Greenland 2013

[Jonger]

Consider the temperature anomalies over Greenland and the -NAO of years past, definitely no signs of GIS gaining net ice mass. As well as the numerous empirical evidence through videos and images of calving ice and massive melt ponds.

 

This has been taking place for hundreds of years. Its not new.

[AvantHiatus]

This has been taking place for hundreds of years. Its not new.

In some regards you are correct, the severity of this typical annual event has expanded substantially; requiring thorough scientific research and explanation, the conclusion that AGW is accelerating land ice loss in Greenland. Although many scientists are reluctant to admit the importance of the +AMO.

[The_Global_Warmer]

This has been taking place for hundreds of years. Its not new.

 

Cut the crap.  You know the recent GIS melt acceleration is unique.

 

You also know it's not going to reverse. 

[bluewave]

The lastest research is indicating that that some of the higher end melting estimates may not work out.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/the-greenland-melt/

 

 

How much warmer was it? Jason Box estimates from satellite data that the temperature in July 2012 at high elevations over the Greenland ice sheet was a full 10°C (18°F) warmer than the daily average of the 2000′s decade; 1 standard deviation is about 3°C, so this is about a 3-sigma event. If, as the NEEM researchers estimate, the same sort of temperatures were required to produce the EEM melt layers, it suggests that during the EEM in Greenland it was also about 10°C warmer than present in the summer — but not just once per century, but much more often, perhaps every summer. I’m interpreting a bit here: the NEEM group doesn’t actually use the presence of melt layers per se to estimate the summer temperature; rather, they use the observation that the δ¹⁸O values of the ice at this time are >>-33 ‰. δ¹⁸O is a proxy for temperature in Greenland ice, and the NEEM paper uses this to estimate that the temperature must have been about 8°C (+/-4°C) warmer than present. Not coincidentally, the δ¹⁸O values of the snow and rain that fell in July 2012 was also >-33 ‰.

None of this should be interpreted to suggest that we are in “Eemian-like” conditions just yet. After all, there has only been one Eemian-like melt event observed in modern times, and the extremely warm summer of 2012 clearly involved anomalous weather conditions — a particular pattern of pressure anomalies over the northern high latitudes (Marco Tedesco's paper) that may also partly account for the exceptional low sea ice cover that year. The 2012 event, however, gives us a flavor of what the future is likely to bring. It will be very interesting to watch the satellite imagery over Greenland in the next decade and beyond.

What are the implications for the Greenland ice sheet? Possibly, that it is less sensitive to climate warming than some of the higher-end estimates suggest (e.g. Cuffey and Marshall (2000)suggested Greenland could have contributed > ~4 m to EEM sea level), though very much in line with more recent estimates (e.g. Pfeffer et al. (2008)). The estimated temperature change of ~8°C is quite a bit warmer than most previous estimates which are more in the range of 2-5°C (though the uncertainty estimates clearly overlap). Thus, whatever the contribution of mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet to the huge (4-8 m) rise in sea level of the Eemian, it occurred under very strong temperature forcing.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The lastest research is indicating that that some of the higher end melting estimates may not work out.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/the-greenland-melt/

 

 

How much warmer was it? Jason Box estimates from satellite data that the temperature in July 2012 at high elevations over the Greenland ice sheet was a full 10°C (18°F) warmer than the daily average of the 2000′s decade; 1 standard deviation is about 3°C, so this is about a 3-sigma event. If, as the NEEM researchers estimate, the same sort of temperatures were required to produce the EEM melt layers, it suggests that during the EEM in Greenland it was also about 10°C warmer than present in the summer — but not just once per century, but much more often, perhaps every summer. I’m interpreting a bit here: the NEEM group doesn’t actually use the presence of melt layers per se to estimate the summer temperature; rather, they use the observation that the δ¹⁸O values of the ice at this time are >>-33 ‰. δ¹⁸O is a proxy for temperature in Greenland ice, and the NEEM paper uses this to estimate that the temperature must have been about 8°C (+/-4°C) warmer than present. Not coincidentally, the δ¹⁸O values of the snow and rain that fell in July 2012 was also >-33 ‰.

