Arctic Sea Ice : Forum

AGW in general => Consequences => Topic started by: rboyd on July 13, 2019, 09:06:18 PM

Title: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: rboyd on July 13, 2019, 09:06:18 PM
I have been finding it difficult to find information on the wider global impacts of a Blue Ocean Event, outside the likes of Paul Beckwith. Peter Wadhams and an odd few extremely reticent/conservative academic papers. Hopefully this topic will help bring together what knowledge there is. Impacts from the materials that I have been able to find have included:

- A collapse of the polar cell and ferrel cells with a resulting equible Northern Hemisphere climate
- A "polar cell" centred on Greenland (until that melts out) with very static jet streams and little seasonal variability
- A maritime environment in the Arctic that produces large precipitation on permafrost areas, which will then accelerate CO2/CH4 emissions
- Massive storms in the North Atlantic as the more rapid melting of Greenland creates a bigger, more intense, "cold blob" that contrasts with the warmer waters around it
- A general acceleration of climate change due to much lower Northern Hemisphere reflectivity
- More rapid melting of the Antarctic due to the climate "see-saw"
- Northward movement of the ITCZ rain belts greatly changing rainfall patterns (plus and minus) for some areas
- etc.

This is a paper I wrote on the subject a couple of years ago and its amazing how little research has been published in the interim.

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-06-21/the-impacts-of-an-ice-free-arctic-a-climate-paradigm-shift/ (https://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-06-21/the-impacts-of-an-ice-free-arctic-a-climate-paradigm-shift/)

Seems to generally be "the Northern Hemisphere is f***ed" with a BOE. I have started looking at real estate in Ecuador (Cuenca seems to be very nice) and the Paraguay highlands! Others insights would be much appreciated.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: dollarbillronson on July 13, 2019, 09:34:31 PM
Thank you for this thread.

I will take the liberty to quote a reddit post I have saved which reflects on the matter, by user "Athrowawayinmay" however judging by his nickname I suspect he is not that keen on receiving credit for it. Anyway, it may be less scientific than your conclusions but surely would be able to explain in layman's terms what would happen when a BOE nears/happens:

Quote
The arctic ice does many very important things, that by melting away will cause a lot of problems (just from the top of my head I'll list some below). The total loss of arctic ice is called "The Blue Ocean Event" (if you were looking to read up more on it), and it is something that should be happening in the next 2 to 10 years after which there will be some severe consequences.

-    It has a stabilizing effect on the jet stream which leads to stable, consistent and non-extreme weather. No arctic buffer leads to extreme weather.

-   The annual melt of arctic ice also provides fresh water for a lot of areas. No more ice means no more ice melt means no more water.

-   Too much ice melt means fresh cold water entering the ocean. This can lead to the collapse of the ocean currents. These same currents are what allows the UK isles to be inhabitable (they'd be MUCH colder without the warm ocean currents).

-  The arctic is the literal home for certain animals (polar bears). No ice, no ground, no home.

-  The arctic ice, being white, acts as a great big reflector of sunlight and heat. That's gone, and we get warmer faster.

-  The arctic ice, being a giant block of ice, acts as a buffer for heat. Energy that used to go into melting ice now contributes directly to land/air temperatures (think of a cup of ice water, your cup of water doesn't get warm until the ice melts; same concept).

-  There are a lot of things currently frozen in the "perma-frost" (that won't be so permanently frozen anymore). There's something called the "Clathrate gun hypothesis" that essentially when the greenhouse gases frozen up north melt and enter the air global warming will drastically accelerate and be truly unstoppable.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Pragma on July 13, 2019, 10:00:24 PM
Roger,

I think you have produced a pretty complete laundry list. One could add on knock-on effects like crop loss, but that could go on forever, and we don't even fully understand the current climate situation, let alone what we may be facing.

In your paper, I do have a minor quibble about IPCC carbon budgets, in that any that are based in some kind of reality all involve negative carbon. So, to me the issue is moot, although I think the entire IPCC is moot.

I've been thinking about this lately, along with many other here, I'm sure. Relatively speaking, it's imminent.

As has been said, a BOE is not a magic event and the significance will vary as it happens earlier and earlier in the season. That said, I think it is already happening but we haven't changed things that much, yet. (let me explain  :) )

Although we have reduced volume significantly, we have not reduced area anywhere near as much. We are not nearly as far along as some would assume, but area will catch up very quickly IMHO.

So, what we are seeing in terms of jet stream incoherence and other effects is just a taste of what is to come.

As usual, it all comes down to how soon will it happen and how fast we will see the effects?

Everything seems to be "sooner than expected" and "faster than expected".
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: pietkuip on July 13, 2019, 10:57:14 PM
I find it hard to imagine a polar cell centered on Greenland. I am not a meteorologist but the Earth's rotation is around the pole and this does not look like a stable solution (Coriolis forces).

Jennifer Francis has a few talks on Youtube. I watch Paul Beckwith too but Francis is much more an authority on this. Her expectation is that the distribution of land masses and seas and ice sheets around the pole might lock the Rossby waves.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: rboyd on July 14, 2019, 12:05:39 AM
In your paper, I do have a minor quibble about IPCC carbon budgets, in that any that are based in some kind of reality all involve negative carbon. So, to me the issue is moot, although I think the entire IPCC is moot.

I tend to now treat the IPCC reports as "soft denial", making greater and greater modelling assumptions (such as NETs) to match reality with ongoing economic growth. We blew the carbon budget a good few years ago.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: rboyd on July 14, 2019, 12:07:48 AM
I find it hard to imagine a polar cell centered on Greenland. I am not a meteorologist but the Earth's rotation is around the pole and this does not look like a stable solution (Coriolis forces).

Jennifer Francis has a few talks on Youtube. I watch Paul Beckwith too but Francis is much more an authority on this. Her expectation is that the distribution of land masses and seas and ice sheets around the pole might lock the Rossby waves.

I watch Paul but do tend to check some of his statements, thanks for the input on the Greenland "cole pole" proposal. Used to keep up with Jennifer Francis' work, will have to look for some recent videos.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on July 14, 2019, 01:09:37 AM
First of all: THANK YOU rboyd. Super smart topic/thread. Exceedingly interesting and surprisingly little discussion and almost no serious science looking into the issue. (Probably because it is so bizarre and such an unstable state in medium to long-term, but not in terms of a human lifespan.)

Her expectation is that the distribution of land masses and seas and ice sheets around the pole might lock the Rossby waves.

This seems to make sense to me. However, I don't think the Jet Stream would be permanently locked into place. I think it would go through at least 2 phases. The zero insolation vs highest-on-earth insolation switch that happens annually in the arctic seems like it would have to shift the system dynamics.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Tony Mcleod on July 14, 2019, 05:55:52 AM
First of all: THANK YOU rboyd. Super smart topic/thread. Exceedingly interesting and surprisingly little discussion and almost no serious science looking into the issue. (Probably because it is so bizarre and such an unstable state in medium to long-term, but not in terms of a human lifespan.)

Totally agree.  It seems to me a boe/new cold pole is one of the main stepping stones towards climate chaos, especially for the NH. If the 'cold pole' translates that far off centre it surely will cause drastic changes in the position and stability of the polar jet. Not being a meteorologist I can't even imagine how that will affect blocking patterns, the stability of the jet or even the existence of the atmospheric cells.
If there are changes remotely like these then a large percentage of the earth's population are going to be in dire trouble as far as their expected rainfail goes.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Archimid on July 14, 2019, 11:46:48 AM
Thank you for this thread rboyd. It is needed.

Quote
I have been finding it difficult to find information on the wider global impacts of a Blue Ocean Event,

Me too. Most I find tells me to not worry about it because a BOE will be like Tuesday. Everything will work just like before sans ice on top. Fish will get fat, shipping lanes will open. Sure Eskimos will have to end their lifestyle but Siberia will be the next Europe and Russia will be great again. Polar bears that stick to the coast will be just fine.

Because of this our risk assessment of a BOE is completely wrong.

Quote
A collapse of the polar cell and ferrel cells with a resulting equible Northern Hemisphere climate

The problem is not an equable climate. I don't believe the planet is hot enough for that yet. The problem is the transition to an equable climate, which has already begun.

Climate patterns that held for millennia are now shifting to match the new temperature difference.  Global warming is worse for the changes in temperature differences between the equator and the North Pole than the rise in temperatures.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: dnem on July 14, 2019, 05:11:52 PM
I think we need some clarity here on what we mean by a BOE.  Personally, I think that one of these years before 2025 we will dip below 1 mil km2 in September, and then, despite a slow start to the freeze season, we will get a reasonable freeze-up and then the need for another strong melt season the next year to get back to a late season BOE.  I don't think the occasional late season sub 1 million km2 extent will have a dramatic, chaotic effect on NH weather.  When we start having long months of peak insolation falling on a mostly ice free arctic, then we might well have dramatic impacts.

To me a very key question is how long it will take to transition from a BOE just being an occasional thing like a 2007 or 2012 to being a months long phenomenon every summer.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on July 14, 2019, 10:47:40 PM
Thank you for this thread rboyd. It is needed.

Quote
I have been finding it difficult to find information on the wider global impacts of a Blue Ocean Event,

Me too. Most I find tells me to not worry about it because a BOE will be like Tuesday. Everything will work just like before sans ice on top. Fish will get fat, shipping lanes will open. Sure Eskimos will have to end their lifestyle but Siberia will be the next Europe and Russia will be great again. Polar bears that stick to the coast will be just fine.

Because of this our risk assessment of a BOE is completely wrong.

Quote
A collapse of the polar cell and ferrel cells with a resulting equible Northern Hemisphere climate

The problem is not an equable climate. I don't believe the planet is hot enough for that yet. The problem is the transition to an equable climate, which has already begun.

Climate patterns that held for millennia are now shifting to match the new temperature difference.  Global warming is worse for the changes in temperature differences between the equator and the North Pole than the rise in temperatures.

