2012 Breaks yearly record for OHC

[The_Global_Warmer]

# HC [10^22 J] heat content 0-700m 1955 -3.176500 1956 -2.621500 1957 -4.629000 1958 -1.554000 1959 -2.196250 1960 -1.426250 1961 -2.065500 1962 -1.030500 1963 -2.252750 1964 -3.087750 1965 -3.052500 1966 -3.904500 1967 -4.315500 1968 -5.750000 1969 -4.501500 1970 -5.307250 1971 -3.751500 1972 -5.239000 1973 -3.533500 1974 -2.792500 1975 -1.552250 1976 -2.643000 1977 0.6375003E-01 1978 0.7449996E-01 1979 -0.9437500 1980 1.088250 1981 0.8299994E-01 1982 -2.351750 1983 -2.833500 1984 -0.5145000 1985 0.5350006E-01 1986 -1.061750 1987 -0.9645001 1988 1.070750 1989 0.9017500 1990 0.2167500 1991 2.660250 1992 0.5110000 1993 0.5797499 1994 1.486500 1995 2.229500 1996 4.509000 1997 3.245250 1998 4.332000 1999 5.955250 2000 5.901500 2001 4.221500 2002 6.869000 2003 9.992001 2004 10.28875 2005 8.414750 2006 10.44175 2007 9.566000 2008 10.15800 2009 10.20175 2010 10.49550 2011 10.99450 2012 11.04200

 

 

 

[donsutherland1]

_{Thanks for this update Frivolousz21.}

[The_Global_Warmer]

No Problem Sir.

 

I don't think 2013 will reach warmest on record unless a surprise NINO busts out, but even then it would be a stretch.

 

 

I think it's happening with the next NINO.

[blizzard1024]

# HC [10^22 J] heat content 0-700m 1955 -3.176500 1956 -2.621500 1957 -4.629000 1958 -1.554000 1959 -2.196250 1960 -1.426250 1961 -2.065500 1962 -1.030500 1963 -2.252750 1964 -3.087750 1965 -3.052500 1966 -3.904500 1967 -4.315500 1968 -5.750000 1969 -4.501500 1970 -5.307250 1971 -3.751500 1972 -5.239000 1973 -3.533500 1974 -2.792500 1975 -1.552250 1976 -2.643000 1977 0.6375003E-01 1978 0.7449996E-01 1979 -0.9437500 1980 1.088250 1981 0.8299994E-01 1982 -2.351750 1983 -2.833500 1984 -0.5145000 1985 0.5350006E-01 1986 -1.061750 1987 -0.9645001 1988 1.070750 1989 0.9017500 1990 0.2167500 1991 2.660250 1992 0.5110000 1993 0.5797499 1994 1.486500 1995 2.229500 1996 4.509000 1997 3.245250 1998 4.332000 1999 5.955250 2000 5.901500 2001 4.221500 2002 6.869000 2003 9.992001 2004 10.28875 2005 8.414750 2006 10.44175 2007 9.566000 2008 10.15800 2009 10.20175 2010 10.49550 2011 10.99450 2012 11.04200

I wonder what it was like during the 1930s and 40s warm period? How accurate was the data before the argo floats in 2003? that is even the bigger question. 

[Jonger]

I wonder what it was like during the 1930s and 40s warm period? How accurate was the data before the argo floats in 2003? that is even the bigger question. 

 

That's the whole debate in a nutshell. Ice and global temps were pretty stable until about 1980, coincidentally this is when satellites starting monitoring ice.

[donsutherland1]

That's the whole debate in a nutshell. Ice and global temps were pretty stable until about 1980, coincidentally this is when satellites starting monitoring ice.

FYI, you might be interested in this research that is currently underway:

 

http://nsidc.org/research/projects/Gallaher_Nimbus.html

[skierinvermont]

I wonder what it was like during the 1930s and 40s warm period? How accurate was the data before the argo floats in 2003? that is even the bigger question. 

 

 

Blizz and Jonger - this is NOT the question. The answer is already known. 

 

The primary reason for 20th century sea level rise is thermal expansion. Sea levels have risen steadily. OHC was lower in the 1940s than the 1960s which was lower than the 1980s which was lower than the 2000s. 

[Jonger]

FYI, you might be interested in this research that is currently underway:

 

http://nsidc.org/research/projects/Gallaher_Nimbus.html

 I would assume 1966 ice coverage would be robust. Thanks for the link though.