None of this should be interpreted to suggest that we are in “Eemian-like” conditions just yet. After all, there has only been one Eemian-like melt event observed in modern times, and the extremely warm summer of 2012 clearly involved anomalous weather conditions — a particular pattern of pressure anomalies over the northern high latitudes (Marco Tedesco's paper) that may also partly account for the exceptional low sea ice cover that year. The 2012 event, however, gives us a flavor of what the future is likely to bring. It will be very interesting to watch the satellite imagery over Greenland in the next decade and beyond.

What are the implications for the Greenland ice sheet? Possibly, that it is less sensitive to climate warming than some of the higher-end estimates suggest (e.g. Cuffey and Marshall (2000)suggested Greenland could have contributed > ~4 m to EEM sea level), though very much in line with more recent estimates (e.g. Pfeffer et al. (2008)). The estimated temperature change of ~8°C is quite a bit warmer than most previous estimates which are more in the range of 2-5°C (though the uncertainty estimates clearly overlap). Thus, whatever the contribution of mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet to the huge (4-8 m) rise in sea level of the Eemian, it occurred under very strong temperature forcing.

 

 

Let's not forget that if the GIS ice sheet wasn't filled with impurities likely from humans by one way or another the ice mass loss would be no where near where it has been.  We have to hope I MEAN HOPE the rest of the sheet doesn't start to build up with them.  Imagine how much difference it would have if say the regions under 2250M turned dark like the Western GIS melt layer has.  If the albedo drops from 70-80% to 30-50% over those regions ice mass loss could easily double, triple, quadruple from where it is right now. 

icy contenders weigh inJanuary 27th, 2013

Dahl-Jensen et al. (2013) suggest that the Greenland ice sheet was more stable than previously thought^[ii], enduring ~6k years of temperatures 5-8 C above the most recent 1000 years during the Eemian interglacial 118-126k years before present, its loss at the time contributing an estimated 2 m (6.6 ft) of global sea level compared to a total of 4-8 m (13-26 ft)^[iii], implying Antarctica was and will become the dominant source of sea level change. Consequently, environmental journalist Andrew Revkin writes: “The dramatic surface melting [in Greenland], while important to track and understand has little policy significance.”

Given the non-trivial complexity of the issue and that Greenland has been contributing more than 2:1 that of Antarctica to global sea level in the recent 19 years (1992-2010)^[iv], let’s not consider Greenland of neglible policy relevance until that ratio is 1:1 if not reversed, say, 0.5:1. Greenland, currently the leading contender with surface melting dominating its mass budget^[v], the positive feedback with surface melting and ice reflectivity doubling Greenland’s surface melt since year 2000^[vi]. Professor Richard Alley weighs in again: “We have high confidence that warming will shrink Greenland, by enough to matter a lot to coastal planners.”

That’s not to say that Antarctica couldn’t take over from Greenland the position of number 1 global sea level contributor in the foreseeable future. Nor should one be surprised if it did, given that Antarctica contains a factor of 10 more ice than Greenland^[vii],[viii].  And it is probable that the planetary energy imbalance^[ix] caused by elevated greenhouse gasses, expressed primarily through massive oceanic heat uptake^[x], is delivering enough erosive power to destabilize the 3.3 m of sea level^[xi] in the marine-based West Antarctic ice sheet. Yet, for today, consider also that climate change if increasing Antarctic precipitation a few percent can tip its mass balance toward the positive, lessening its sea level contribution^[xii] even while its glaciers retreat.

Irrespective of sea level forcing, through its ice mass budget Greenland plays an important role to North Atlantic climate through ocean thermohaline circulation, even being suggested as the Achilles heel of the global climate system^[xiii]. I wouldn’t tell our European friends Greenland’s hardly policy-relevant when climate change offers higher amplitude extremes in precipitation if not also temperature, as North Atlantic climate shifts in partial response to changes in neighboring Greenland.

Key differences between the modern Anthropocene and the Eemian interglacial suggest anthropogenic climate change may drive a different cryosphere response than during the Eemian…

Today, greenhouse gas concentrations are rising beyond 120% to 250% of peak Eemian values^[xiv],[xv], driving today’s global warming and the aformentioned ocean heat content uptake that contrasts from the Eemian when warming was driven by northern latitudes receiving 30-50 Watts per sq. meter more solar energy, a more regionally-forced climate change. Anthropocene climate is forced an estimated 4/5 by by elevated greenhouse gasses and black carbon aerosols^[xvi], the latter rising recently in significance after being more completely bounded^[xvii]. Anthropogenic warming is clearly overwhelming the modern orbital cooling^[xviii] and the decrease in solar output since the late 1970s^[xix].

