After the Arctic has Melted

[Vergent]

Verg

Hudson Bay may hold some answers. but what I'm striving for in this exercise is simply to quantify the additional energy that the globe will experience. Heat transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere through evaporation wouldn't be a factor at this stage. My thought is that once we have a figure for the amount of additional energy we can speculate on how it will act. Some will return to space through the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, but most of it is going to remain, and build with each ice free season. At some point I'd assume this would lead to a perennially ice free Arctic and well have to make a new set of calculations.

Terry

Terry,

You will have to be more specific. There are three sources of energy for the arctic. The sun, the Pacific ocean, the Atlantic ocean. The sun peaks in June-July and is now a non-player, the wattage is insignificant. The oceanic inputs have yet to peak. The first ice free scenarios will be in the early fall, probably due to a storm like we just had. The question will not be what happens to the sunlight. The question will be what happens to the 60 tera-watts of energy flowing in from the oceans.

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/HLD/Bstrait/BS2007Heat.html

You see the Pacific energy input in 2007 peaked at 30 TW in September. We know what that energy did, it melted ice. If there was no ice to melt, what would that energy do?

Verg

[Vergent]

You mean like when I said that that big low was not going to freeze down the arctic?

Or, when I said there was going to be massive extent and area losses?

Or the predictions I made on the 5th(before the storm) like extent less than 3.5 M km^2 and area in the arctic ocean of 2.06 M km^2(subtract GS and CA). How do these stack up to your predictions? Ludicrous!

We are on the brink of a major climactic change. The loss of an ice cap. The last such change cost the planet dearly. We lost 90% of large animal species and 10% of the small. Have you ever seen a mastodon? An American lion? American camel? Short nosed bear? Dire wolf? Saber toothed tiger? Woolly mammoth? The list goes on and on.

Change from ice age to warm inter glacial sounds warm and fuzzy. What a pleasant thing.

The meteorologist job is to predict the weather, in particular violent dangerous weather and give people warning. Tornado! Take cover! You are a hero when you do that. You save lives when you turn on the tornado siren,or recommend evacuation. If you give a false alarm everyone forgives you. If they ridiculed you and made you timid, you might not give the alarm when you should. When I lived in Illinois there were about 20 tornado alarms in as many years. No tornado touched down near by. Yet thank you meteorologists for those warnings.

But we are headed for an ice free arctic and the meteorologists are not doing their job. Instead of plugging an ice free arctic into their physics based models and see what will happen, they are sitting on their buts arguing about the AMO. If you can not do it by yourselves, get the help you need from programmers and physicist. Its your job. There may be warnings or migrations required. But you know nothing of an ice free arctic. What warnings should you give? Where should people go to be safe?

I am an engineer, i've given it some thought, so I'll give you some of my conclusions. With an ice free arctic, Earth becomes a planet where energy can circulate to a pole. With an ice cap it cannot. Venus, Mars, and Earth(with an ice cap) have chaotic weather. Saturn and Jupiter circulate energy to their poles. The energy is coming from within rather than sun the sun, but energy at the pole is energy at the pole. The poles of Saturn and Jupiter look like this:

http://www.nasa.gov/...in_pia03452.mov

http://www.nasa.gov/...a/pia03452.html

http://www.greatdreams.com/cassini.htm

Do those pictures remind you of anything, perhaps this:

This storm was our first glimpse of weather with an ice free pole. This is what happens when energy even gets close to the pole.

The energy coming into the pole from the pacific has been measured at 30 TW. in September 2007. The energy coming into the Fram and along the Scandinavian and West Siberian continental shelf is of similar magnitude. If there is no ice to melt what will that 60TW or more do? I think we get a 60TW storm. But that is just an opinion. What do the physics based models say? That is a job for meteorologists and climatologists to do on a planet that is losing it's ice cap.

http://psc.apl.washi...BS2007Heat.html

Okay I misspoke is should have said the jet stream failed to bring storms in the other seasons, big deal. I have been spending a lot of my spare time considering Earth with an ice free arctic.

Mets, please do your job and give us a weather report for an ice free arctic.