[blizzard1024]

That's the whole debate in a nutshell. Ice and global temps were pretty stable until about 1980, coincidentally this is when satellites starting monitoring ice.

 

Yeah. The arctic temperatures varied but the sea ice minimums were remarkably constant...then after the satellite data started

during a cool period the ice minimums started to go down with arctic warming. hmmmm. interesting. I am sure OHC was

constant too....back then. 

[blizzard1024]

Blizz and Jonger - this is NOT the question. The answer is already known. 

 

The primary reason for 20th century sea level rise is thermal expansion. Sea levels have risen steadily. OHC was lower in the 1940s than the 1960s which was lower than the 1980s which was lower than the 2000s. 

But in the 1940s... CO2 had much less radiative forcing...so we can assume there is natural warming in the 20th century which is what many of us have been saying the whole time. 

[skierinvermont]

But in the 1940s... CO2 had much less radiative forcing...so we can assume there is natural warming in the 20th century which is what many of us have been saying the whole time. 

 

Way to change the topic. The question was what was OHC doing back in the 1930s and 1940s. The answer: OHC has been rising fairly steadily throughout the 20th century, as indicated by rising sea levels. 

 

Some one points out OHC was rising and you immediately have to go "OH OH but a lot of that was natural!!!" a complete change of topic.

 

 

The rapid increase in solar activity 1900-1940, and the decline in volcanic activity, probably did cause a significant portion of the warming, in addition to rising CO2 levels. 

[scottmartin49]

Interesting data considered in light of oceanic fisheries decline. Without even claiming causation, the correlations are pretty ugly.

Codfish in the coalmine?

[FloridaJohn]

Yeah. The arctic temperatures varied but the sea ice minimums were remarkably constant...then after the satellite data started

during a cool period the ice minimums started to go down with arctic warming. hmmmm. interesting.

Perhaps some scientist saw an early declining trend and thought there was a need for a satellite to accurately map the potential decline instead of using the previous, less accurate method.

[Jonger]

Interesting data considered in light of oceanic fisheries decline. Without even claiming causation, the correlations are pretty ugly.

Codfish in the coalmine?

 

I'm in the seafood industry...

 

Overfishing is FAR FAR FAR more impacting than a degree of warming. The ice lingering over the Bering sea was more of a problem than I had seen in years, last year.

[salbers]

I agree that overfishing is a major issue. However acidification plus warming will be increasing problems in the long term for some ecosystems.

[scottmartin49]

I'm in the seafood industry...

 

Overfishing is FAR FAR FAR more impacting than a degree of warming. The ice lingering over the Bering sea was more of a problem than I had seen in years, last year.

When the Cod fisheries were first scaled back, the forecast was for a pretty rapid return. More and more areas have been closed, but still the schools are nowhere to be seen. Hard to declare 'overfishing' in a species that's been monitored and managed for so long in a manner that should have brought an increase, when that predicted increase has (inexplicably) not appeared. Unless you're willing to second guess a lot of applied marine biology, you'd have to acknowledge something else might also be causative. Not even the Basques could steal that much without notice!

 

I don't know the specifics well enough to argue, but I think you're underestimating the relationship between temps and piscine behavior. Ask any good Bluefisherman or cold water Trout fanatic; and Cod, because of the complexity of their behavior, serve as indicator species just as migratory birds do. Population collapse- even after overhunting/overfishing have been eliminated- is either an environmental or genetic problem.

 

I don't really understand your statement regarding the Bering Sea in relation to the Cod fishery.            

[The_Global_Warmer]

Yeah. The arctic temperatures varied but the sea ice minimums were remarkably constant...then after the satellite data started

during a cool period the ice minimums started to go down with arctic warming. hmmmm. interesting. I am sure OHC was

constant too....back then. 

 

1.  The black line represents the warmest "years" they were nearly the same in the last warm period or whatever you want to call it.  Pre 1975. 

 

2.  the blue line represents the top 10 warmest years 1930-1955.  I didn't go past 1955 because while the 1980 or 81 and the 1960s would count as top 10 they were in the so called cool period.  Now I admit there are a couple years that drag down the average by 0.1 to 0.2 by themselves so we can imagine it at 0.65 instead of 0.53 but the blue line was eclipsed in 1988 and only below 3 times since because of a huge volcano.  The black dot was 2012, it was quite a bit cooler than 2011 and 2010 according to GISS.  Remember this goes all the way to 64N which covers a lot of land. 2012 should show you other factors not sea ice effect's arctic temperature a lot. 