Woah. I agree with everything you just said. Woah.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: nanning on July 15, 2019, 05:11:10 AM
Woah. I agree with everything you just said. Woah.
Me too.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: DaveHitz on July 15, 2019, 05:42:51 AM
Based on no actual data, I wonder whether there might be two forms of BOE.

(1) Some radical change throws the arctic into a very different mode than anything we've seen. For example, what if the halocline collapsed, melting the CAB surprisingly quickly. That might jar the CAB into a new state that replaces the old state.

(2) The melt slowly increases, each year a bit more than the last, until hitting the BOE limit occurs regularly, maybe not every year but every few, but then things mostly freeze up again after. This second case seems to be the more common prediction around here. That is, the BOE is a low-drama event where the ice happens to cross an arbitrary limit, but it doesn't radically shake our world.

Here's my point. My hunch is that the first style would have a larger effect on climate than the second. So to really talk about what effect a BOE might have, we need to think about what time of BOE we are considering.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: petm on July 15, 2019, 06:21:15 AM
@DaveHitz: I think #1 and tied to a transition to equable climate.

Speaking of which, the big question is: for the transition to equable, how fast is fast? It seems like we don't know, and instead of happening over 10,000s of years as previously assumed, it could even be more like decades. https://history.aip.org/climate/rapid.htm .

It seems to me that the assumption of stability is more a product of human psychology than evidence / external reality (similarly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_control). For instance, the analogous and closely related assumption of gradual evolution of species has already been challenged (in my view successfully) -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium.

And in the field of climate change, which is tellingly itself rapidly changing, all of the advances seem to point in the same direction: far more rapid change than previously imagined (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_of_imagination); for instance, transient major accelerations in the flow of ice sheets during the (ever expanding) melt season due to basal injections of surface meltwater  (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/297/5579/218.short).

"In general, a direct coupling between increased surface melting and ice-sheet flow has been given little or no consideration in estimates of ice sheet response to climate change." (2002, above)

Similarly, the relationship between warming oceans and the previously unimagined rapid retreat of marine terminating glaciers is just starting to be understood (https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9566).

Seems to me that it's all up for grabs...
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Tony Mcleod on July 15, 2019, 07:14:00 AM
There maybe links to this elsewhere but this Just Have a Think episode on BOE, linked below, provides some relevent material.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo3cznpfIpA
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Klondike Kat on July 15, 2019, 01:40:53 PM
The consequences of a BOE depend largely on the length of such an event.  Some have suggested that shortly after the first summer BOE event that the entire Arctic will spiral towards a year-round BOE.  That appears unlikely, which I will explain later.  But, lets us assume for arguments sake that a year-round BOE follows shortly after the first summertime BOE.  One of the biggest effects of a BOE is the albedo effect; the loss of ice, replace by open water, will lead to a substantially reduced albedo, which will cause the Arctic ocean to absorb significantly more heat.  The warming oceans will accelerate the ice loss.  The warming Arctic would lead to a decreased mid-latitude to pole difference, causing the polar jet stream to slow and meander southward.  This will bring colder Arctic air southward and warmer mid-latitude air northward, further amplifying this effect.  The result is cooler mid-latitude summers, warmer high-latitude summers, and increased rainfall throughout.  This is similar to what has occurred recently.

If the BOE were to persist throughout the Arctic winter, then a comparable amount of heat would be lost during the cold, dark months, due to the lack of ice cover.  This could exceed the heat gain, as the Arctic winter tends to have less cloud cover than the Arctic summer.  The Arctic temperature will drop rapidly, resulting in a greater mid-latitude to pole temperature gradient.  This will cause the polar stream to accelerate, tightening its rotation about the pole.  This will lead to warmer mid-latitude winters and colder Arctic winters.  This has not occurred in recently years, as both have warmed.

Consequently, a summer BOE is highly unlikely to result in a year-round BOE, as the large heat loss that would occur during an Arctic winter, would cause the temperature to fall significantly below freezing.  However, a year-long BOE might be preferable to a seasonal BOE, as it would allow substantial heat to be lost, slowing the global temperature rise.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: El Cid on July 15, 2019, 01:54:29 PM
A BOE is nothing special. We are already experiencieng BOE of the Barents, BOE of the Bering, etc. As time passes by, we will experience a BOE of the CAB eventually. Since we have already experienced partial/small BOEs, we know exactly what it brings (see pic) in the NH midlatitudes: much warmer winters, especially in Eurasia, due to the weakening of the Siberian High; and warmer summers. That's it. There is nothing mystical about the BOE. And more rain of course, but that is obvious
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Rich on July 15, 2019, 02:23:36 PM
Not an expert here, but I've watched some Jennifer Francis YouTube videos ;-).

As the Arctic warms, the temperature gradient between the pole and mid-latitude declines and weakens the polar cell and jet stream.

The CAB still provides a lot of cooling to maintain that gradient even though it is has certainly weakened so far.

I think the continuing loss of ice means increasing weather chaos as the wind circulation patterns decay.

BOE also represents phase change as hear currently allocated to melting ice is no longer used for that purpose. It becomes completely available for warming. As El Cid points out, that is already happening in peripheral seas. But that peripheral sea heat is spreading out to the CAB where it encounters and melts ice. I don't think we're truly seeing the full BOE effect in peripheral seas yet when there is still adjacent CAB ice to be melted.

I see a BOE in the CAB as a positive feedback event. But I'm not an expert.


Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Burnrate on July 15, 2019, 02:34:36 PM
A BOE is nothing special. We are already experiencieng BOE of the Barents, BOE of the Bering, etc. As time passes by, we will experience a BOE of the CAB eventually. Since we have already experienced partial/small BOEs, we know exactly what it brings (see pic) in the NH midlatitudes: much warmer winters, especially in Eurasia, due to the weakening of the Siberian High; and warmer summers. That's it. There is nothing mystical about the BOE. And more rain of course, but that is obvious

This is all completely wrong.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Gray-Wolf on July 15, 2019, 02:55:07 PM
Any BOE will allow 'normal ocean processes' to resume across the Arctic Ocean with the total loss of the Halocline as swell/waves mix out the remaining areas of deep Halocline that used to aid the Ocean in re-freeze/ice retention.

There is already plenty of heat in the basin to enable year round ice free but the Halocline places a barrier between the surface and that heat.

With the last of the Halocline washed out what is to stop further mixing of the ocean's stratification?

And what of the thickness of the atmosphere above the basin?

Do we see that thicken and so allow more lightning inside the high Arctic? With most of the wildfires being started by lightning such an uptick will surely increase these events too?
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Rich on July 15, 2019, 03:06:24 PM
Personally, I think that one of these years before 2025 we will dip below 1 mil km

I'm curious where the 2025 comes from.  It seems like the ASIF community is more bearish than the scientists.

We've only had one year below 4M km2 so far. Maybe this year will be the 2nd. But that's an extraordinary leap you're projecting. A system change cliff.

 
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: SteveMDFP on July 15, 2019, 03:34:25 PM

If the BOE were to persist throughout the Arctic winter, then a comparable amount of heat would be lost during the cold, dark months, due to the lack of ice cover.  This could exceed the heat gain, as the Arctic winter tends to have less cloud cover than the Arctic summer.   

This may be a little simplistic.  Open ocean with frigid air above produces dense fog and clouds, with a substantial insulating effect.  Remember that Ellesmere island used to be home to alligators, long ago.  It's an open question as to how soon such a climate could resume there, with our atmosphere rapidly increasing in greenhouse gases:

How giant tortoises, alligators thrived in High Arctic 50 million years ago
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100824132417.htm (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100824132417.htm)
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Midnightsun on July 15, 2019, 04:39:17 PM
I live above 60N and the changes are already very noticeable.

The problem with the jet stream is not when it becomes slower and wider, the problem is that it becomes like a flower and that creates all kinds of weird and extreme weather - and it has done so already. 2018 the UK got "vortex'd" in springtime, this year it was the US.

The river of hail in Mexico and the killer 'nado in Greece happened at the same time as kink in the jet stream were positioned directly above them.

I don't understand why people think BOE is not a big deal since our entire civilization depends on the stability (that used to be) brought by the jet streams.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Burnrate on July 15, 2019, 04:41:57 PM
I have read (https://e360.yale.edu/features/flooding-hot-spots-why-seas-are-rising-faster-on-the-u.s.-east-coast) that the US east coast sea level is rising significantly faster than the global average (1 inch per year) due to the slowdown of the gulf stream (among other things).

I wonder how much a BOE would increase the melting speed of Greenland which would cause the gulf stream to slow down even more.  I imagine relatively warm waters surrounding Greenland and the instability of the jet stream could cause some pretty extreme and rapid melting (even more so than it already does).  All that fresh, cold water would continue to slow the AMOC.  Seeing more than an inch per year of sea level rise on the US east coast would be pretty intense.  Of course that average number doesn't even represent the extremes that would occur at high tides.

Anyone read anything specifically about the BOE's effect on Greenland's melting rate?
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: El Cid on July 15, 2019, 05:11:35 PM
A BOE is nothing special. We are already experiencieng BOE of the Barents, BOE of the Bering, etc. As time passes by, we will experience a BOE of the CAB eventually. Since we have already experienced partial/small BOEs, we know exactly what it brings (see pic) in the NH midlatitudes: much warmer winters, especially in Eurasia, due to the weakening of the Siberian High; and warmer summers. That's it. There is nothing mystical about the BOE. And more rain of course, but that is obvious

This is all completely wrong.

