010 - 8 yrs or 2002 through 2011- 10 summers

It's probably going to be an important paper, but the Science Daily article is based on an article by Morgan Kelly & it seems as though somebody may have messed up some of the data.

The paper I linked to above shows a similar melt pattern in the Eemian period, so the results aren't too unexpected as far ablation/accretion in different regions. The south experiences more ablation and more accretion than the north, but winter precipitation in the north is so low that the ice drops faster than in the south. The Eemian period experienced the majority of the heating in the summer months as opposed to AGW having a larger effect in the colder months so melt patterns won't be a perfect melt.

Cape Morris Jessup in the far north has been very warm for the last few days & the whole west coast has been warm (0C as far north as Nares Strait yesterday). The very cold temps now in Alaska and NW Canada will probably change this in a few days, but so far fall conditions in Greenland have been mimicking those in 2010 - the worst years for Greenland melt until this year.

A little OT but the Buoy that had been locked in the ice off Cape Morris Jessup is entering Fram Strait indicating that MYI west of the cape will be advected before next melt season starts.

Terry

[SVT450R]

Other grabs include:

The Princeton researchers found that Greenland lost roughly 200 billion tons of ice each year during the seven-year period studied, which falls within the range reported by other studies.

Which may indicate that 2010 data wasn't included. - 2010,2011 & 2012 data, when it's released probably will show that linear extrapolations aren't valid - making the bolded a rather meaningless statement.

http://www.climate.u...yosphere_R1.pdf

links to a study of Greenland melt in the Eemian period & emphasizes the regional differences in ice sheet loss.

Terry

I figured i didn't need to quote the loss of ice per year since it's kind of a given. As for the bold how is it exactly meaningless even if we doubled the rate of melt tomorrow going by their figure we would still be looking at 6000+ years.

[SVT450R]

Phillips i agree with you that short term trends is not the best way to predicting long term especially when we know there is some natural variability in the melting processes going on.

[TerryM]

I figured i didn't need to quote the loss of ice per year since it's kind of a given. As for the bold how is it exactly meaningless even if we doubled the rate of melt tomorrow going by their figure we would still be looking at 6000+ years.

You obviously read Phillips reply & I doubt you missed his conclusion.

The article quoting an article about the paper has muddled the figures to an unknown extent. When the paper is published perhaps it will be available without a paywall & I'm looking forward to reading it at that time.

The quoted figure of 13,000 years is a huge departure from what other researchers have been coming in with and without context it's difficult to comment on. I assume you've been following Box and have read his conclusions. Personally I'm not as concerned with when the last of the GIS is melted with it's 21 m SLR as with say a time frame for a 2 m rise that would be more than enough to disrupt civilizations around the globe.

2 m is between 1/2 and 1/4 of the SLR experienced during the Eemian, when most of the GIS remained intact. I follow the Flade Isblink cap, and the Hans Tausen cap in the north, the King Christian IV Glacier in the south east and 79's retreat toward Blase.

The northern caps melted out during the HTM and the southern glacier seems vulnerable to catastrophic failure. None of these alone will raise sea levels to dangerous levels, but when any one of them goes it will indicate that things are approaching HTM ice conditions in Greenland.

Flade Isblink came close to bifurcating this year, when this occurs the remaining 2 caps will be subject to melt from all sides and they may have a short life expectancy. Hans Tausen's retreat has been dramatic since 2006, 79 is retreating around Lambert Land & may reach Blase within a 5 year window and the number and extent of melt ponds & albedo changes shown by Box on the King Christian IV Glacier are greater than anywhere else in the near area.

The fate of the smaller caps will indicate when we should start worrying about the saddle region. As long as Flade and Hans Tausen are extant, we still haven't reached levels seen in the last 8,000 years & shouldn't be unduly concerned about an imminent collapse of either the northern or southern cap. When one of these small northern caps go we'll be entering a phase not seen since the Eemian & all bets are off.

At the moment it seems as though studies of the west coast melt might be more prescient, but little is presently known about conditions there during the HTM.

The recent spread of dark biological growth on the ice may be something new that will invalidate comparisons to past melts. I don't think any of the core samples show anything similar during previous melts. If this is changing albedo to a significant degree it would emphasize the effects of insolation over the effects of temperature rise on ice ablation possibly favoring faster ice melt at lower latitudes. The King Christian IV Glacier might become an early victim.

Sorry for the long ramble.

