Greenland 2013

[The_Global_Warmer]

Models showing a little late Summer thaw on GIS.

 

 

[f2tornado]

Interesting brief NASA article.

Greenland’s Ice Is Growing Darker

http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=76916&src=share

[LithiaWx]

The GIS continues to add mass as we head into the deep freeze.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Interesting brief NASA article. Greenland’s Ice Is Growing Darker http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=76916&src=share

 

 

 

 

 

That is from this Summer from Jason Box blog of dark ice on GIS.

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

New paper about Greenlands Albedo changes:

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425713002356

 

 

Highlights •

The MODIS 16-day snow albedo product is in general agreement with Greenland in situ data.

•

Analysis from 2000 to 2012 reveals negative trends leading to enhanced absorption of solar energy.

•

In 2012, albedo anomalies were more than two standard deviations below the 2000–2009 mean.

Abstract

In this study, the accuracy of the MODerate resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) combined Terra (MOD) and Aqua (MYD) 16-day albedo product (MCD43) is evaluated through comparisons with eleven years of in situ measurements at 17 automatic weather stations on the Greenland Ice Sheet. Taking into consideration accuracy issues with in situ observations, results show that utilizing all high-quality, cloud-free MODIS retrievals gives physically realistic ice sheet albedo values for solar zenith angles less than 75°, with a root-mean-square error of 0.067 (RMSE) and an overall mean bias of + 0.022 (with the MODIS data biased slightly high relative to the in situ data). Using this data set, changes in ice sheet albedo from 2000 to 2012 are documented. Analysis reveals negative trends in ice sheet albedo during summer over the 13-year data record, with persistent negative albedo anomalies in recent years over western Greenland. During summer 2012, extensive surface melt resulted in a Greenland area-averaged albedo anomaly for June, July August relative to 2000–2009 of − 0.044 that significantly increased the amount of total absorbed solar radiation and surface melt.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Here is another amazing image from Greenland.

 

 

 

Water is seen on part of the glacial ice sheet that covers about 80 percent of Greenland on July 17, 2013. As the sea levels around the globe rise, researchers are studying the melting glaciers and the long-term ramifications. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images) #

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

The deep freeze has begun.

 

 

 

it's almost over now. 

 

[LithiaWx]

Wow Greenland is really stacking on some major mass gains early on.

[nflwxman]

Wow Greenland is really stacking on some major mass gains early on.

image.jpg

Where do you get those graphs? Just out of curiosity.

[LithiaWx]

Where do you get those graphs? Just out of curiosity.

http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

[PhillipS]

There are several persistent pseudo-skeptics on this thread who are trying to peddle the fairy tale that Greenland is having a benign melt season in 2013 or even that the GIS is having a net gain in mass.  Which would be nice if true but, sadly, the reality is that the 2013 melt season for Greenland has been worse than the long-term average and that there is strong evidence that the GIS mass loss trend is accelerating.

 

Here is a favorite graphic of the pseudo-skeptics [source]:

 

 

Looks encouraging, doesn't it?  The charts are showing positive mass gains over the period plotted - so the GIS is gaining mass, right?  No, because this is not a plot of the GIS Mass Balance, it is a plot of the Greenland Surface Mass Balance (SMB) - a very difference metric entirely.  But the pseudo-skeptics conflate one with the other in order to push their agenda.  The SMB is simply the gain from precipitation minus the loss from surface melting and sublimation.  It does not include the major factor of glacial calving or the minor factor of basal melting.  This would be clear to a casual reader if the pseudo-skeptics would the caption for this figure:

 

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.

 

Even without the caption there is a simple reality check for how the 2013 melt year is going - just look at the brown line for 2013  and compare it to the red line for 2012.  Both lines are much worse than the long-term average, but 2013 has had roughly 150 to 200 Gtons less melting than 2012.  Since 2012 had a net GIS loss of roughly 500 Gtons, we can expect to end 2013 will a net GIS loss of roughly 300 to 350 Gtons - much higher than the long-term average.  Benign?  Few people would think so.

 

The 300 to 350 net loss projection can be checked against the DMI plot for the total GIS mass balance (which, oddly enough, I can't recall the pseudo-skeptics ever posting) [source]:

 

 

As expected we see that in 2012 the GIS had a roughly 500 Gton net loss, and so far for 2013 the loss is above the long-term average and on track for a net loss greater than 300 Gtons.  Notice that the net loss could be as high as 400 Gtons.