Nice argument, great facts!
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Bruce Steele on July 15, 2019, 05:46:05 PM
At some point the Beaufort Gyre will reverse and a very large amount of surface fresh water , similar to the amount of fresh water in the Great Lakes, will head to the Atlantic. This will allow the Pacific Warm Water layer to rise from its current depth and depending on how long the reversal lasts some of the Pacific Warm Water will spill out onto the coastal shelfs where it can mix with what is left of the surface fresh water. The increased heat and salinity that mixes with the surface waters will accelerate bottom melt on any ice it encounters.
 So the changes in the halocline that Gray-Wolf describes would be much enhanced if a reversal and a very low level of sea ice were to happen at the same time.
 The cold fresh water that would make its way to the North Atlantic would cause a slowdown in the MOC and cause a cooling of weather conditions for Europe and Greenland . The Beaufort would resume it's clockwise spin and subsequent freeze thaw seasons and flow from the Mckenzie River would restore the surface fresh water in the Gyre. Warm ice free surface water conditions in the Beaufort may give a boost to high pressure weather systems that can reverse the Gyre. A reversal in the late summer could help spread heat to the remaining ice in the CAB and contribute to our first BOE.
 The resulting cold in the North Atlantic may contribute to several rebound years in Arctic sea ice conditions . So although a disruption of the halocline would cause all sorts of havoc in the year it happens I think the Arctic would return to stratified conditions within a year and that the Arctic Sea Ice might even regain thickness/ strength has a result of resulting North Atlantic conditions.
 

Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Burnrate on July 15, 2019, 06:04:12 PM
At some point the Beaufort Gyre will reverse and a very large amount of surface fresh water , similar to the amount of fresh water in the Great Lakes, will head to the Atlantic. ...

So not just Greenland ice melt slowing down the AMOC.  That is crazy.  Stall out the current for a bit and get a few feet of sea level rise on the US east coast in a year or two.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: rboyd on July 15, 2019, 08:03:47 PM
If the BOE were to persist throughout the Arctic winter, then a comparable amount of heat would be lost during the cold, dark months, due to the lack of ice cover.  This could exceed the heat gain, as the Arctic winter tends to have less cloud cover than the Arctic summer.  The Arctic temperature will drop rapidly, resulting in a greater mid-latitude to pole temperature gradient.  This will cause the polar stream to accelerate, tightening its rotation about the pole.  This will lead to warmer mid-latitude winters and colder Arctic winters.  This has not occurred in recently years, as both have warmed.

Consequently, a summer BOE is highly unlikely to result in a year-round BOE, as the large heat loss that would occur during an Arctic winter, would cause the temperature to fall significantly below freezing.  However, a year-long BOE might be preferable to a seasonal BOE, as it would allow substantial heat to be lost, slowing the global temperature rise.

If the Arctic is no longer an ice desert in winter, but a maritime environment, then there may be much more cloud formation which acts as a "blanket" reflecting back outgoing radiation before it escapes to space. This is how a BOE could possibly sustain over the dark winter months. The most recent research has shown that the autumn season is becoming more cloudy as the ice retreats.

https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/14343/2016/acp-16-14343-2016.pdf (https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/14343/2016/acp-16-14343-2016.pdf)
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Bruce Steele on July 15, 2019, 08:24:33 PM
  Burnrate, Freshwater hosing and the bipolar seesaw are much better covered by AbruptSLR but the "Great Salinity Anomaly" was an example of a MOC slowdown caused by Beaufort Gyre circulation changes.     [5] Significant changes in the freshwater flux from the Arctic Ocean were documented by Dickson et al. [1988]; most notable was the “Great Salinity Anomaly” (GSA). The GSA appeared in the Greenland Sea in 1968 and circulated around the subpolar ocean for at least 15 years. Various explanations for the GSA have been offered [Dickson et al., 1988; Walsh and Chapman, 1990; Mysak et al., 1990; Hakkinen, 1993, 1999]. Proshutinsky and Johnson [1997] gave evidence that such salinity anomalies may originate inside the Arctic Ocean because of a redistribution of freshwater. Belkin et al. [1998] revisited the GSA of the 1970s and documented the existence of two additional subpolar salinity anomalies in the 1980s and 1990s.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008JC005104#jgrc11238-bib-0017
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Rich on July 15, 2019, 08:30:23 PM
At some point the Beaufort Gyre will reverse and a very large amount of surface fresh water , similar to the amount of fresh water in the Great Lakes, will head to the Atlantic.
 

We've had a few low pressure systems which have reversed the gyre this year for a few days at a time. No sign of warm water surfacing from that.

I imagine it needs to reverse for quite a while to produce the impact you are describing.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Bruce Steele on July 15, 2019, 08:50:12 PM
Rich, " Great Salinity Anomaly " was back in 1968 . Much of what we are used to seeing on the satellite record and what we expect to see each year does not include a Gyre reversal. We don't have a satellite record of weather conditions that resulted in the Beaufort reversal that long ago. My reason for bringing this issue to the BOE discussion is we are making projections , or peering into the future without considering the ramifications of historical events in the relatively recent past.
 I get confused with cyclonic and anti-cyclonic systems and how they precipitate a reversal, I just know reversals do happen and they have large influences on decadal weather patterns after they spill fresh cold water into the North Atlantic.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Lou on July 15, 2019, 09:53:52 PM
Let me also express my thanks for this thread.

In my view, a near-term (as in under a decade) BOE with a frequent recurrence is a certainty.  The amount of GHG in the atmosphere already plus melting and other changes already set in motion guarantee it.  The most pertinent question then becomes: OK, what happens next?

While I am NOT a climate scientist and do not want to appear to be impersonating one online, it seems clear to me simply from a systems basis that a BOE is not just another milestone along the way, but an event that could trigger enough changes to constitute a true biosphere tipping point.  And given all the variables in play, I am not in the least confident that we know how that will play out in different time frames.

For example, will the first (or first few) BOEs make ensuing ones more or less likely?  And once we have the first one, how many will we see in the ensuing decade?  None?  Three?  Nine?  (I realize that that question is a probabilistic one, given the huge influence weather is likely to continue to have post first BOE.)  Will even a single BOE have any meaningful effect at all on public sentiment and therefore public policy?  Where I live (the US), I think the answer is, sadly, "no".

I've been following energy and climate issues very closely since early 2003, and I find all this uncertainty about the advent of BOEs terrifying.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: prokaryotes on July 15, 2019, 11:55:04 PM
Do not focus so much on the ice extent as a switch to something new, Arctic sea ice decline is more like the most visible positive feedback from a warmer climate. Things already change drastically and less sea ice will make those changes more pronounced.

Think of the satellite observed sea ice loss since 1979 as a transition modulated by the amount of greenhouse gases. General understanding currently is that the jet stream (the polar vortex) becomes more meandered, resulting in more stuck weather patterns - due to slower moving Rossby waves, since the polar vortex jets expand farther south.

Interactions also to consider, rate of iceberg and freshwater discharge from Greenland and river runoff in the Arctic circle, Ocean currents, waves and coastal erosion, salinity/halocline in the Arctic Ocean, NAO (see for instance this https://twitter.com/climate_ice/status/1150478225241305088).

General trend is temperature gradient in the northern hemisphere weakens, with the exception in the Greenland regions (see for instance Cold Blob anomaly), OR where cold Arctic air dives farther south, meets much warmer air, storminess increases (Hansen (http://web.archive.org/web/20110409055639/http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/climate_catastrophe_solutions.html): Frontal (cyclonic) storms with hurricane-like winds, which, with rising seas and storm surges, will devastate thousands of coastal cities)  The planet is on a path to a warmer state, losing polar ice.

Implications are far reaching, negative for crop cultivation, biodiversity, ecosystems, atmospheric chemistry, profound on every level, and likely will last roughly 200,000 to 1,000,000 years - based on past such events in geological times.

However, our civilization can modulate the extent of change still, and maybe we develop more sophisticated negative carbon technologies - but at this time things like carbon capture and storage are not economically viable, remain largely untested, containments may leak over time.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on July 17, 2019, 06:58:07 PM
Can computer models help? For example, a recent simulation of the Earth's magnetic field underwent a reversal, even though it was not "hardwired" in.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: rboyd on July 19, 2019, 11:32:32 PM
I find the most frightening aspect of this topic to be the interaction between societal inertia and the possibility of a bifurcated change in a large earth system - the Arctic and the general climate.

The state change between an ice desert and a maritime environment will be extremely large, while the rate of that change may be very rapid. As we have seen, the Arctic can lose large amounts of ice volume while losing a much smaller amount of ice area/extent; the latter being a greater determinant of albedo levels, ocean stratification, and increased air humidity levels. At some point, perhaps very close, the ice volume reaches a critical level where area/extent losses will accelerate very rapidly - leading to a rapid transition to ice free in September.

Then we have the accelerating effects of reduced albedo as ice area/extent loss becomes greater and greater in August, then July, then June (the summer solstice). Greatly increased cloudiness during the winter months (due to prior months maritime environment), together with water turbulence and halocline mixing, may then serve to significantly reduce winter ice regrowth and therefore limit the amount of ice at the beginning of the summer season.

I am not a climate scientist, and the above is speculation, but I do consider that there exists a probability for a "cliff" like rapid transition which could easily outpace human society's ability to comprehend, let alone instigate, the scale and pace of change that would have any chance of reversing/controlling this process before it becomes self-fulfilling and irreversible in human timeframes.

Hopefully there are some significant negative feedbacks that will put a brake on such a cliff dive. As has been noted above, the Arctic has experienced conditions more akin to Florida in the past so there is no reason why it should stay as an ice desert - even in the dark of winter.

From a technological point of view the ability to stop clouds forming on a massive scale in winter (to allow radiation to escape to space, though water vapour itself is a potent greenhouse gas), and to enhance surface reflectivity and cloudiness in summer on the same massive scale (to stop radiation being absorbed at the surface) would be required. It seems that humanity is spending more on sending Tesla roadsters to space than on such technologies.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: philopek on July 19, 2019, 11:50:09 PM
........I am not a climate scientist, and the above is speculation..........