I meant to put this here.

[tacoman25]

http://www.agu.org/j...8/2012GL051432/

[1] There is an ongoing shift in the Arctic sea ice cover from multiyear ice to seasonal ice. Here we examine the impact of this shift on sea ice albedo. Our analysis of observations from four years of field experiments indicates that seasonal ice undergoes an albedo evolution with seven phases; cold snow, melting snow, pond formation, pond drainage, pond evolution, open water, and freezeup. Once surface ice melt begins, seasonal ice albedos are consistently less than albedos for multiyear ice resulting in more solar heat absorbed in the ice and transmitted to the ocean. The shift from a multiyear to seasonal ice cover has significant implications for the heat and mass budget of the ice and for primary productivity in the upper ocean. There will be enhanced melting of the ice cover and an increase in the amount of sunlight available in the upper ocean.

Yes, I think it's clear that less ice will mean more/easier heating during the summer. But what about that heat once the open water is cooling/freezing up in the fall?

[TerryM]

Yes, I think it's clear that less ice will mean more/easier heating during the summer. But what about that heat once the open water is cooling/freezing up in the fall?

Last year we had an extremely warm winter in Canada, while they experienced extreme cold in Alaska. My WAG is that we'll see extreme weather again, possibly extending to lower latitudes.

We seem to be going through a chaotic phase, and when energy is added to a chaotic system - it becomes more chaotic.

Terry

[tacoman25]

Last year we had an extremely warm winter in Canada, while they experienced extreme cold in Alaska. My WAG is that we'll see extreme weather again, possibly extending to lower latitudes.

We seem to be going through a chaotic phase, and when energy is added to a chaotic system - it becomes more chaotic.

Terry

That was due to a very persistent +EPO throughout the winter. Also the reason that while much of the NH froze in Jan/Feb with a -AO, the U.S/Canada torched.

[TerryM]

In 2007 there was 2.92 M sq meters of sea ice area left after the melt. What is a reasonable figure for the albedo difference between open ocean and ice & snow covered expanses? Once we've agreed on this figure we can argue about insolation rates in the Arctic during the period we're assuming will be ice free.

Feedback welcomed.

Terry

[TerryM]

My back of the envelope calculations from a page back appear to have been too conservative, According to the team at PIOMAS we have a yearly average of 8.6 x 10 to the 19th J or 86 EJ energy presently diverted into melting ice that will be converted into sensible heat when we run out of ice in the summer. They say this equals 86% of the yearly energy consumption of the US of A.

Since Box estimated that the albedo change last July in Greenland brought in as much additional energy as the yearly energy consumption of the US, I've got to assume that when we get our albedo ice loss figured, it's going to dwarf the latent heat figure.

Both of these heat sources will be accumulative, and both will be seasonal (for as long as seasonal ice exists).

Any ideas on how the hemisphere reacts to huge seasonal blasts of heat?

Terry

[tacoman25]

My back of the envelope calculations from a page back appear to have been too conservative, According to the team at PIOMAS we have a yearly average of 8.6 x 10 to the 19th J or 86 EJ energy presently diverted into melting ice that will be converted into sensible heat when we run out of ice in the summer. They say this equals 86% of the yearly energy consumption of the US of A.

Since Box estimated that the albedo change last July in Greenland brought in as much additional energy as the yearly energy consumption of the US, I've got to assume that when we get our albedo ice loss figured, it's going to dwarf the latent heat figure.

Both of these heat sources will be accumulative, and both will be seasonal (for as long as seasonal ice exists).

Any ideas on how the hemisphere reacts to huge seasonal blasts of heat?

Terry

And that really is the crux of the issue, I think. As we have seen the past few years, even though most of the ice pack if FYI, it still doesn't all melt out. And we see ice last in Hudson Bay until into July many years. So there is good reason to believe that even if the Arctic completely melts out in the next decade or so, it will still take until well into August for that to happen. Which means there is a very limited window for this heat to accumulate any differently than it does now (I don't see the current Arctic situation as much different than how it will be if/when it completely melts out in the summer). It's not like the MYI has been preserving the FYI for longer in the season these past few years - or am I wrong?