Because the Greenland ice sheet surface undergoes much more seasonal melting than the surface of the Antarctic ice sheet, in Greenland decanting a factor of 2 increase of meltwater runoff annually since 2000^[xx], anthropogenic sources of light absorbing impurities provide a mechanism to multiply the cryospheric albedo feedback in ways presumably not occurring during the Eemian. Today, the combination of a.) land clearing by humans using fire, b.) industrial soot from fossil fuel combustion, and perhaps c.) larger fires the a legacy of fire suppression are in contrast to Eemian wildfire, that (as far as we know) did not include human factors. All me to here plug Dark Snow Project^[xxi] that is currently soliciting donations to crowdfund a field and laboratory campaign designed to assess the impact of increasing wildfire on darkening the Greenland ice sheet.

Richard Alley: “While Antarctica is relatively unknown, Greenland is relatively known and therefore useful to guide policy even if the ice sheet becomes second most important to sea level, and to provide guidance to Antarctic colleagues [in surface melt studies]”

In the end, what matters to our concerns about the rate of sea level rise is the sum total volume change of all land ice. As long as glaciers and ice caps (GICs) (excluding the ice sheets) remain significant contenders (GICs lost mass at a rate of 148 ± 30 Gt per year from January 2003 to December 2010)^[xxii], Antarctica lost 40% less during this period than GICs, and Greenland lost more than the two combined, we should stay focused on understanding the dynamics of all crysopheric systems in relation to the serious perturbation imposed by human activity. The Eemian has its own limits of utility in informing humanity of the trajectory we’re on.

 

 

[bluewave]

Let's not forget that if the GIS ice sheet wasn't filled with impurities likely from humans by one way or another the ice mass loss would be no where near where it has been.  We have to hope I MEAN HOPE the rest of the sheet doesn't start to build up with them.  Imagine how much difference it would have if say the regions under 2250M turned dark like the Western GIS melt layer has.  If the albedo drops from 70-80% to 30-50% over those regions ice mass loss could easily double, triple, quadruple from where it is right now. 

 

We have pretty much guaranteed that future generations over the next several hundred years are going to have to

spend big bucks relocating away from low lying coastal cities and communities. But I suppose we would have faced

a similar challenge after the last ice age if we had the population and coastal development of today back then.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120605102803.htm

 

A spectacular rise

 

The research has primarily confirmed the existence of this exceptional event, which had been controversial in some regards. Its chronology, amplitude and duration have now been defined. It began precisely 14,650 years ago and coincides with the start of the warm period known as the 'Bølling oscillation', which marked the end of the ice age. The rise in sea levels at that time was an average of 14m worldwide, over less than 350 years. This corresponds to a rate of 40mm per year -- compared to the 3mm per year we are currently experiencin

[LithiaWx]

How do you figure that there has been a net gain for 2013? Here is the latest GIS mass balance plot from polarportal.org [source]:

As anyone can see, Greenland has already lost nearly 300Gtons (300 km3) of ice this year. Which is less than the nearly 500 Gtons lost in 2012, but isn't a net gain by any stretch of the data.

Just to put this year's ice loss into perspective - the GIS ice lost to date is enough to cover the entire District of Columbia to a depth of about 1,800 meters. So knock yourself out if you feel that's reason enough to party. Please excuse me for feeling the GIS melting is serious, and not a cause for celebration.

Now that I am home I can post the DMI site info. It is them making the claim. They seem like a reputable source so I am relaying it.

If you will notice the graph starts at zero on September 1st, the GIS gains mass over the winter and some is lost in the summer. But notice the end point isn't zero... It's a net gain according to DMI and here is their explanation.

The surface mass balance is calculated over a year from September 1st to August 31st (the end of the melt season). The figure to the right shows the sum of all the daily changes from September 1st up to today. Next year on September 1st the map will be reset and we start over. This accumulated map illustrates how much the surface mass balance has contributed in each point across the ice sheet.

The figure below shows the total daily contribution from all points on the ice sheet (top) and the same accumulated from September 1st to now (bottom). The blue curves show this season’s surface mass balance in gigatons (Gt; 1 Gt is one billion tons and corresponds to 1 cubic kilometer of water), and for comparison the mean curves from the historical model run are shown with two standard deviations on either side. Note that the accumulated curve does not end at 0 at the end of the year. Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.