Terry

[Guest Pamela]

I certainy do not pretend to be able to argue with many of the learned people who frequent this forum; but I did note that per the 2012 Global Temperatures thread, November has been *extraordinarily* cold throughout almost all of Greenland relative to normal.

[TerryM]

I certainy do not pretend to be able to argue with many of the learned people who frequent this forum; but I did note that per the 2012 Global Temperatures thread, November has been *extraordinarily* cold throughout almost all of Greenland relative to normal.

Let's give it until the month is over.

West coast,Southern and North East coastal temps have been very high the past few days, but a huge cold mass is moving in from the west. At the moment things look a lot like 2010. A high pressure zone without sunlight allows lots of long wave radiation to escape during the 24 hours of darkness. It's been the lows pulling heat from lower latitudes that have kept the South and West Coasts as warm as they've been - that and the high water temperatures in Baffin Bay.

Might be fun to check record temps around Thule to see how the year stacks up.

Terry

[Vergent]

Warm arctic ocean, cold continents, maybe a good theory.

[TerryM]

Warm arctic ocean, cold continents, maybe a good theory.

Greenland doesn't seem "extraordinarily cold", just yet.

Seriously though, what do you ascribe the 12 - 16C anomaly north of Greenland to, It's an area that hasn't seen open water & I would have expected to be much colder.

Terry

[SVT450R]

You obviously read Phillips reply & I doubt you missed his conclusion.

The article quoting an article about the paper has muddled the figures to an unknown extent. When the paper is published perhaps it will be available without a paywall & I'm looking forward to reading it at that time.

The quoted figure of 13,000 years is a huge departure from what other researchers have been coming in with and without context it's difficult to comment on. I assume you've been following Box and have read his conclusions. Personally I'm not as concerned with when the last of the GIS is melted with it's 21 m SLR as with say a time frame for a 2 m rise that would be more than enough to disrupt civilizations around the globe.

2 m is between 1/2 and 1/4 of the SLR experienced during the Eemian, when most of the GIS remained intact. I follow the Flade Isblink cap, and the Hans Tausen cap in the north, the King Christian IV Glacier in the south east and 79's retreat toward Blase.

The northern caps melted out during the HTM and the southern glacier seems vulnerable to catastrophic failure. None of these alone will raise sea levels to dangerous levels, but when any one of them goes it will indicate that things are approaching HTM ice conditions in Greenland.

Flade Isblink came close to bifurcating this year, when this occurs the remaining 2 caps will be subject to melt from all sides and they may have a short life expectancy. Hans Tausen's retreat has been dramatic since 2006, 79 is retreating around Lambert Land & may reach Blase within a 5 year window and the number and extent of melt ponds & albedo changes shown by Box on the King Christian IV Glacier are greater than anywhere else in the near area.

The fate of the smaller caps will indicate when we should start worrying about the saddle region. As long as Flade and Hans Tausen are extant, we still haven't reached levels seen in the last 8,000 years & shouldn't be unduly concerned about an imminent collapse of either the northern or southern cap. When one of these small northern caps go we'll be entering a phase not seen since the Eemian & all bets are off.

At the moment it seems as though studies of the west coast melt might be more prescient, but little is presently known about conditions there during the HTM.

The recent spread of dark biological growth on the ice may be something new that will invalidate comparisons to past melts. I don't think any of the core samples show anything similar during previous melts. If this is changing albedo to a significant degree it would emphasize the effects of insolation over the effects of temperature rise on ice ablation possibly favoring faster ice melt at lower latitudes. The King Christian IV Glacier might become an early victim.

Sorry for the long ramble.

Terry

I would believe that they took into account the accelerating rate per year of ice loss when they came up with 13000 year melt out and again basing off there calculation you would still be looking at a few thousand years to reach 2m SLR. Don't get me wrong i am not taking this as set stone figures.

Greenland doesn't seem "extraordinarily cold", just yet.

Seriously though, what do you ascribe the 12 - 16C anomaly north of Greenland to, It's an area that hasn't seen open water & I would have expected to be much colder.

Terry

Greenland as a whole this month is below average as William pointed out you could see by looking in the global temp thread as he stated.

[TerryM]

STV450R

As I'd stated - why not wait till the end of the month?

Terry

[SVT450R]

STV450R

As I'd stated - why not wait till the end of the month?

Terry

That's fine but your last statement came off as if it hasn't been below average.