All that energy in June/July will still have to be expended melting out the ice that will inevitably be there.

[TerryM]

And that really is the crux of the issue, I think. As we have seen the past few years, even though most of the ice pack if FYI, it still doesn't all melt out. And we see ice last in Hudson Bay until into July many years. So there is good reason to believe that even if the Arctic completely melts out in the next decade or so, it will still take until well into August for that to happen. Which means there is a very limited window for this heat to accumulate any differently than it does now (I don't see the current Arctic situation as much different than how it will be if/when it completely melts out in the summer). It's not like the MYI has been preserving the FYI for longer in the season these past few years - or am I wrong?

All that energy in June/July will still have to be expended melting out the ice that will inevitably be there.

Taco

I'm seeing this a two different energy streams.

Albedo will only have an effect on insolation, which will be weakened by late August, and may not be of much concern when the Arctic is only open in this period.

The latent heat problem I see as an ongoing one regardless of the date. At present in late August SST is causing by far the greatest share of ice melt (Buoy's with sub zero air temps are losing ice at high rates). If this energy (86% of annual US energy use) isn't used up melting ice, where does it go?

My guess is that most of it is transferred into the atmosphere, but how this in then convected around the hemisphere I have no idea. Some of the heat will stay in the Arctic Ocean, although the uppermost layer will have to give up it's heat in order for ice to form in the coming winter. I don't think that an opening for a few days is a stable situation, but that it will rapidly expand to at least an ice free summer.

My original premise was for an ice free summer, as opposed to a fleeting ice free day or so late in the season. This premise might include an ice free Arctic from say the solstice forward (for easier calculation of insolation energy), but it's all speculative at this point.

Terry

PS

Thanks for working with me on this. Once we have a figure - even if we're of by an order of magnitude, we may be better able to guess at what effect this will have.

[dabize]

Terry, I think there are a couple of assumptions that people are making here which don't seem to make sense anymore and may not survive the current crop of new information and insight that we are getting about the dynamics of ice melting. They are related and will cancel each other out, but here goes anyway.

1) that the ice will reach an extent of 1 million km/area of 600k km or so, and that last bit will be hard to get rid of, since it will be holed up in the Lincoln Sea and the north coast inlets of the QEIs and Greenland.

2) that this won't matter anyway - most of the ice will be gone and this can be considered "ice free".

I'm beginning to suspect that neither is true.

Firstly, # 2 is simply going to be untrue with respect to the temperature of the Arctic and its effect on the NH. We KNOW that the latent heat picked up by newly exposed water will do nothing to the surrounding temperatures until the AI is GONE. every bit of it. So the line we should draw will be at zero ice, not 1million km extent.

However- this isn't going to matter, since Assumption # 1 is wrong as well. All of the negative ffedbacks that were going to save the last remnant of ice have gone AWOL, while additional positive feedbacks (like the one you mentioned re FYI meltwater sinking and reinforcing the demise of more ice) have kicked in. Ice melt will accelerate toward the finish, not slow.

Therefore, there will be no redoubt of the toughest ice hanging out in some frozen citadel in the CAA.............the ice will end with a bang - ALL of it- when the time comes, and the second era of Steam will begin.

[dabize]

I forgot to add this - just for Terry

That post was supposed to end: "Brother, can you paradigm?"

[TerryM]

dabize

Couldn't agree more, there's no place for the ice to survive. We may see a year around 1,000,000 but the following year - poof.

Tonight my mots are muted.

Terry

[SVT450R]

Terry, I think there are a couple of assumptions that people are making here which don't seem to make sense anymore and may not survive the current crop of new information and insight that we are getting about the dynamics of ice melting. They are related and will cancel each other out, but here goes anyway.

1) that the ice will reach an extent of 1 million km/area of 600k km or so, and that last bit will be hard to get rid of, since it will be holed up in the Lincoln Sea and the north coast inlets of the QEIs and Greenland.

2) that this won't matter anyway - most of the ice will be gone and this can be considered "ice free".

I'm beginning to suspect that neither is true.