If you add calving it could be a net loss depending on the severity in a given year. That said calculations can easily be made wrt melt vs snow mass gain and loss. The only unknown is calving loss. Ill continue to celebrate the wins you can wallow in despair at how horrible things are. Melt season is pretty much over.. Coder weather moved in today ad looks to dominate for the most part looking at the models. We didn't approach 2012 levels of melt something that is a positive. Like LEK said its not like I'm throwing confetti and popping champagne corks...

[The_Global_Warmer]

We have pretty much guaranteed that future generations over the next several hundred years are going to have to

spend big bucks relocating away from low lying coastal cities and communities. But I suppose we would have faced

a similar challenge after the last ice age if we had the population and coastal development of today back then.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120605102803.htm

 

A spectacular rise

 

The research has primarily confirmed the existence of this exceptional event, which had been controversial in some regards. Its chronology, amplitude and duration have now been defined. It began precisely 14,650 years ago and coincides with the start of the warm period known as the 'Bølling oscillation', which marked the end of the ice age. The rise in sea levels at that time was an average of 14m worldwide, over less than 350 years. This corresponds to a rate of 40mm per year -- compared to the 3mm per year we are currently experiencing

 

 

While this is our fault and that wasn't their fault I think the nomadic homo sapiens then probably had little issue moving and taking advantage of the riches of the end of the ice age.  They were equipped.

 

Now we face things like ending hunger, starvation, poverty, homelessness, hopelessness and a bunch of other things that will be tough to take out if we are facing massive issues with global warming.

 

 

On top of GIS being much warmer.  If the albedo of GIS surface continues to drop it will also have major implications in the Summer climate system. 

 

 

Unlike Sea Ice. GIS won't have an ocean to send heat to through the ice or when there is open water.  Dirty ice on GIS is a lot more like a land surface.  Where it will warm the environment around it quite a bit more instead of send the heat downward.  Because in part of the impurities which won't pick and choose where to send it's collected heat like land.

[Jonger]

Now we face things like ending hunger, starvation, poverty, homelessness, hopelessness and a bunch of other things that will be tough to take out if we are facing massive issues with global warming.

These issues were all we had on this planet before fossil fuels were utilized, the world essentially sucked as far as living concerned. I guess you would prefer disease, slavery, starvation and short lifespans. The future generations can adapt to the raging pace of sea level rise..... That part was a joke.

[The_Global_Warmer]

These issues were all we had on this planet before fossil fuels were utilized, the world essentially sucked as far as living concerned. I guess you would prefer disease, slavery, starvation and short lifespans. The future generations can adapt to the raging pace of sea level rise..... That part was a joke.

 

No of course I don't prefer that.  I am not against us figuring out how to utilize fossil fuels to spawn our modern society and eventually the Modern Global ERA of human enlightenment.  Of course I am referring to not only our technology, societal, and philosophical growth but also our ability now to give most, hopefully soon all humans access to the culmination of human knowledge.  We will see thousands of Einsteins competing/working together on pushing our understanding of reality further.

 

 

I am jaded by the fact that we have the ability, knowledge, and technology to stop using fossil fuels now and we hide behind the excuse of capitalism which will die out soon enough regardless.  SOON = centuries not in our life.

 

 

We should have more respect for the Earth to make wide scale changes to not only stop AGW but accomplish those goals I wrote above.

 

Of course you and I have nothing to give.  But many millions of humans have access to "money" or resource tokens which is what money is that they couldn't use in a million or billion lifetimes.  We need to take that from them and use it to end suffering and balance this **** out while moving forward with our society as a whole.

 

 

This is **** that will happen regardless if humanity is going to take the next step. 

 

Personal freedom/free will to choose ones path and way of life is not the same as the "freedom to acquire vital resources."  The only thing that should have control is all of the people or the state which represents the people. 

 

Humans will just have to do something else with their lives besides chase money as a motivator.  Most people only do it to survive.  The small group who does it for deeper reasons is the needs of the few over the needs of the many.  To bad.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Now that I am home I can post the DMI site info. It is them making the claim. They seem like a reputable source so I am relaying it.

If you will notice the graph starts at zero on September 1st, the GIS gains mass over the winter and some is lost in the summer. But notice the end point isn't zero... It's a net gain according to DMI and here is their explanation.