I'd say an educated guess, neighboring a solid forecast, much more than a speculation IMO

In one "word" +1
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: dnem on July 20, 2019, 12:28:35 AM
I tend to agree, but the key question is how many years elapse between the first BOE right at the minimum and millions of extra kilometers of ocean being regularly ice free for several months of insolation and mixing.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: philopek on July 20, 2019, 01:04:33 AM
I tend to agree, but the key question is how many years elapse between the first BOE right at the minimum and millions of extra kilometers of ocean being regularly ice free for several months of insolation and mixing.

I think "several months" is still far away but then a smaller, later and thinner ice coverage in winter will have a significant impact on mid-latitudes and the neighboring "Tundra"

To name all things in play would become TLTR here but consider methane, methanhydrates, ocean currents, SLR ( the only thing IMO that will really hurt long term and world-wide while many other factors can be worked around through short -mid and -long-term migration.)

The list can continue almost endlessly but certainly there will be regions that profit and others that suffer and again others that become non-habitable.

The first things to happen, more or less immediately will be climate shifts, heatwaves, heavier and more frequent storms and droughts which BTW is already in the process and clearly visible, only that there are always a few "back to normal" years in between that spoil the view for most and are welcome to further pull their scams for others.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Klondike Kat on July 20, 2019, 01:22:57 AM

I think "several months" is still far away but then a smaller, later and thinner ice coverage in winter will have a significant impact on mid-latitudes and the neighboring "Tundra"

To name all things in play would become TLTR here but consider methane, methanhydrates, ocean currents, SLR ( the only thing IMO that will really hurt long term and world-wide while many other factors can be worked around through short -mid and -long-term migration.)

The list can continue almost endlessly but certainly there will be regions that profit and others that suffer and again others that become non-habitable.

The first things to happen, more or less immediately will be climate shifts, heatwaves, heavier and more frequent storms and droughts which BTW is already in the process and clearly visible, only that there are always a few "back to normal" years in between that spoil the view for most and are welcome to further pull their scams for others.

You do realize that SLR is unaffected by melting sea ice, don’t you?  Heavier storms are caused by the contrasting temperatures.  Droughts have decreased during the recent rise in temperatures.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: philopek on July 20, 2019, 01:50:20 AM

I think "several months" is still far away but then a smaller, later and thinner ice coverage in winter will have a significant impact on mid-latitudes and the neighboring "Tundra"

To name all things in play would become TLTR here but consider methane, methanhydrates, ocean currents, SLR ( the only thing IMO that will really hurt long term and world-wide while many other factors can be worked around through short -mid and -long-term migration.)

The list can continue almost endlessly but certainly there will be regions that profit and others that suffer and again others that become non-habitable.

The first things to happen, more or less immediately will be climate shifts, heatwaves, heavier and more frequent storms and droughts which BTW is already in the process and clearly visible, only that there are always a few "back to normal" years in between that spoil the view for most and are welcome to further pull their scams for others.

You do realize that SLR is unaffected by melting sea ice, don’t you?  Heavier storms are caused by the contrasting temperatures.  Droughts have decreased during the recent rise in temperatures.

Yes i'm aware that sea-ice does not add to SLR but the topic are the Climate Effects of BOE and the climate effects will accelerate Greenland melt, global warming in general and therewith Antarctic melt, it will accelerate Glaciers in the higher mountains to melt, i.e. South American Andes as well as in the Alps and the Himalayas.

And that WILL accelerate SLR.

There was i reason why i mentioned explicitly that the list is much longer and would be TLTR.
The reason was that i wanted to avoid that one after another comes up with one of the parts i left out because the time and the space are limited.

I hope i was able to clarify why i mentioned SLR, because accelerated SLR will be one of the indirect consequences of regular and extended (in time) BOEs in the Arctic. Some would probably tend to say it's a direct consequence, that depends of the definition of direct.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: petm on July 20, 2019, 03:40:48 AM
Don't know if you've noticed, but the state of the ice has a huge effect on the weather, even locally. BOE is likely to have extreme effects.

Or maybe not; maybe it will be a negative feedback. Fingers crossed but not holding my breath.

Want to take that risk?

(PS. In my opinion, specific arguments and projections are counter-productive. Very few if any have an inkling of what's coming. It's better to just say, it'll be big and it'll be bad.)

Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Klondike Kat on July 20, 2019, 04:58:59 AM
Don't know if you've noticed, but the state of the ice has a huge effect on the weather, even locally. BOE is likely to have extreme effects.

Or maybe not; maybe it will be a negative feedback. Fingers crossed but not holding my breath.

Want to take that risk?

(PS. In my opinion, specific arguments and projections are counter-productive. Very few if any have an inkling of what's coming. It's better to just say, it'll be big and it'll be bad.)

I agree that specifics and arguments are counter-productive, but then you make a projection that it will be big and bad.  How do you know, if we do not have an inkling of what is coming?
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Archimid on July 21, 2019, 07:32:44 PM
 I think there are two potential types of BOE.

 One BOE is like 2012, the last of the ice is destroyed by mechanical energy and Arctic geometry. In this case there will be an energy deficit come the freezing season, rapid refreeze happens, NH cooling happens. The following year will be a record year for ice formation much like 2013 was a record gain year. I suggest we call that a cold BOE

The other is like 2016, excess high temperatures coupled with less ice to melt caused the Arctic to remain warm well into winter and produced a record low maximum. While CO2 alone is not enough to cause this event, there is plenty of heat in the surrounding hemisphere and ocean to  melt what remains. A well timed super El niño or stuck weather pattern can do it. I suggest we call this a warm warm BOE.


If a cold BOE happens early ( July/August) it may become a warm BOE.

If albedo feedback effect or other feedbacks do not happen (as consensus science thinks), then the CO2 induced BOE will likely be a warm BOE as it can only happen when enough heat is accumulated due to CO2. 2050 is a good date for such an imaginary event.


A cold BOE will have record ice growth. A cold BOE, like a warm BOE, will be coupled with massive amounts of snow, but the snow may start earlier, helping raise continental albedo, helping the freezing season.

If enough snow falls, then the mountains of snow may keep albedo high well into spring and summer further helping the freezing season and the start of the melting season.

The ice will have all the help it needs to grow. The problem is that the following melting season all the ice is first year ice. Will another BOE happen afterwards, this time a warm BOE? very likely.

A Warm BOE will delay the freezing season and snow of the NH. The earlier it happens the more warmth have to be dissipated before freezing commences and the more humidity will escape the open Arctic ocean. Snow will be late, but vast. Freezing slow and remaining ice thin and mobile. A an earlier even warmer BOE follows.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: TerryM on July 22, 2019, 04:24:11 AM
Archimid


Do your scenarios allow for tropical heat to be drawn into an expanding arctic vortex?
I see a larger cool area evolving vs the small cold region we're familiar with. The expanded cool vortex slowly becomes an expanding warming region possibly centered over Greenland's ice cap.


The heavy arctic mists that Jennifer Francis wrote of will eventually insulate the arctic through the dark winter months when insolation isn't available. That's when the year round BO occurs. That's when this era truly ends.


No idea when this occurs, but eventually it will.
Alligators on Baffin Island? - it's happened before.


Warm BOE, Cold BOE - eventually permanent BO.
Terry

Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: kassy on July 22, 2019, 02:44:42 PM
The last couple of years look like we are working on a warm one.
If you look at the arctic bathymetry that works well with that.

See Uniquorns great gif in post #4300
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2591.msg215000.html#new

If it comes early in the year the mixing with deep waters will also be a bigger problem.

BTW i think it is a continuum. Type 1 or cold is the death of old thick ice. But notice 2012 did not came near a BOE. After that we have seen refreeze trouble around the edges and an ever thinner ice pack. So i think we are working on ´warm BOE´regardless. (And then when the pattern is setting up for that it opens up for type 1 but that probably leads to the other anyway).
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Archimid on July 22, 2019, 03:38:52 PM
Quote
Do your scenarios allow for tropical heat to be drawn into an expanding arctic vortex?

I find it likely. I think the next super el niño is the end of the ice. Hopefully, we have a decade before that happens. 
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on July 29, 2019, 02:35:53 PM
Were there any meteorological effects of the record 2012 minimum, that might give a clue what the BOE might cause?
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: oren on July 29, 2019, 03:06:37 PM
I think hurricane/superstorm Sandy was named as one possible consequence.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on July 30, 2019, 07:30:23 PM
Shrinking ice cap accelerating AGW?
https://www.kpbs.org/news/2019/jul/29/melting-ice-may-speed-climate-change/
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on August 22, 2019, 01:05:05 AM
Quote
Abstract
Observations show that reduced regional sea-ice cover is coincident with cold mid-latitude winters on interannual timescales. However, it remains unclear whether these observed links are causal, and model experiments suggest that they might not be. Here we apply two independent approaches to infer causality from observations and climate models and to reconcile these sources of data. Models capture the observed correlations between reduced sea ice and cold mid-latitude winters, but only when reduced sea ice coincides with anomalous heat transfer from the atmosphere to the ocean, implying that the atmosphere is driving the loss. Causal inference from the physics-based approach is corroborated by a lead–lag analysis, showing that circulation-driven temperature anomalies precede, but do not follow, reduced sea ice. Furthermore, no mid-latitude cooling is found in modelling experiments with imposed future sea-ice loss. Our results show robust support for anomalous atmospheric circulation simultaneously driving cold mid-latitude winters and mild Arctic conditions, and reduced sea ice having a minimal influence on severe mid-latitude winters.


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0551-4
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Archimid on September 10, 2019, 07:41:02 PM
The following video posted by Jim Hunt at the Stupid Questions thread made it clear to me that the best way to determine how a BOE will affect the climate would be by looking at how the climate changed during Dansgaard–Oeschger Events (DOE) and try to extrapolate those changes to a modern day climate. 