Firstly, # 2 is simply going to be untrue with respect to the temperature of the Arctic and its effect on the NH. We KNOW that the latent heat picked up by newly exposed water will do nothing to the surrounding temperatures until the AI is GONE. every bit of it. So the line we should draw will be at zero ice, not 1million km extent.

However- this isn't going to matter, since Assumption # 1 is wrong as well. All of the negative ffedbacks that were going to save the last remnant of ice have gone AWOL, while additional positive feedbacks (like the one you mentioned re FYI meltwater sinking and reinforcing the demise of more ice) have kicked in. Ice melt will accelerate toward the finish, not slow.

Therefore, there will be no redoubt of the toughest ice hanging out in some frozen citadel in the CAA.............the ice will end with a bang - ALL of it- when the time comes, and the second era of Steam will begin.

Number 1 will continue to get thicker and harder to melt each year it's not melted.

[dabize]

Number 1 will continue to get thicker and harder to melt each year it's not melted.

But the trend has been exactly the opposite!

What evidence (beyond archicortical circuitry) do you have for this position?

[tacoman25]

Terry, I think there are a couple of assumptions that people are making here which don't seem to make sense anymore and may not survive the current crop of new information and insight that we are getting about the dynamics of ice melting. They are related and will cancel each other out, but here goes anyway.

1) that the ice will reach an extent of 1 million km/area of 600k km or so, and that last bit will be hard to get rid of, since it will be holed up in the Lincoln Sea and the north coast inlets of the QEIs and Greenland.

2) that this won't matter anyway - most of the ice will be gone and this can be considered "ice free".

I'm beginning to suspect that neither is true.

Firstly, # 2 is simply going to be untrue with respect to the temperature of the Arctic and its effect on the NH. We KNOW that the latent heat picked up by newly exposed water will do nothing to the surrounding temperatures until the AI is GONE. every bit of it. So the line we should draw will be at zero ice, not 1million km extent.

However- this isn't going to matter, since Assumption # 1 is wrong as well. All of the negative ffedbacks that were going to save the last remnant of ice have gone AWOL, while additional positive feedbacks (like the one you mentioned re FYI meltwater sinking and reinforcing the demise of more ice) have kicked in. Ice melt will accelerate toward the finish, not slow.

Therefore, there will be no redoubt of the toughest ice hanging out in some frozen citadel in the CAA.............the ice will end with a bang - ALL of it- when the time comes, and the second era of Steam will begin.

No offense, but this posts comes off sounding like a kid on a sugar high - only it's you coming off the high of seeing a new min extent.

I don't think it's wise to make such "set in stone" pronouncements about the Arctic ice. A lot of the statements you make are still just speculation, I know you have your reason that you believe them, but it seems you are really jumping to conclusions eagerly based on "the latest info"...which always ends up out of date sooner or later.

Why exactly do you believe we will see nothing but accelerating ice loss from here on out? Just because most of the MYI ice is gone? Why do you think next year will be much different from this year? Again, even if ALL the Arctic ice manages to melt out in a summer before 2020 (I still do not believe this is likely), it will almost assuredly take nearly the whole summer to do so. There just isn't enough time to allow for a completely open Arctic for very long at all...at which point it does occur in late August or early September, insolation will be fading fast.

I guess I guess I'm just not following statements like the ones bolded above.

[dabize]

No offense, but this posts comes off sounding like a kid on a sugar high - only it's you coming off the high of seeing a new min extent.

I don't think it's wise to make such "set in stone" pronouncements about the Arctic ice. A lot of the statements you make are still just speculation, I know you have your reason that you believe them, but it seems you are really jumping to conclusions eagerly based on "the latest info"...which always ends up out of date sooner or later.

Why exactly do you believe we will see nothing but accelerating ice loss from here on out? Just because most of the MYI ice is gone? Why do you think next year will be much different from this year? Again, even if ALL the Arctic ice manages to melt out in a summer before 2020 (I still do not believe this is likely), it will almost assuredly take nearly the whole summer to do so. There just isn't enough time to allow for a completely open Arctic for very long at all...at which point it does occur in late August or early September, insolation will be fading fast.