The surface mass balance is calculated over a year from September 1st to August 31st (the end of the melt season). The figure to the right shows the sum of all the daily changes from September 1st up to today. Next year on September 1st the map will be reset and we start over. This accumulated map illustrates how much the surface mass balance has contributed in each point across the ice sheet.

The figure below shows the total daily contribution from all points on the ice sheet (top) and the same accumulated from September 1st to now (bottom). The blue curves show this season’s surface mass balance in gigatons (Gt; 1 Gt is one billion tons and corresponds to 1 cubic kilometer of water), and for comparison the mean curves from the historical model run are shown with two standard deviations on either side. Note that the accumulated curve does not end at 0 at the end of the year. Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.

If you add calving it could be a net loss depending on the severity in a given year. That said calculations can easily be made wrt melt vs snow mass gain and loss. The only unknown is calving loss. Ill continue to celebrate the wins you can wallow in despair at how horrible things are. Melt season is pretty much over.. Coder weather moved in today ad looks to dominate for the most part looking at the models. We didn't approach 2012 levels of melt something that is a positive. Like LEK said its not like I'm throwing confetti and popping champagne corks...

 

 

That model is wrong about how much snow falls over GIS.  They have essentially appointed Jason Box Emporer of all things GIS tracking and is working it out. The website and links to graphics, PDFs explaining them have been posted in this thread over the last few months.

 

This link has been posted twice. Now a third time to go with the graphic it contains.  Grace shows nothing resembling 500GT of snowfall over a GIS winter in any year.

 

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland_ice_sheet.html

 

 

The year before:

 

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20120710_stateoftheclimatereport.html

 

 

 

No version of the Grace data ever shows anything near what that model shows.

[PhillipS]

Now that I am home I can post the DMI site info. It is them making the claim. They seem like a reputable source so I am relaying it.

image.jpg

image.jpg

If you will notice the graph starts at zero on September 1st, the GIS gains mass over the winter and some is lost in the summer. But notice the end point isn't zero... It's a net gain according to DMI and here is their explanation.

The surface mass balance is calculated over a year from September 1st to August 31st (the end of the melt season). The figure to the right shows the sum of all the daily changes from September 1st up to today. Next year on September 1st the map will be reset and we start over. This accumulated map illustrates how much the surface mass balance has contributed in each point across the ice sheet.

The figure below shows the total daily contribution from all points on the ice sheet (top) and the same accumulated from September 1st to now (bottom). The blue curves show this season’s surface mass balance in gigatons (Gt; 1 Gt is one billion tons and corresponds to 1 cubic kilometer of water), and for comparison the mean curves from the historical model run are shown with two standard deviations on either side. Note that the accumulated curve does not end at 0 at the end of the year. Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.

If you add calving it could be a net loss depending on the severity in a given year. That said calculations can easily be made wrt melt vs snow mass gain and loss. The only unknown is calving loss. Ill continue to celebrate the wins you can wallow in despair at how horrible things are. Melt season is pretty much over.. Coder weather moved in today ad looks to dominate for the most part looking at the models. We didn't approach 2012 levels of melt something that is a positive. Like LEK said its not like I'm throwing confetti and popping champagne corks...

 

Did you actually read the captions for the DMI page you referenced:  If you did, how did you miss the following:

 

The figure below shows the total daily contribution from all points on the ice sheet (top) and the same accumulated from September 1st to now (bottom). The blue curves show this season’s mass balance in gigatons (Gt; 1 Gt is one billion tons and corresponds to 1 cubic kilometer of water), and for comparison the mean curves from the historical model run are shown with two standard deviations on either side. Note that the accumulated curve does not end at 0 at the end of the year. Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.

 

[emphasis mine]

 

This image I posted above which shows that the 2013 GIS melt season already has a net loss of nearly 300 Gtons is from the site PolarPortal, also Danish, and whose content:

 

The content is provided by three Danish research institutions: 

Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI)

GEUS - The Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland

DTU Space 

 

GEUS, DTU Space and Asiaq, Greenland Survey cooperates to run Promice ,the monitoring programme on the Greenland Ice Sheet funded by Dancea Climate Fund. 

 

When ALL of the available data is examined, and not just the cherrypicked subset you keep posting, Greenland is clearly losing massive amounts of ice every year, and the annual totals have accelerated in recent years. 