 

As we all know, the GIS mass balance figure from one year or just a few years is weather and not climate.  So lets look at the long term observations.  Here is the GIS mass balance over a longer period:

 

 

As we can see, not only has there not been a year with a net gain since 2002, the annual net losses have been accelerating.  A 2013 net GIS loss of 300+ Gtons is not going to be much improvement - more like a brief pause at the top of a roller coaster.  

 

So when was the last year that the GIS had a net mass balance gain?  According to this chart (which keeps giving me an error message when I try to post) it was 1997:

 

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/mass-balance-of-the-greenland

 

In fact, only four years since 1989 (1991, 1992, 1996, 1997) have had positive annual mass balances - and the cumulative mass gained in those four years was less than the loss during 2012.

 

The bottom line is that the issue of GIS mass loss is serious and getting worse.  Anyone telling us that the Greenland melting is now benign or that Greenland is gaining mass on an annual basis is lying - there is simply no evidence to support those claims.

[LithiaWx]

Phillip the graph you like to post above will not work in about 45 days a it stops updating over the winter. I still say the chart I post frequently shows a pretty nice glimpse of what the happens day to day on the GIS. You are not here in good faith. I've made my stance wry clear and have thoroughly explained the DMI graph over and over again. Either you do t understand or are ignoring my posts. Skier even came in to help calm things down bit you can't let it go.

You can call me whatever you like but you lose credibility by saying ridiculous things like pseudo skeptic considering my opinion abou AGW being made know many times.

As for the benign melt in 2013 claim, I never said that. Perhaps you should read more carefully the thread subtitle before making stupid comments.

[PhillipS]

Phillip the graph you like to post above will not work in about 45 days a it stops updating over the winter. I still say the chart I post frequently shows a pretty nice glimpse of what the happens day to day on the GIS. You are not here in good faith. I've made my stance wry clear and have thoroughly explained the DMI graph over and over again. Either you do t understand or are ignoring my posts. Skier even came in to help calm things down bit you can't let it go.

You can call me whatever you like but you lose credibility by saying ridiculous things like pseudo skeptic considering my opinion abou AGW being made know many times.

As for the benign melt in 2013 claim, I never said that. Perhaps you should read more carefully the thread subtitle before making stupid comments.

 

Excuse me!?  You started this thread and the subtitle is "Benign melt compared to 2012".  Are you claiming now that you didn't write that?  As far as I know you are the ONLY person using the adjective "benign" in relation to the 2013 melt.  Trying to weasel out of what you said is like saying "Being run over by a car is benign compared to being run over by a truck.".  No it's not - both events are terrible.  At least have the integrity to stand behind your nonsense.

 

And FWIW, the chart I posted is the only one showing the annual mass balance cycle for the GIS - and not just the somewhat deceptive Greenland surface mass balance chart you prefer.  It shows the long-term annual trend based on the GRACE observations and the April through November values are calibrated against GRACE.  Compare the final values for 2012 on the two plots.  The GIS mass balance plot shows 2012 at around 500 Gtons lost, whereas the Greenland surface mass balance shows 2012 as finishing with around 40 Gtons gained.  Which of those figures is closer to the accepted value for the 2012 GIS net mass balance?

[LithiaWx]

Excuse me!? You started this thread and the subtitle is "Benign melt compared to 2012". Are you claiming now that you didn't write that? As far as I know you are the ONLY person using the adjective "benign" in relation to the 2013 melt. Trying to weasel out of what you said is like saying "Being run over by a car is benign compared to being run over by a truck.". No it's not - both events are terrible. At least have the integrity to stand behind your nonsense.

And FWIW, the chart I posted is the only one showing the annual mass balance cycle for the GIS - and not just the somewhat deceptive Greenland surface mass balance chart you prefer. It shows the long-term annual trend based on the GRACE observations and the April through November values are calibrated against GRACE. Compare the final values for 2012 on the two plots. The GIS mass balance plot shows 2012 at around 500 Gtons lost, whereas the Greenland surface mass balance shows 2012 as finishing with around 40 Gtons gained. Which of those figures is closer to the accepted value for the 2012 GIS net mass balance?

In your last post you claimed I said 2013 had a benign melt year. I didn't say that. I said 2013 is benign compare to 2012 and IMO it is. 2012 was devastating melt 2013 wasn't near the epic levels of 2012.

Don't change my words around if you want to quote me make sure you get it right. What you claim I Said originally wasn't what I Said at all and has a totally different meaning.