I guess I guess I'm just not following statements like the ones bolded above.

Did you read and understand the dynamic described at the link. Taco?

Thats why.

And what reason have you (aside from a blinkered lack of imagination) to dismiss the notion that the ice loss is accelerating? Thats what its been DOING.

[tacoman25]

Did you read and understand the dynamic described at the link. Taco?

Thats why.

And what reason have you (aside from a blinkered lack of imagination) to dismiss the notion that the ice loss is accelerating? Thats what its been DOING.

What link? There is none in your post. You mean bluewave's link?

I'm not dismissing anything except for the notion that we now know exactly how this will unfold from here on out.

[csnavywx]

No offense, but this posts comes off sounding like a kid on a sugar high - only it's you coming off the high of seeing a new min extent.

I don't think it's wise to make such "set in stone" pronouncements about the Arctic ice. A lot of the statements you make are still just speculation, I know you have your reason that you believe them, but it seems you are really jumping to conclusions eagerly based on "the latest info"...which always ends up out of date sooner or later.

Why exactly do you believe we will see nothing but accelerating ice loss from here on out? Just because most of the MYI ice is gone? Why do you think next year will be much different from this year? Again, even if ALL the Arctic ice manages to melt out in a summer before 2020 (I still do not believe this is likely), it will almost assuredly take nearly the whole summer to do so. There just isn't enough time to allow for a completely open Arctic for very long at all...at which point it does occur in late August or early September, insolation will be fading fast.

I guess I guess I'm just not following statements like the ones bolded above.

While I agree caution is warranted when talking about the arctic, it still seems to me that the changes in weather patterns that result are/will continue to be non-linear in nature. No one can know exactly what that will look like. A "wait and see" approach is the only way to know. However, some due vigilance may allow some clues to be teased out ahead of time. The persistence of -NAO during the summer months may be one of those.

One thing that does concern me is the effect it will have on seasonal forecasting. Most forecasts rely on analogs, and analogs make the assumption that the underlying patterns have not significantly changed. This has to be true for them to be useful on a hemispheric scale. If a new set of underlying conditions exists, this diminishes their usefulness.

Overall, we need to be wary of ruthless extrapolation and realize that... like most non-linear processes, the blade swings both ways.

[Vergent]

Terry, I think there are a couple of assumptions that people are making here which don't seem to make sense anymore and may not survive the current crop of new information and insight that we are getting about the dynamics of ice melting. They are related and will cancel each other out, but here goes anyway.

1) that the ice will reach an extent of 1 million km/area of 600k km or so, and that last bit will be hard to get rid of, since it will be holed up in the Lincoln Sea and the north coast inlets of the QEIs and Greenland.

2) that this won't matter anyway - most of the ice will be gone and this can be considered "ice free".

I'm beginning to suspect that neither is true.

Firstly, # 2 is simply going to be untrue with respect to the temperature of the Arctic and its effect on the NH. We KNOW that the latent heat picked up by newly exposed water will do nothing to the surrounding temperatures until the AI is GONE. every bit of it. So the line we should draw will be at zero ice, not 1million km extent.

However- this isn't going to matter, since Assumption # 1 is wrong as well. All of the negative ffedbacks that were going to save the last remnant of ice have gone AWOL, while additional positive feedbacks (like the one you mentioned re FYI meltwater sinking and reinforcing the demise of more ice) have kicked in. Ice melt will accelerate toward the finish, not slow.

Therefore, there will be no redoubt of the toughest ice hanging out in some frozen citadel in the CAA.............the ice will end with a bang - ALL of it- when the time comes, and the second era of Steam will begin.

http://polarmet.osu.edu/nwp/?model=arctic_wrf

This is what I think the bang will look like. This was end frame for a model run on 8/31. A SLP wandered to 90N and stopped and strengthened from 984 to 974 in 4 hours. Fortunately the pattern was disrupted, later runs did not show this happening. I think such a storm would become huge and stable. It would blow till the ice was gone. We dodged that second bullet this year, but it was just a matter of chance.