[LithiaWx]

Did you actually read the captions for the DMI page you referenced:  If you did, how did you miss the following:

 

The figure below shows the total daily contribution from all points on the ice sheet (top) and the same accumulated from September 1st to now (bottom). The blue curves show this season’s mass balance in gigatons (Gt; 1 Gt is one billion tons and corresponds to 1 cubic kilometer of water), and for comparison the mean curves from the historical model run are shown with two standard deviations on either side. Note that the accumulated curve does not end at 0 at the end of the year. Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.[/size]

 

[emphasis mine]

 

This image I posted above which shows that the 2013 GIS melt season already has a net loss of nearly 300 Gtons is from the site PolarPortal, also Danish, and whose content:

 

The content is provided by three Danish research institutions: 

Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI)

GEUS - The Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland

DTU Space 

 

GEUS, DTU Space and Asiaq, Greenland Survey cooperates to run Promice ,the monitoring programme on the Greenland Ice Sheet funded by Dancea Climate Fund. 

 

When ALL of the available data is examined, and not just the cherrypicked subset you keep posting, Greenland is clearly losing massive amounts of ice every year, and the annual totals have accelerated in recent years.

Yes, I read it. I posted it in the post you were quoting. I also acknowledged it. I will say it one more time and move on. I'm not cherry picking, that is the time frame DMI uses and it makes sense. September 1st is the end of melt season according to them and that is the date they base the start and stop off of. Of course Greenland will have a net loss if you tally January - now... The year isn't over and you are sampling only seven months leaving out some of the coldest ones but including all of the warm ones. That is cherry picking...

[The_Global_Warmer]

Much slower drop today.  Almost back to normal.

 

I expect some similar small drops before a few days of probably some ones back around -4 to -5GT.  Probably about 30-40GT more loss on the model before colder air moves in.

 

 

 

 

[SVT450R]

I am not aware of the significance of the NAO on the GIS the current NAO state is weak as well.

The cold starts today and builds from here on according to the models.

The NAO does play a large role in GIS climate it was one of the reasons for last year's large melt.

 

it's also pretty ugly though.  There are pretty clear fundamental changes taking place that 2013 has shown us are pretty powerful in the ice melting business. 

 

The colder +NAO regime that will be 70-80% of this Summer melt season wasn't enough to prevent 2013 from likely reaching within 85% or better of the 2013 Summer ice mass loss.

 

It wasn't very long ago major torching Summers with -NAOs would not come near that.

You wouldn't expect to see a large shift in a single season but if we are to start seeing more +NAO's then one could argue that the melt rate will begin to slow down.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The NAO does play a large role in GIS climate it was one of the reasons for last year's large melt.

 

You wouldn't expect to see a large shift in a single season but if we are to start seeing more +NAO's then one could argue that the melt rate will begin to slow down.

 

 

If the Western GIS area had a winter with record snowfall over the dirty ice region and that snow didn't melt out till way late or much at all.

 

It would dramatically lower GIS melt rates.

 

 

I think the solution is in winter.  Well part of it.  This is a snapshot of the Western GIS dirty ice layer.  It has extended all the way to the far Southern tip and NW GIS.  However outside of the West/SW side it's much thinner at this point.  Here is from 2009 to 2013.  I picked out the images as close together and during the peak melt season as I could get a clear shot.

 

We obviously know 2013 would have not gotten anywhere near the level of melt it has had if the years before didn't expose this dirty ice layer and expand it.  So that when 2013 had a warm spell.  After almost getting out not to bruised up.  Then BOOM. The dirty ice layer was exposed + sunny skies + warm air advection = big time melt.

 

Now on the bright side 2013 didn't expand the dirty ice layer over the Western side.  I don't know if any dirty ice layers have formed elsewhere, I haven't dug that far into the Eastern side yet.  But this year the NE and NW/NNW areas of GIS have really been hit hard. 

 

The most concerning part in that is the NW/NNW/N side of GIS.  Because snow cover over the CAA to the West of this region has started to completely melt out or very close every Summer now.  The Northern Baffin is running warm typically by June or July and doesn't go down until Summer is over.  Probably some positive feedback's going on there. 

 

The Baffin pretty much anywhere North of 70N is supposed to be like 0C or colder all Summer.  I think there is supposed to be lingering ice there well into August.  Not anymore.  So this body of water which is currently running at 3-6C. 