I still stand by the DMI graph as a great barometer of he day to day happenings on the GIS. If you click the link and read the explanation you will see it is pretty clearly laid out what the chart is showing and it clearly states that Greenland isn't in a mass balance it is losing mass. I've only said it about five times and linked it a few times a well.

[Jonger]

 

I find it hard to believe this wasn't a benign melt season.

[PhillipS]

 

I find it hard to believe this wasn't a benign melt season.

 

By what strange twist of logic is a worse than average melt season "benign".  The chart you just posted shows 2013 being worse than average.  The charts Marietta keeps posting show worse than average melting during 2013.  Can you or Marietta share ANY reputable data that indicates that 2013 was better, i.e. less mass lost, than average?  If not, then you should admit that there is nothing 'benign' about a bad situation getting worse.

[LithiaWx]

By what strange twist of logic is a worse than average melt season "benign". The chart you just posted shows 2013 being worse than average. The charts Marietta keeps posting show worse than average melting during 2013. Can you or Marietta share ANY reputable data that indicates that 2013 was better, i.e. less mass lost, than average? If not, then you should admit that there is nothing 'benign' about a bad situation getting worse.

Please stop twisting my words. Jonger just called 2013 benign but I never did. I said 2013 is benign compared to 2012.

What you are continuing to do is ridiculous and I assure you any person reading this knows what I did and didn't say, you're not kidding anyone.

[Jonger]

 

I find it hard to believe this wasn't a benign melt season.

 

By what strange twist of logic is a worse than average melt season "benign".  The chart you just posted shows 2013 being worse than average.  The charts Marietta keeps posting show worse than average melting during 2013.  Can you or Marietta share ANY reputable data that indicates that 2013 was better, i.e. less mass lost, than average?  If not, then you should admit that there is nothing 'benign' about a bad situation getting worse.

If the 2013 season was what we had to expect every year, all fossil fuels on earth will be used up before 5% of the island melts. We will enter the next ice age before it even matters.

[The_Global_Warmer]

By what strange twist of logic is a worse than average melt season "benign".  The chart you just posted shows 2013 being worse than average.  The charts Marietta keeps posting show worse than average melting during 2013.  Can you or Marietta share ANY reputable data that indicates that 2013 was better, i.e. less mass lost, than average?  If not, then you should admit that there is nothing 'benign' about a bad situation getting worse.

 

 

 

That chart also only shows where passive microwave picks up surface melting of the snow or ice.  It does not account for albedo at all.  So even though we had a very favorable pattern most of the Summer for GIS.  We even had snow fall in July that caused the albedo to go well above the 2000-2009 average for a little while.  And 10 days later it plummeted back way below the 2000-2009 average because the overall albedo change taking place is enormous.  We are talking like 5 percent of the ice sheet is apart of the dirty ice layer.  So without a wall to wall perfect weather Summer we get a month at best of "good" melt weather and 2013 still ends up  2SD on the "model" below normal vs 1991-2010 and was still ABOVE NORMAL MELT VS GRACE 2003-2012.

 

 

 

That obviously backs up the amazing ground changes taking place.  Maybe by posting daily updates of a models interpretation of snow fall over GIS it will cause the degradation of the ice sheet to subside?  I don't understand the focus on the lesser important things.  Snow falling from Sept to May is normal for GIS.  It's a given.  Come May of course we will check in to see how much precip has fallen. 

 

Are we going to get 9 months of daily updates about how much snow will fall?  Does anyone expect this model to show something like 600GT or 400GT?  I guarantee you it will magically end up right with 2012 and 2013 come May. 

 

 

 

 

Overall its 99 percent guaranteed that the GIS region will continue to warm going forward.  Which means at best we might see 1 or 2 Summers in a row with "BENIGN" surface ice mass loss vs 2012 that is still in the top 5 Summer ice mass loss years.  But whether it be average weather next Summer or bad or bad the year after the ice mass loss will continue to get worse regardless of weather. 

 

Just like the Sea Ice the favorable weather can only do so much within the parameters of the warming world. 

 

 

So instead of being focused on what those parameters are and where they are going.  The fake skeptics change the background parameters to bring the context closer to the reality they want to view. 