 

3. The 1968-1977 period was very average and so was the ice.  The ice loss + snow cover loss + GHG forcing + lower negative forcing like aerosols caused the massive spike and upward climb.  Methane is also at his peak like Co2 over the Northern Pole region.  Intense water vapor carriage has also been observed. 

 

4.  But the so called natural cooling period in the 1970s is no where near as cool vs the so called warm period before vs the rapid warming now. 

 

 

Everything North of the black circular line is what that graph above covers. 

 

 

 

There has been an extreme pattern in place for a while and the thickest ice(not as thick as this graph has been moved.  This graph is about 1.18M to thick for MYI and 0.70M to thick for FYI(in like April or May) but it get's worse as the season goes on, we have discussed this many times, I am not looking for the paper right now, if I was lying someone who has read the data would say something.  I am posting this to show you how weak the ice is vs the 1970s and before and how it is likely now that 2013 has no chance to go below 2012 because of flushing.  However this is horrible for the long term because that thick ice outside of 82N on the Pacific side will be toasted and the ice on the Atlantic side will all melt up to 85N at least.  Probably gonna be really bad unless an opposite pattern pushes it back. 

 

 

Worst Case we have almost no thick ice left after the melt season but about 4 mil km2 of mush.  We have witnessed insane ice melt's over the Pacific side because of the graph below this one:

 

 

 

 

This is from Neven's blog.  Thick MYI ice can't be crushed like this.  We know this from watching Modis everyday fore years.  This is quite ugly and show's us that all of the ice that crippled is gone next Summer.

 

 

 

 

This is the plot of a buoy, it was deployed and spent it's time around 81.5-80N then recently by wind it has been pushed well South towards Alaska.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a graph showing water temperature.  That yellow = tons and tons of stored heat from solar radiation that is trapped after the melt season.  This heat keep's accumulating and building up every in places the ice get's thin or melts out.  Only the bare minimum of cold fresher water exists when ice forms. In-fact we used to think the cold layer had to be 50-100M for sea ice before we saw nature being pushed to her limits under these conditions.  The ice forms at 25-30M then only a few meters of heat escapes in winter through those cracks maybe if it's when it's very very cold out it can add a bit to the fresh water because when the heat goes salt sinks out a bit and fresh water pools a bit.  But basically after the first 25M or so, it's stuck. 

 

 

In summer it doesn't take much wind to cause water turbulance in cracked ice to bring that warm water up.  Since the ice has to be frozen at -1.5C to -1.8C, 0C water or 0.5C water is really like 2C to that ice, we know that is a ton of heat.

 

Since this has started in water thousands of meters deep.  We have seen 20-30CM a day go byebye during bad times, Iv'e read 50CM in 30 hrs during the arctic storm may have occurred.  From this heated water being up-welled but then splashed over slabs of ice being done in by waves of it.  Even with surface temps supposed to be below freezing in the snow from the blocked out sun, doesn't matter if 850s are -8C and it's August and there is snow at 78N.  If it's windy and the ice is thin and shattered, hell just shattered is fine.  We saw on MODIS ice 3M thick or so go from a nice thick look to melted broken up vanishing crap in 10 days from late July to August during the storm.

 

Before the big storm.  Tremendous heat coming off Canada/Alaska during a 10-20KT Southerly flow and 24 hour sun would help rise land temps into the 70s on the arctic shore.  Then air blows over a couple hundred miles of SST's that were 6-15C also insane for the arctic.  But more insane was by day 3 of this event 6-8C ssts sat next to the ice pack because of persistence and the earlier buildup in June.  Some estimated 20-30CM loss per day on the outside 50 meters of this solid ice pack.  That was crippled in 4-5 days before the storm came and then crippled from below.  Now, this would of happened with no storm, it would stayed warm and melted or been a weaker storm and melted from below.  There is no chance anymore without the MYI for a huge pool of cold to protect it. At Best ice loss can be slowed but not protected unless it's near N. Greenland.

 

 

 

 

 

This can't be UN-done without outside intervention. 

 

 

That is not coming, there is no ice cycle, that is completely fabricated.

[skierinvermont]

Looks like arctic temperatures were about the same from 1985-1995 as in the 1940s. Ice is now 50% lower than it was during 1985-1995.