 

Last year the snow cover the CAA Islands was totally roasted by the end of June.  So that accelerates CAA sea ice loss.  It also allows land warming that would otherwise be negated by snow cover.  It also helps warm the Baffin. Which in turn once warmer doesn't have the same chilling effect on the local atmosphere.  In turn the Western GIS snow cover over land and ice melts faster, albedo plummets, you get the picture.

 

We really need a major winter of snow over the Western side of GIS then a +NAO summer to see if it holds through.

 

 

 

2009

 

2010

 

2011

 

2012

 

2013

[LithiaWx]

Well below 2012 and should be coming to a screeching halt shortly. Also a net gain of ice for the season so far.

image.jpg

Well melt did come to a screeching halt. We lost 2 GT yesterday. The euro says 2 of the next three days will be slightly warmer then a sledgehammer of cold descends upon the GIS. Old man winters icy cold grip is approaching.

[SVT450R]

If the Western GIS area had a winter with record snowfall over the dirty ice region and that snow didn't melt out till way late or much at all.

 

It would dramatically lower GIS melt rates.

 

 

I think the solution is in winter.  Well part of it.  This is a snapshot of the Western GIS dirty ice layer.  It has extended all the way to the far Southern tip and NW GIS.  However outside of the West/SW side it's much thinner at this point.  Here is from 2009 to 2013.  I picked out the images as close together and during the peak melt season as I could get a clear shot.

 

We obviously know 2013 would have not gotten anywhere near the level of melt it has had if the years before didn't expose this dirty ice layer and expand it.  So that when 2013 had a warm spell.  After almost getting out not to bruised up.  Then BOOM. The dirty ice layer was exposed + sunny skies + warm air advection = big time melt.

 

Now on the bright side 2013 didn't expand the dirty ice layer over the Western side.  I don't know if any dirty ice layers have formed elsewhere, I haven't dug that far into the Eastern side yet.  But this year the NE and NW/NNW areas of GIS have really been hit hard. 

 

The most concerning part in that is the NW/NNW/N side of GIS.  Because snow cover over the CAA to the West of this region has started to completely melt out or very close every Summer now.  The Northern Baffin is running warm typically by June or July and doesn't go down until Summer is over.  Probably some positive feedback's going on there. 

 

The Baffin pretty much anywhere North of 70N is supposed to be like 0C or colder all Summer.  I think there is supposed to be lingering ice there well into August.  Not anymore.  So this body of water which is currently running at 3-6C. 

 

Last year the snow cover the CAA Islands was totally roasted by the end of June.  So that accelerates CAA sea ice loss.  It also allows land warming that would otherwise be negated by snow cover.  It also helps warm the Baffin. Which in turn once warmer doesn't have the same chilling effect on the local atmosphere.  In turn the Western GIS snow cover over land and ice melts faster, albedo plummets, you get the picture.

 

We really need a major winter of snow over the Western side of GIS then a +NAO summer to see if it holds through.

 

 

 

2009

 

2010

 

2011

 

2012

 

2013

All valid points this tidbit from Box hits my point on the head by what i mean if we start to see more of a +NAO regime from winter to summer.   ''Negative North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) has promoted Greenland heating, melting and snow drought for now 6 summers in a row (Tedesco et al. 2013; Fettweis et al. 2013). Negative late winter NAO packs a similar punch. Negative NAO has prevailed much of the past decade and is largely to blame for Greenland’s astonishing melt increase.''  Having more of a +NAO regime brings more precipitation which equals more snow which should promote more snow sticking around then during a -NAO regime but this is something that would probably take multiple years but one could see how it could promote a slower melt rate then what we have seen the last few years.

[LithiaWx]

Another benign melt day on the GIS.

[LithiaWx]

Friv abandons this thread when Greenland is doing well...

Greenland got sideswiped by a snowstorm and very slow melt across the rest of the GIS.

I have a feeling he will return in time for the two warmer days on tap.

[LithiaWx]

Ill just put this here.

[Met1985]

Ill just put this here.

image.jpg

Nice. Looks good for Greenland so far.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Friv abandons this thread when Greenland is doing well...

Greenland got sideswiped by a snowstorm and very slow melt across the rest of the GIS.

I have a feeling he will return in time for the two warmer days on tap.

 

 

 How close do you track you're weather when you have a week of mostly sunny and normal temps?  How much do you track it when something more ANOMALOUS happens like rain?  How much do you track it when it get's even more ANOMALOUS like severe thunderstorms or winter weather events or a major cold spell or massive heat wave?