Video: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,143.msg227842.html#msg227842


I have found what looks like a wonderful collection of links from samples of different types of proxies collected all over the planet at the bottom of the following page:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/Heinrich%20and%20Dansgaard%E2%80%93Oeschger%20Events

 

I think DOEs are a great analogues for BOEs but with key differences:

1. DOEs happened during the last ice age when the world was a much colder place. Max DOE temperatures didn't even reach holocene levels of warming, except perhaps the last one.

2. The arctic was meters thick and covered a larger portions of the North Atlantic, particularly along the the east coast of Greenland. A "sudden" loss of ice in that region could have reinforced whatever caused the loss of ice in the first place, creating DOE events.

3. Huge ice sheets covered the NH. It is these ice sheets what created the opposite of DOE, Heinrich events. Ice sheets also provided lower albedo and melt surface.

4. DOE events seem to be the result of astronomical events, local to the NH. The whole world was cold but the Arctic "warm", thus the world was helping restore the ice. The reason for today's BOE is the opposite, the world is getting warmer, pushing the Arctic into amplification mode.

5. There were few humans at the time. Any information about humans during that time would be welcomed, but I doubt it exists.

I'm randomly review some of the links above to see If I can learn more.

Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on January 17, 2020, 12:27:53 PM
Paul Beckwith on effects of a BOE:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH-rQyEoYew
Quote
In my previous two videos I discussed how the reflectivity of the Arctic region reduced from 52% to 48% between 1979 and 2011, with global average warning 0.21 W/m2 (1/4 that of CO2). Now I explain the newest science from 2019 on how a Blue-Ocean State (zero Arctic sea ice) in summer would heat the overall planet 0.71 W/m2 with expected cloud invariance (or 2.24 W/m2 with clear skies, or 0.37 W/m2 if overcast). This equals 1 trillion tons of CO2 or 25 years of warming. i.e. global food shortage chaos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stABcqV2CCE
Quote
In this video I continue to explain the latest cutting edge science from late 2019 on how a Blue-Ocean State (zero Arctic sea ice) in summer would heat the overall planet 0.71 W/m2 if cloud behaviour stays similar to now. If clouds behave differently, one extreme case would have heat forcing of 2.24 W/m2 with completely clear skies; the other extreme case would be 0.37 W/m2 if the Arctic skies were all overcast (over 95% cloud coverage; similar thickness (optical depth) to now. The middle case (most likely?!) with 0.71 W/m2 is equivalent to 1 trillion tons of CO2 or 25 years of warming. i.e. global food shortages.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyMSiXIbVEU
Quote
In previous videos I explained how the latest cutting edge science from late 2019 expects that a Blue-Ocean State (zero Arctic sea ice) in summer would heat the overall planet the equivalence of 25 years of global warming or 1 Trillion tons of CO2. Putting this into context, as of 2016 an estimated 2.4 Trillion tons has been emitted since the preindustrial period; due to both fossil fuel combustion (1.54 Trillion tons) and land use changes (0.82 Trillion tons). It becomes glaringly obvious that we will blow through 1.5C and 2C Paris safety targets when this happens, not to mention methane and Greenland vulnerabilities.

He states a BOE is likely in five years, certain in ten.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: oren on January 18, 2020, 12:58:06 AM
There is a big diferece between a traditional BOE (1 million km2) in mid-September, and his "zero Arctic sea ice in summer ". (Is that August? July? June?) While I expect the former in 10 years, the latter is still far off, surely not 5 or 10 years.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: The Walrus on January 18, 2020, 02:40:50 AM
There is a big diferece between a traditional BOE (1 million km2) in mid-September, and his "zero Arctic sea ice in summer ". (Is that August? July? June?) While I expect the former in 10 years, the latter is still far off, surely not 5 or 10 years.

Not too many scientists take him seriously.  His discipline lies in laser research.  He has some good publications there, but not in the field of climate science.  Remember, he predicted the Arctic would be ice-free in 2013.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Archimid on January 18, 2020, 04:26:09 AM
Oren, what do you think of the definition of a BOE as the unit of time, during summer, when surface air temperature north of 80 shoots up beyond normal summer variability? I think that will be a climatically momentous occasion. There will be much less than 1 million km2 remaining when that happens, and it will likely happen in August.

I don't think < 1 million km2 by mid-September as a BOE. I call that a virtually ice-free arctic because I've read it that way somewhere. Hopefully, a virtually ice-free Arctic happens before a BOE, but even if it does, it will happen towards the end of a continuum that already started. The effect of the event over mankind is proportional to the length of the continuum.  The longer the continuum, the better for us. The faster it happens the worse.  A virtually ice-free arctic is the last step before a BOE.

If both a BOE and a VIFA (Virtually Ice Free Arctic, because wth) happen in the same year, Mc Pherson was right. But after this year's freezing season, I find it more likely that a VIFA will happen without a BOE before the year of the first BOE in human history.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: El Cid on January 18, 2020, 08:33:17 AM
1. Beckwith is not a climate scientist, his guesses are as good as mine at the minimum. Actually, he is worse, as he's been known to make extraordinary claims that proved to be completely false. I would be very careful about anything he says.
2. The research he quotes above is valid though, written by actual climate scientists. I read the paper.
3. Ice albedo feedback is a very important but not very well quantified mechanism, there are still a lot of questions about it (mostly cloud-effects). Still, it is unquestionable that the warming of the planet (especially the oceans) leads to less arctic ice, which leads to more heating of the arctic sea, that leads to less arctic ice. Eventually a BOE will happen and it will seriously effect the climate of the whole planet.
4. I would argue that as the Arctic becomes icefree, there will be more moisture and more clouds, that lessen this effect, but as all real climate scientists know, future cloud-effects are the greatest uncertainity in modelling climate.
5. Most of the extra "heating" would come from spring and summer insolation. An ice-free Arctic in September or even August would not change much as per the paper.
6. Their calculation of 25 years of extra Co2 would probably imply 0,5-0,9 C of global warming. If there are more clouds as I expect, it is probably around or below 0,5 C. All this will happen only with an ice-free arctic during summer and spring! That is basically a year-around free arctic. No real scientists see that happening within 50 years.
7. So for the next decade the extra warming even from an Arctic that becomes mostly ice-free in August/September (this will probably happen in the 2020s I think), is at most +0,1 C globally.
8: It is quite obvious though that +1,5 C or +2 C globally is not achievable. +3 C is the best that mankind can hope for by 2100. I think that is achievable. Mind you, that would probably imply +6 C on NH midlatitude land! (cca +4 C vs current temps)
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: oren on January 18, 2020, 10:54:05 AM
Quote
Oren, what do you think of the definition of a BOE as the unit of time, during summer, when surface air temperature north of 80 shoots up beyond normal summer variability? I think that will be a climatically momentous occasion. There will be much less than 1 million km2 remaining when that happens, and it will likely happen in August. 
Yes, that is when the climatic shit his the fan IMHO. But when? Hard to guess.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on January 18, 2020, 11:54:09 AM
I’m not so sure that a million square kilometers is enough to prevent such a sudden jump in temperature.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Archimid on January 18, 2020, 12:04:01 PM
Hard to guess indeed, but as we get nearer to the date clues are starting to emerge.

The current behavior of Chukchi ASI  may offer new clues.

As I see it, ice didn't really start growing until November. Then as it got surrounded by ice and by mid-December it was almost fully closed. Surface air temperatures anomalies were very high while the ocean was open and then dropped to relatively cold levels after the oceans closed and the heat dissipated.


If we used DMI N80, the 1 million km2 would have to be right in the center to avoid shooting the temperatures up.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on January 18, 2020, 12:49:02 PM
What was special about, IIRC, 2012? When we had record low September ice (and that big storm in NYC that may have resulted from it)? Why was the ice so low that year? Could it happen agin?
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: nanning on January 18, 2020, 04:36:45 PM
It can happen again and will happen again until it's annual. It is a temporary phase the arctic ocean will go through on its way to atlantification, losing the thermohalocline. The forcing of evil GHG is just too great and is still growing.
It was special because it was a freak outlier.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on January 18, 2020, 04:54:08 PM
Yes, but what caused that freak outlier? Why was it a lower minimum than the one seven years later with all that extra warming? Was there a storm or something?
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: The Walrus on January 18, 2020, 05:41:18 PM
Yes, but what caused that freak outlier? Why was it a lower minimum than the one seven years later with all that extra warming? Was there a storm or something?

Tom, yes.  There was a major Arctic cyclone that began in early August and latest nearly two weeks.  The storm churned up significant warm water and the wave action broke up large sections of ice.  Nothing similar has occurred since.  When using statistics to calculate sea ice trends, it is best to ignore that year, lest the data becomes skewed.  An example would be those claims of sea ice growth over the past decade.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: nanning on January 18, 2020, 05:49:03 PM
It was a butterfly.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: dnem on January 19, 2020, 02:55:51 PM
When using statistics to calculate sea ice trends, it is best to ignore that year, lest the data becomes skewed. 

No! An outlier can be excluded when there is a reason to question the validity of the data point. 2012's low minimum happened and will likely be exceeded before long. Obviously CHERRY PICKING 2012 in some way, like looking at a trend from 2013 so 2019 is wrong, but no long term analysis of arctic sea ice trends can just "ignore" 2012!
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Archimid on January 19, 2020, 03:11:06 PM
It was a butterfly.

That's the scary part. A butterfly flaps her wings with the force of Godzilla to produce record low ASI extent and volume. The "logical" response, ignore it as an outlier.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: The Walrus on January 19, 2020, 03:20:59 PM
When using statistics to calculate sea ice trends, it is best to ignore that year, lest the data becomes skewed. 

No! An outlier can be excluded when there is a reason to question the validity of the data point. 2012's low minimum happened and will likely be exceeded before long. Obviously CHERRY PICKING 2012 in some way, like looking at a trend from 2013 so 2019 is wrong, but no long term analysis of arctic sea ice trends can just "ignore" 2012!