 

In terms of GIS.  Instead of the focus being on the fact that we saw favorable weather and still saw one of the largest Summer melts in GIS in the modern time and exploring why which is what you would do if you're interest was keeping the parameters of the GIS changes as close to the reality of the situation as possible.  The fake skeptic takes 2012 which had very favorable weather for ice mass and compares this year to that one which moves the focus from what actually took place in 2013 vs laying 2013 against the best possible background that can be used to make 2013 look as "good" in terms of ice preservation as possible which is put it up against 2012.  GIS has gotten so bad so fast that fake skeptics can not even use the 2003-2012 grace averages or the 1991-2010 DMI modeled averages to compare 2013 too.  No they have to single out 2012 the worst Summer melt season on record and possibly in 1000 years. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jason Box just posted this on his blog recently.  So let's see a Man who has been going to GIS since 1993 on the regular is stunned at the ice retreat and state of the ice left over in spots. 

 

On top of that it was back in 2001 before the huge changes took place and were just starting their free fall to the levels we see a decade later.  The people who are going to GIS, the country involved with the most interest in GIS felt back in 2001 there was irrefutable evidence of a massive climate change taking place.  This was based on the previous half century and before.  Then afterwards we saw the changes in one decade make the prior ones look tiny.  Just another example of the extraordinary situation unfolding with our glaciers, not just GIS.  This is playing out everywhere on Earth. 

 

 

http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/

 

 

 

 

I’m in South Greenland drilling low tech metal pipes into the ice to calibrate high tech satellite, aircraft, and model data.

Flying over this landscape, it’s stunning how much the ice has retreated. Annual (let alone summer) average air temperatures at nearby Narsarsuaq have been above the melting point 39 of the past 51 years [1]. Unequivocal evidence of rapid ice retreat; relic stranded ice [2] was what led Denmark to support scientists at GEUS to install modern ice monitoring measurements in 2001. The observations are now called “Q transect” as part of the PROMICE network around Greenland.

I was stunned to witness (and photograph) more stranded relic ice on the sides of the glacier. Notice how no ice is feeding Phoenix’s wings from upstream.

 

 

[rygar]

Phillip - FYI, your attitude makes me skip reading your posts.  You don't get your point across very well by name calling.

[PhillipS]

Phillip - FYI, your attitude makes me skip reading your posts.  You don't get your point across very well by name calling.

 

I appreciate your feedback - like all on this forum you are welcome to read or skip any post you choose.  By "name calling" do you mean my labeling those who persistently post debunked and disingenuous misinformation pseudo-skeptics?  Can you suggest a better descriptor for those people?  

 

I confess I don't consider it name calling, any more than it's name calling when I'm labeled an alarmist.  It's a descriptive label, nothing more.  I and a number of others use the term "pseudo-skeptic" for those people who give lip service to believing and understanding AGW climate science, who claim to be honest skeptics (as all science oriented people should be), but whose actions clearly demonstrate that they reject (deny) climate science in favor of fringe theories, opinion, biases, and/or wishful thinking.  If called "denialists" they clutch their pearls in indignation and angrily avow that they're not denialists, they're just skeptical.  Okay, I wont call them denialists - but they re not honest skeptics either - so I feel the descriptor pseudo-skeptics fits them well.

 

I give posters the benefit of the doubt the first time they post something that's wrong.  We all make mistakes and I admit I've made plenty.  I try to point out the error and provide links to better information.  Even when they repost the same false info I try to take another approach to explaining the issue in hopes of clearing up possible confusion..

 

But when a poster persists in posting misinformation time after time despite several people pointing out that he's wrong, then it is hard to interpret his actions as innocent.  At some point it becomes clear that he is not here to share information or engage in technical discussions - he is trolling his agenda.  And there is a 'litmus test' for pseudo-skepticism - any poster who links to unabashedly denialist sites (such WattsUpWithThat, CO2Science, and Climate4You) to support his position is labeling himself as a pseudo-skeptic because a true skeptic with even a modicum of critical thinking skill understands those sites have no credibility.

 

You may well have a higher tolerance for nonsense than I do - but I don't feel I'm alone in getting irritated at posters who 'dumb down' this forum by posting disinformation.

[SVT450R]

I don't understand what the fuss is all about it was brought up early on that the DMI model doesn't account for calving and Marietta also acknowledged this.  It's obvious that this years surface melt was nothing like last year it's yet to be seen what the final outcome will be from grace.  If the DMI plot is correctly picking up on snowfall it's correct in saying that mass balance is being added even tho in the total outcome it will be negative.

[LithiaWx]

Plus three GT on DMI today

[Jonger]

So calving is a new phenomenon eh?

[PhillipS]

So calving is a new phenomenon eh?

 

I don't know whether you're being facetious but, no, calving is not a new phenomenon.  It's be going on as long as glaciers and ice sheets have reached oceans or lakes. 