 

On top of that I made a post about the smaller ice mass loss days.  I guess you will be posting daily updates the next 9 months while GIS actually does "well" when the ice mass dailies go above normal.  It has been about a month now since that has happened. 

 

The one know as the great one wrote:

 

Much slower drop today.  Almost back to normal.

 

I expect some similar small drops before a few days of probably some ones back around -4 to -5GT.  Probably about 30-40GT more loss on the model before colder air moves in.

 

 

 

 

 

Looks like I didn't need to make daily update posts for the days that saw -1GT to -2GT.  It also looks like today was a -4GT day.  Looks like I covered the last 3 days perfectly. 

 

 

[Jonger]

DMI rescinded the July 30th record according the this source. I'm looking for something more official.

http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/65674greenland_sees_record-breaking_heat/

[Note: the DMI later rescinded the claim that the July 30 temperature was a record-breaker, saying that the lower temperature recorded at another station in the community — 24 C — stands for that day. That’s 1.9 C lower than the record, which is still to be broken]

[TerryM]

DMI rescinded the July 30th record according the this source. I'm looking for something more official.

http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/65674greenland_sees_record-breaking_heat/

[Note: the DMI later rescinded the claim that the July 30 temperature was a record-breaker, saying that the lower temperature recorded at another station in the community — 24 C — stands for that day. That’s 1.9 C lower than the record, which is still to be broken]

I'm getting 25.2C 

http://www.ogimet.com/cgi-bin/gsynres?lang=en&ind=04241&ano=2013&mes=7&day=30&hora=18&min=0&ndays=30

Terry

[LithiaWx]

DMI draws heat record back http://goo.gl/iFIyw4

Well, it was hot in Maniitsoq 30 July. But the record was not so. It tells Asiaq who have checked its measuring station

Hanne Broberg

It is true when measuring station at GLV, Mittarfeqarfiit in Maniitsooq shows 25.9 ° C. but it is not a measuring station, you can take at face value for the area.

In fact, DMI deleted his news about heat record in Greenland from its website. It is based on the request from Asiaq, who is also a monitoring station, which also has a monitoring station in Maniitsoq.

Asiaq measuring station in Maniitsoq has "only" measured up to 24.0 ° C on 30 July 2013, which is 1.9 ° C lower than DMI and 1.5 ° C lower than the previous heat record.

- The reason that DMI and Asiaq not measure the same temperatures due to DMI get their measurements from Mittarfeqarfiit measuring station. Here is the temperature sensor of the airport building just over a gate. Moreover, the entire area under the thermometer paved, providing a strong heating of the air by quiet sunny weather as on Tuesday, says Per Hangaard, climate employee Asiaq.

Read also: Greenland gets lost heat record

- Asiaq also uses data from GLV, but only the data which is measured according to the international standards, that's why Asiaq a small weather station standing about 100 meters from the airport, which measures including temperature under Level, he explains.

[Jonger]

I spent most of today at the willow run air show today outside Detroit. Its amazing how much hotter an airport is during a sunny day, so much concrete.

[LithiaWx]

As I correctly pointed out Greenland had a slightly above average loss day today. The GIS is about to go into the deep freeze stopping all losses and adding mass if the Euro verifies.

2013 didn't approach 2012 levels of melt, those calling for doom and gloom this season were wrong as melt season is all but over.

[Nimbostratus]

I spent most of today at the willow run air show today outside Detroit. Its amazing how much hotter an airport is during a sunny day, so much concrete.

What kind of post is this?

[f2tornado]

What kind of post is this?

 

Anecdotal fluff to back up DMI stating the "record breaking" sensor was not sited to international standards. I did see this "record" posted elsewhere as some sort of proof of climate change even though this argument is just as fallacious as Average Joe in the Plains suggesting global cooling due to some very cool days this summer. The take away from this record retraction is to be careful jumping too quickly on one piece of data, a minor one at that. Most folks posting on this site do a reasonably good job avoiding this. Sure, some folks mix in a little cheerleading and emotion with the data but we're human. I don't post here much but generally enjoy seeing live data and reading the discussion. I have also been directed to some quality peer reviewed research to further formulate my own opinion. When I get some time I'll put something together from my reading on tropical ice but that's a long way from Greenland.