I was not referring to long term trends wee one datapoint makes little difference.  Rather, I was referring to recent trends.  Much has been made of the recent slowdown in Arctic melt.  When calculating 10-year trend (or similar) the inclusion of 2012 can result in a skewed (increasing minimum),  trend due to endpoint problems.  Starting from 2013 will generate a decreasing trend, but has a much higher uncertainty, due to the shortage of data points since.  It is obvious from the data, that the ice has undergone two different transitions, resulting in three different trends; namely the slow decrease from 1979-1998, the large decrease over the next decade, and the slow decline since.  Hence, a linear 40-year trend does not due justice to the data. 
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Bruce Steele on January 19, 2020, 03:44:09 PM
Walrus, For this forum it is always a good idea to include sources. When you say the “ the storm stirred up significant warm water “ maybe you could show me some statistics or published papers that can show me what those increased temperatures where and when they occurred ? We had ITP buoys running for the 2012 GAC and I was watching them but I didn’t see the warm water penetrate the surface fresh water . I have heard the warm water theory before, it makes sense , but I never saw the published data on it’s whereabouts. 
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: The Walrus on January 19, 2020, 04:08:47 PM
Walrus, For this forum it is always a good idea to include sources. When you say the “ the storm stirred up significant warm water “ maybe you could show me some statistics or published papers that can show me what those increased temperatures where and when they occurred ? We had ITP buoys running for the 2012 GAC and I was watching them but I didn’t see the warm water penetrate the surface fresh water . I have heard the warm water theory before, it makes sense , but I never saw the published data on it’s whereabouts.

My apologies.  I thought this was general knowledge.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/78812/2012-arctic-cyclone
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: gerontocrat on January 19, 2020, 05:08:28 PM
It was a butterfly.

That's the scary part. A butterfly flaps her wings with the force of Godzilla to produce record low ASI extent and volume. The "logical" response, ignore it as an outlier.
In an analysis I did sometime ago I treated 2007 and 2012 as outliers to demonstrate that there was not a leveling off in the rate of decline in Arctic Sea Ice Extent (and volume).

My justification was that the records showed that the climatic conditions in those years were close to ideal for a maximum melt.

What I unsuccessfully argued was that those 2 years showed the maximum variation from the average trend that can be reasonably expected in any one year given those ideal conditions.

For NSIDC Extent, the value is around 1.4 million km2. On trend, by 2030 on trend the September average extent would be around 3.5 million km2. If in that year, conditions were ideal for melting, that suggests a September average extent of just over 2 million km2. i.e. Not ice-free.

Applying the same methodology to VOLUME produces a contrasting story. There are several years when the variation from trend in September Average Volume is well over 2,000 km3.

This suggests that by about 2024, there is an ever-increasing possibility of a BOE.

Obviously, the methodology assumes that Extent and volume continue to decline more or less at trend. The next post has a graph that suggests that the contrast between the rate of decline in volume and extent must break down sometime in this decade.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: gerontocrat on January 19, 2020, 05:20:20 PM
The graph attached suggests that sometime this decade, if volume continues to decline at trend, sea ice extent and area decline must accelerate to well above the current rate which is much lower than the current rate of volume loss.

This would cause a steep rise in the Arctic's Albedo Warming Potential from its record high in 2019, greatly enhancing the existing climate change from increasing AWP (and open water vs ice-cover).
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Hefaistos on January 19, 2020, 05:56:04 PM
---
This would cause a steep rise in the Arctic's Albedo Warming Potential from its record high in 2019, greatly enhancing the existing climate change from increasing AWP (and open water vs ice-cover).

The sea ice minimum is in mid September or so, thus the first BOE would also happen in September, most likely. Assuming that the first instances of the BOE will be 'light'.
But what about insolation in September? Already very low, thus not so much effect on Albedo.
Thus, I believe 'small' BOE's wll not have that big an effect on climate change as you postulate.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: nanning on January 19, 2020, 06:08:32 PM
Thank you gerontocrat for all your well argumented and very smart analyses. And your hard work, graphs, coherent databases and your interesting views.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: gerontocrat on January 19, 2020, 06:26:28 PM
---
This would cause a steep rise in the Arctic's Albedo Warming Potential from its record high in 2019, greatly enhancing the existing climate change from increasing AWP (and open water vs ice-cover).

The sea ice minimum is in mid September or so, thus the first BOE would also happen in September, most likely. Assuming that the first instances of the BOE will be 'light'.
But what about insolation in September? Already very low, thus not so much effect on Albedo.
Thus, I believe 'small' BOE's wll not have that big an effect on climate change as you postulate.
To get to a BOE in September implies accelerated early melting which is, as you say, the key to accelerated increases in AWP. E.g. in 2019 the early melt of the Bering Beaufort & Chukchi Seas made a major contribution to the record AWP

There are climatic effects in Autumn / early Winter from seas with increased open water and less ice cover. Maritime vs icy desert climate.

https://cryospherecomputing.tk/NRTawp.html
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Hefaistos on January 19, 2020, 07:44:26 PM
Thanks for those graphs, Geron.
I think your first graph with the albedo warming potential of the different seas in the Arctic region pretty much proves my point, that there will be no dramatic effects of a BOE.

If you take the 3 seas with the greatest AWP, they are Bering, Chukchi and Beaufort. But those 3 seas are already having a local summer 'BOE' in each sea, each summer. So no additional AWP from them if we get an overall BOE in the Arctic.

As for non-summer BOE, we have very little AWP due to the lack of insolation.

I find it hard to see that we will be, as you claim "greatly enhancing the existing climate change from increasing AWP".
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: pietkuip on January 19, 2020, 07:56:32 PM
I think your first graph with the albedo warming potential of the different seas in the Arctic region pretty much proves my point, that there will be no dramatic effects of a BOE.

We may already be seeing the effects of more open water on the weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere. There are some conference talks on YouTube by Jennifer Francis. More open water would mean that the surface temperature won't go down after the Arctic sunset. There would also be much more evaporation. I am afraid that this might throw weather out of whack even more.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: gerontocrat on January 19, 2020, 08:26:34 PM
Thanks for those graphs, Geron.
I think your first graph with the albedo warming potential of the different seas in the Arctic region pretty much proves my point, that there will be no dramatic effects of a BOE.

If you take the 3 seas with the greatest AWP, they are Bering, Chukchi and Beaufort. But those 3 seas are already having a local summer 'BOE' in each sea, each summer. So no additional AWP from them if we get an overall BOE in the Arctic.

As for non-summer BOE, we have very little AWP due to the lack of insolation.

I find it hard to see that we will be, as you claim "greatly enhancing the existing climate change from increasing AWP".
Tealight's (aka Nico Sun) graph on potential max AWP vs Actual attached. Significant additional AWP certainly possible likely in the years to come.

I haven't got a spare super-computer(s) (or the science) available to evaluate the climatic impact.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: El Cid on January 19, 2020, 08:47:19 PM
We've discussed it upthread and the conclusions from scientific research are quite obvious: no significant global insolation change effect from an August or September BOE, not even July! Picture attached
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Hefaistos on January 19, 2020, 09:22:17 PM

Tealight's (aka Nico Sun) graph on potential max AWP vs Actual attached. Significant additional AWP certainly possible likely in the years to come.

I haven't got a spare super-computer(s) (or the science) available to evaluate the climatic impact.

Sure, you can calculate a AWPotential but if there is no sun anyway, it seems a bit theoretical, doesn't it?
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Hefaistos on January 19, 2020, 09:31:38 PM
I think your first graph with the albedo warming potential of the different seas in the Arctic region pretty much proves my point, that there will be no dramatic effects of a BOE.

We may already be seeing the effects of more open water on the weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere. There are some conference talks on YouTube by Jennifer Francis. More open water would mean that the surface temperature won't go down after the Arctic sunset. There would also be much more evaporation. I am afraid that this might throw weather out of whack even more.

I live on 60 N in Sweden, and we certainly see this effect each winter. The real winter weather  starts later, and generally speaking, winters are much milder nowadays. It's not so dramatic, just boring :)
As the Atlantic Ocean is warmer, it does evaporate more during the early winter period. Evaporation means that the warm ocean water cools down as it is brought north by the Amoc, and the dominating SW winds.
Only when the ocean water is cool enough, we get a persistent change in the jet stream that favours a stable winter weather.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: gerontocrat on January 19, 2020, 09:42:46 PM
We've discussed it upthread and the conclusions from scientific research are quite obvious: no significant global insolation change effect from an August or September BOE, not even July! Picture attached
I think your graph shows the daily insolation over the melting season. Of course the effect of increased sea ice loss is minimal when daylight hours and the sun's altitude tend to zero.

Tealight's graph shows the CUMULATIVE AWP.

Some scientists think sea ice loss and the effect on AWP are already significant -see below.

and that's all I am going to say about that.
_______________________________________________________
https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/10/17339046/arctic-sea-ice-decline-albedo-effect-climate-change-global-warming
The albedo effect due to vanishing sea ice is already responsible for about 25 percent of global warming, according to Jennifer Francis, a research professor at Rutgers University’s School of Environment and Biological Sciences.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dana_Veron/publication/229038576_Winter_Northern_Hemisphere_weather_patterns_remember_summer_Arctic_sea-ice_extent/links/0fcfd50eef354ac3d7000000.pdf
Winter Northern Hemisphere weather patterns remember summer
Arctic sea-ice extent

Quote
The dramatic decline in Arctic summer sea-ice cover is a compelling indicator of change in the global climate system and has been attributed to a combination of natural and anthropogenic effects.