[TerryM]

If the 2013 season was what we had to expect every year, all fossil fuels on earth will be used up before 5% of the island melts. We will enter the next ice age before it even matters.

Jong, are you somehow of the opinion that when we stop burning FF the carbon content of the atmosphere will plummet?

Terry

[CAD_Wedge_NC]

Jong, are you somehow of the opinion that when we stop burning FF the carbon content of the atmosphere will plummet?

Terry

 

Maybe not plummet, but it will certainly serve to arrest the addition of carbon. I don't believe anyone can say with any degree of certainty what will happen to the CO2 levels in a "post-FF" environment. How much more will the oceans absorb? How much will the plants take in? Could take a hundred years, could take 25 years. What is the opinion of the group? It would make for a good poll topic.

[Jonger]

If the 2013 season was what we had to expect every year, all fossil fuels on earth will be used up before 5% of the island melts. We will enter the next ice age before it even matters.

Jong, are you somehow of the opinion that when we stop burning FF the carbon content of the atmosphere will plummet?

Terry

I don't think it will vanish, but stopping the emission is step 1.

[PhillipS]

Maybe not plummet, but it will certainly serve to arrest the addition of carbon. I don't believe anyone can say with any degree of certainty what will happen to the CO2 levels in a "post-FF" environment. How much more will the oceans absorb? How much will the plants take in? Could take a hundred years, could take 25 years. What is the opinion of the group? It would make for a good poll topic.

 

There has been a lot of research on CO2 residency time so I'm not sure a poll is needed.  Here is a concise discussion on that from the Yale Climate Media Forum [link]:

 

Determining the residence time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a rather complex problem. A common misconception arises from simply looking at the annual carbon flux and the atmospheric stock; after all, with 230 gigatons absorbed by the oceans and land every year, and a total atmospheric stock of 720 gigatons, one might expect the average molecule of CO2 to remain in the atmosphere for only three to four years.

Such an approach poorly frames the issue, however. It is not the residence time of an individual molecule that is relevant. What really matters is just how long it will take for the stock of anthropogenic carbon emissions that has accumulated in the atmosphere to be reabsorbed.

The simplest way to approximate the time it will take to reabsorb the anthropogenic flux is to calculate how long it would take for the atmosphere to revert to preindustrial levels of 280 parts per million if humans could cease emissions immediately. If the current net sink of around 4 gigatons of carbon per year remained constant over time, it would take about 50 years for the atmosphere to return to 280 ppm. However, there is no reason to think that these sinks would remain constant as emissions decrease. Indeed, it is more realistic to anticipate that the net sink would shrink in proportion to the decrease in emissions.

Scientists can approach this problem in a number of different ways. They can use models of carbon sink behavior based on their best knowledge of the physics of ocean carbon absorption and the biosphere. They can also use records of changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide during glacial periodsin the distant past to estimate the time it takes for perturbations to settle out.

Using a combination of various methods, researchers have estimated that about 50 percent of the net anthropogenic pulse would be absorbed in the first 50 years, and about 70 percent in the first 100 years. Absorption by sinks slows dramatically after that, with an additional 10 percent or so being removed after 300 years and the remaining 20 percent lasting tens if not hundreds of thousands of years before being removed.

As University of Washington scientist David Archer explains, this “long tail” of absorption means that the mean lifetime of the pulse attributable to anthropogenic emissions is around 30,000 to 35,000 years.

Figure via Global Warming Art.

 

 

Our burning of fossil fuels and practices such as deforestation have added about 120 ppm of CO2 to the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm.  If we stopped emissions of CO2 today it would take tens of thousands of years to return to 280 ppm.  But how long would it take to return to a more recent, say 1900, CO2 level?  Well, by 1900 the CO2 level was around 300 ppm so we had only added about 20 ppm, or around 17% of today's net atmospheric load.  According to the charts, the Earth would return to a 300 ppm CO2 level in roughly 750 years.  And, of course, the longer we put off transitioning away from fossil fuels, getting back to 1900 levels takes much longer.  If we add another 80 ppm of CO2 (about 30 years worth of BAU) it would take roughly 2,000 years to drop back to a level of 300 ppm.

[Jonger]

One thing I wonder about is if humans can survive with 280ppm today. I know you are aware, but plants are growing much faster today that they were before the industrial revolution. Can we sustain the population with 280ppm co2 growth rate of our agriculture?

 

http://youtu.be/NsOL5nWkn1k

 

I wonder if we could just sequester enough to bring the levels down to around 325-350ppm.

 

Anyhow, just a thought.