Through its role in regulating the exchange of energy between the ocean and atmosphere, ice
loss is anticipated to influence atmospheric circulation and weather patterns. By combining satellite measurements of sea-ice extent and conventional atmospheric observations,
we find that varying summer ice conditions are associated with large-scale atmospheric features during the following autumn and winter well beyond the Arctic’s boundary. Mechanisms by which the atmosphere ‘‘remembers’’ a reduction in summer ice cover include warming and destabilization of the lower troposphere, increased cloudiness, and slackening of the poleward thickness gradient that weakens the polar jet stream.

This ice atmosphere relationship suggests a potential long-range outlook for weather patterns in the northern hemisphere.

1. Introduction
Sea ice is the primary arbiter of energy exchange between the Arctic atmosphere and ocean. Its high albedo regulates the amount of insolation entering the surface, its seasonal phase changes modulate ocean characteristics and control summer temperatures, its insulating properties retard heat exchange, and its rheology inhibits kinetic energy transfer. The large interannual variability and dramatic loss of ice coverage, therefore, is expected to have substantial effects on the climate system.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-014-9284-0
Effects of Arctic Sea Ice Decline on Weather and Climate: A Review
Quote
As the heat capacity of a unit volume of ocean water is about 3,600 times larger than that of the air, it is expected that temperature changes are much more detectable in the atmosphere, particularly in winter when the heat flux from the ocean is large. In addition, the reduced surface albedo results in heating of the ocean in summer, compensating for the increased heat loss, which occurs in other seasons.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: TerryM on January 20, 2020, 02:45:56 AM
The abrupt halt of phase change when there is no ice to melt in a particular basin,(or the entire Arctic Ocean) after a BOE may need to be accounted for.


Energy that had previously been absorbed without raising temperatures because of ice melt will subsequently be raising the temperature of the top layer of the open water. The increased evaporation of the heated water will increase the local atmospheric GH effect, even though clouds and mist may effectively block most of the available Sept. insolation.


Dr. Francis wrote of the uniquely heavy fog and mist she encountered in (late Oct.)? as they steamed toward the Pole near the ESAS in (2012)? in Polarstern. (Sorry, it's been a while) :-[


The heat from waters warmed during summer solstice, then captured under thick clouds is the reason usually given for the large forests and semi-tropical fossils found on Baffin Island.


Once the ice available for phase change has been melted in Sept (BOE), the cloud cover will slow the onset of freeze-over, lowering the volume (and extent)? of ice in subsequent years. This in turn leads to earlier, and more extensive BOEs until we again find camels & turtles living in the Arctic.


The initial BOE, with both the albedo change & the loss of ice to sop up energy at ~00C will signal the beginning of the end of "Ice-Age Earth", and the beginning of "Greenhouse Earth". Some here will live to witness it.
Terry
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Archimid on January 20, 2020, 12:16:15 PM
A hot BOE can't happen in September because there isn't enough sunlight in September. In September we can only have an ice-free arctic. A BOE must happen in August, so there is time for the higher latitudes oceans to absorb solar energy.`

After the first BOE, the march towards no ice in July and June begins.


See the Chukchi for early characteristics of a BOE.

Late refreeze, very high Air surface temperatures followed by a fast freeze in November-Dec, then thin ice until the beginning of the melting season.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: gerontocrat on January 20, 2020, 02:25:38 PM
A hot BOE can't happen in September because there isn't enough sunlight in September. In September we can only have an ice-free arctic. A BOE must happen in August, so there is time for the higher latitudes oceans to absorb solar energy.`

After the first BOE, the march towards no ice in July and June begins.

See the Chukchi for early characteristics of a BOE.

Late refreeze, very high Air surface temperatures followed by a fast freeze in November-Dec, then thin ice until the beginning of the melting season.
The point I keep on trying to make is that to have a BOE requires early melting in the peripheral seas and the seas surrounding the CAB, and it is that early melting that is already having the greatest impact on increasing the Cumulative Albedo Warming Potential.

ps: The Bering Sea used to be known as "The Smoky Sea" by the sailors who used to go seal hunting / poaching in the 19th and early 20th Century, due the prevalence of fog and mist during the summer (hunting) months.

I guess one climatic effect of more open water in the Arctic Ocean itself will be an increase in foggy days.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Archimid on January 22, 2020, 01:37:51 PM
Quote
The point I keep on trying to make is that to have a BOE requires early melting in the peripheral seas and the seas surrounding the CAB

What you mention seems to be a requirement. Indeed, it is the natural progression that will eventually take us to a BOE. It is what will likely happen if nothing new emerges.

The new thing that I think will emerge before a BOE happens is poofing. By poofing I mean extraordinary events characterized very large losses of contiguous, non-edge, ASI surface area.
Poofing will likely require a combination of very low ASI thickness and strong WAA.

Poofing might allow summer sunlight to get into N80 waters a lot sooner than just the decay of peripheral ASI.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Tony Mcleod on July 23, 2020, 03:18:09 PM
A hot BOE can't happen in September because there isn't enough sunlight in September. In September we can only have an ice-free arctic. A BOE must happen in August, so there is time for the higher latitudes oceans to absorb solar energy.`

After the first BOE, the march towards no ice in July and June begins.

See the Chukchi for early characteristics of a BOE.

Late refreeze, very high Air surface temperatures followed by a fast freeze in November-Dec, then thin ice until the beginning of the melting season.
The point I keep on trying to make is that to have a BOE requires early melting in the peripheral seas and the seas surrounding the CAB, and it is that early melting that is already having the greatest impact on increasing the Cumulative Albedo Warming Potential.


Indeed. The first BOE will probably be brief and in September. But it is not just that week or two that's the problem. In the lead up, there obviously need to be weeks and months of large, open areas of dark ocean; weeks and months of insolation, weeks and months of surface mixing through increased wave action and weeks and months of surplus energy warming water instead of melting ice. It will be the beginning of an era of 'first year' only ice. It's the Laptev bite making it to the pole by early July!
I think how brief or how late in the season the first BOE is will be irrelevant, it will mark a clear tipping point when each subsequent year is so much more likely also to go poof. There may be a cooler year or two down the track that buck the trend but that would be matter of luck. Other than glaciation or centuries of natural CO2 drawdown, there really is no going back from a BOE.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: The Walrus on July 23, 2020, 03:39:28 PM
A hot BOE can't happen in September because there isn't enough sunlight in September. In September we can only have an ice-free arctic. A BOE must happen in August, so there is time for the higher latitudes oceans to absorb solar energy.`

After the first BOE, the march towards no ice in July and June begins.

See the Chukchi for early characteristics of a BOE.

Late refreeze, very high Air surface temperatures followed by a fast freeze in November-Dec, then thin ice until the beginning of the melting season.
The point I keep on trying to make is that to have a BOE requires early melting in the peripheral seas and the seas surrounding the CAB, and it is that early melting that is already having the greatest impact on increasing the Cumulative Albedo Warming Potential.


Indeed. The first BOE will probably be brief and in September. But it is not just that week or two that's the problem. In the lead up, there obviously need to be weeks and months of large, open areas of dark ocean; weeks and months of insolation, weeks and months of surface mixing through increased wave action and weeks and months of surplus energy warming water instead of melting ice. It will be the beginning of an era of 'first year' only ice. It's the Laptev bite making it to the pole by early July!
I think how brief or how late in the season the first BOE is will be irrelevant, it will mark a clear tipping point when each subsequent year is so much more likely also to go poof. There may be a cooler year or two down the track that buck the trend but that would be matter of luck. Other than glaciation or centuries of natural CO2 drawdown, there really is no going back from a BOE.

On the contrary, a BOE is not necessarily permanent.  It will be, if temperatures continue to climb.  However cooling, even slightly, would cause increased ice formation.  This is a physical process, which is completely reversible.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on July 23, 2020, 03:41:46 PM
Quote
On the contrary, a BOE is not necessarily permanent.  It will be, if temperatures continue to climb.  However cooling, even slightly, would cause increased ice formation.  This is a physical process, which is completely reversible.
Walrus, sans massive geoengineering we are not going to see cooling this century, and likely not this millennium.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: The Walrus on July 23, 2020, 04:56:42 PM
Quote
On the contrary, a BOE is not necessarily permanent.  It will be, if temperatures continue to climb.  However cooling, even slightly, would cause increased ice formation.  This is a physical process, which is completely reversible.
Walrus, sans massive geoengineering we are not going to see cooling this century, and likely not this millennium.

While that may be true, we are just 20% into this century, and a mere 2% into the millennium.  You must have quite the crystal ball to make such forecasts.  It all depends on how many years it takes to reach a BOE.  If a BOE is not reached until much later into the warming curve, then the likelihood of cooling is much greater. 
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: blumenkraft on July 23, 2020, 05:05:15 PM
There is absolutely no indication that the world climate is cooling. Not this year, not this decade, not this century.

I recomment dropping this argument here and now!
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: The Walrus on July 23, 2020, 06:19:10 PM
There is absolutely no indication that the world climate is cooling. Not this year, not this decade, not this century.

I recomment dropping this argument here and now!

No one is claiming that the world is cooling.  However, any prediction near the end of this century or subsequent ones cannot rule out this possibility.  However, since this is purely academic, I will honor your request and drop it.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: kassy on July 23, 2020, 06:37:02 PM
Indeed. The first BOE will probably be brief and in September. But it is not just that week or two that's the problem. In the lead up, there obviously need to be weeks and months of large, open areas of dark ocean; weeks and months of insolation, weeks and months of surface mixing through increased wave action and weeks and months of surplus energy warming water instead of melting ice.

I wonder if that ´brief and in September´will pan out.

We are used to look at the normal cycle and yes that is when it hits is lowest point in the current state. However into the thirties all the ice is much more south so that leaves so much open water which can also bring other things into play like increased atlantification of the siberian side and a lot of early open water over the beaufort which could be bad if waters start mixing.

Also we have seen the development of the Greenland Crack and that will probably get worse so while it is likely that the remaining ice will pile up near Greenland in winter it is not obvious it is going to stay there all summer and where it floats.

The relevant graphic:
.

There was also some point about the actual thread title. What could it be?  ;)



 
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: gerontocrat on July 23, 2020, 10:38:58 PM
A bit of a rambling rant...

To have a BOE requires the peripheral seas and the seas bordering the Arctic Ocean - except perhaps or perhaps not, North of Greenland, to melt out earlier, and they are. So the climatic effects of a BOE are already with us, as that is the direction of travel. Even the winter maximum has reduced - the JAXA March monthly average from 16 million km2 to 14 million km2 - i.e. on average 45,000 km2 less ice every year. And the September monthly average has reduced from 7.5 million km2 to 3.5 million km2 (current guess)- i.e. on average 95,000 km2 less ice every year.

So there are parts of the Arctic where the icy desert has become open water permanently, and in much of the rest of the Arctic Seas for an ever increasing part of the year..

It seems to me that a BOE will just be a bit more of the same. We just need to look at what is happening now - greening of the Tundra, heatwaves burning the Tundra, movement of ocean life north, and surely the climate scientists can tell us what the Arctic climate might be like, say in 2030, with half a million km2 less ice in winter and a million km2 less ice in summer in an average year.

Who needs tipping points & drama when disaster is already baked in, even if the baking time is long? But of course if Arctic Amplification becomes amplification of a general acceleration in world temperatures (say from collapsing carbon sinks), then the BOE would largely be an effect of global heating rather than a major  cause of regional and world climate changes.

But what a vast subject - feedbacks with Greenland Ice Sheet Mass Loss and / or Gain springs to mind. No, too hard a nut to even attempt to crack.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: interstitial on July 24, 2020, 01:22:27 AM
a tipping point requires a feedback mechanism it is not just an arbitrary milestone along the way. A good example is grounding line retreat underneath a glacier. If water temperatures cools the grounding line could move towards the ocean. If water temperature increase the grounding line moves away from the ocean. If their is an underwater ridge on the seafloor when the grounding line moves over the ridge away from the ocean that is a tipping point. Its not because its a reference point in the glaciers retreat. A retro grade slope is known to increase the speed of grounding line retreat. That is what makes it a tipping point. The decreased resistance to grounding line retreat makes it harder/less likely that cooling waters would cause the grounding line to move towards the ocean. Waters are not cooling that is not the point. Calling it a tipping point implies a large enough change that a reversal in conditions is unlikely to restore things to their previous state. If you could somehow cool the earth 1.5 C without affecting anything else and a tipping point is passed you would not go back to original conditions. A blue ocean event (BOE) is a milestone along the way but is it a tipping point? People seem to disagree on this point but it seems to me more of a disagreement on what a tipping point is. Though I am not certain of this. Without a tipping point a BOE is a non event.


If I may I would like to rephrase the title "Is a blue Ocean event a tipping point?" Does warming accelerate because of a BOE or does it as Gerontocrat says "be a bit more of the same"?


Personally I do not think/have not heard of what would cause a tipping point near a BOE. A significant milestone on the way to doom? Absolutely. What mechanism changes near a BOE? I say near a blue ocean event because their is little point in arguing the exact definition. If someone comes up with a tipping point near a BOE that would provide a compelling case to change the definition to that tipping point. A BOE may be radically different than the past what changes it from before a near BOE to after a near BOE
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: El Cid on July 24, 2020, 07:54:49 AM
I agree with interstitial. I see no tipping point during /casue by the BOE. It is one further step on the road but not a trigger. I do not see the mechanism by which it would change the speed or trajectory
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: zufall on July 24, 2020, 09:06:30 AM
Technically, the term "positive feedback loop" refers to a process while the term "tipping point" refers to a specific state. But it seems to me that (especially in public discourse) the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, i.e. mixed up.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Avalonian on July 24, 2020, 09:07:44 AM
I've always looked at it as being not a sudden switch at a BOE, but rather a change in regime that applies the longer the BOE is active - and that regime change is latent heat. High Arctic temperature is kept near 0 because the heat input goes into melting ice. Latent heat of fusion is  approx. 80 times the SHC of water, so once there is no more ice to melt, the temperature starts to rise very rapidly. I've heard that one way of defining a BOE is when the DMI80 temps leave zero behind, and I agree this captures the critical point.

Once that happens, I'm not qualified to say how the feedbacks precipitate, but there would be much higher heat levels stored in the Arctic Ocean come the refreeze season... and I can't imagine that would have no effect.

<caveat: I'm a rank amateur in this, so feel free to shoot me down... but everything I know, I learned from your folks!  ;)>
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Archimid on July 24, 2020, 11:02:15 AM
DO events were not BOE's, but large changes in sea ice cover had large effects on these events.

Impact of abrupt sea ice loss on Greenland water isotopes during the last glacial period

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/10/4099

Quote
In the north of Greenland, there is an extraordinary simulated range of DO event behaviors. This can be seen in the NEEM δ18O changes and the δ18O–temperature relationships at NEEM and partly, NGRIP (Fig. 2 and Table 1): NEEM shows the largest range of δ18O–temperature coefficients (Fig. 2C), compared with any of the other ice cores sites. The amount of variance in δ18O for the largest simulated DO events directly explained by temperature (sea ice changes) is less than 29% (39%) at NEEM. However, at the other end of Greenland, the record of δ18O change at DYE3 for the largest events is nearly entirely 95% explained by sea ice changes (Fig. 2 C and D, r values converted to explained variances).


This is how I think it went:

1. Orbits, ocean currents and GHG's align
2. Large chunks of sea ice are lost.
3. The sun hits ocean areas previously frozen, increasing the surface temperature, changing the behavior of oceans flows, salinity and increasing the temperature of the ocean/atmosphere interface
4. NH quickly warms, changing weather patterns all over the world but more so over the NH.
5. Because DO events happenned during an ice age the result of the warming is glacier melt.
6. Glacier melts proceeds to cool the oceans.
7. Over millenia sea ice recovers.


DO events are the closest analogues to BOEs with some key differences:

1. DO events happpened during an ice age. BOE happens during a time with no glaciers except greenland. What we have now is permafrost.

2. The changes in sea ice during the DO events likely did not included a BOE, only peripheral melt, mostly in the Atlantic side.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Archimid on July 24, 2020, 12:07:20 PM
Quote
3. The sun hits ocean areas previously frozen, increasing the surface temperature, changing the behavior of oceans flows, salinity and increasing the temperature of the ocean/atmosphere interface

Albedo changes and ocean absorbtion of solar energy alone are probably not enough to account for the total atmospheric warming observed during DO events.

 However, the chain of climatic interactions that preceded and followed the loss of sea ice likely included their own positive and negative feedback loops that accumulatively resulted on a positive feedback loop large enough to cause the DO events.

In the case of DO events, the sum of loops were not enough to counteract the mountains of ice that melted to absorb the new heat. The warmth probably didn't last enough for natural GHG's to create a self sustaining reaction. Large chunks of GHG's were safely stored below the mountains of ice anyway.

A BOE happens in a different world. There are no glaciers in the NH except for Greenland, only exposed permafrost, ready to activate with life, well fed with high atmospheric CO2, not starved like  during the wimpy DO event.

Nah. A BOE will be the end of the world as we know it.  It might be unknowable if or when it will happen. But we shouldn't go and find out. We are very much on our way to finding out.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: dnem on July 24, 2020, 12:51:00 PM
A key question is how much hysteresis the arctic will exhibit. Is there an amount of melt, early enough in a given season, past which the system cannot recover? Can enough ice melt, exposing enough open water to insolation, and giving the opportunity for mixing to bring heat up, such that the next freeze season simply can't repair the damage?

If a BOE is a fleeting phenomenon for a few days in September, and the following freeze season can essentially reset the system, then a BOE is just a point on a continuum of damage. (The slow transition theory postulates that so much heat would be lost to space during the arctic night after a big melt season that the system can robustly reset after a big melt). If a BOE for a few days represents a hole out of which arctic ice cannot climb, then it is a tipping point.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Archimid on July 24, 2020, 01:35:29 PM
Quote
If a BOE for a few days represents a hole out of which arctic ice cannot climb, then it is a tipping point.

But this is a quantity not a quality. If the world gets cold enough, the Arctic will refreeze.  The Arctic sea ice cover will return if the conditions for its return are there. I think history and models agree with that.

But it is not just the Arctic we are taling about here. The Arctic sea ice is connected to  oceanic and atmospheric circulations that have been relatively stable and warm for 10,000 years. As the Arctic breaks down those millenary circulations break and what we get are never before seen weather patterns. This process already started.

I don't know that restoring the ice would restore the weather to holocene patterns without a few thousand laps around the sun to smooth things out.

I'm sure that millions if not billions of humans will adapt. But gosh is going to suck. (it already sucks, it will suck exponentially more or none at all)
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: dnem on July 24, 2020, 01:51:53 PM
Quote
If a BOE for a few days represents a hole out of which arctic ice cannot climb, then it is a tipping point.

But this is a quantity not a quality. If the world gets cold enough, the Arctic will refreeze. 

Well sure, if it was cold and cloudy enough all summer the ice would not melt.  But if the system has strong hysteresis, a single summer melt may push it far enough that any reasonably expected subsequent freeze cannot repair it and the system will fall into a new state. If the arctic night can essentially reset any extreme summer melt, the system will not enter a new state.

If the planet were to enter a new cold climate regime, it could certainly push the arctic back out of a new low ice equilibrium, but that is highly unlikely under our current regime of increasing CO2 and temperatures.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Archimid on July 24, 2020, 02:25:35 PM
I'm very unsure on what will happen after the first BOE ( N80 Summer temps above historic average).

Most of the heat that is trapped in the ocean after a BOE will be vented to the atmosphere and then to space the following winter. Winter is guaranteed to be dark and very cold. There will be ice in the Arctic during winter.

I imagine the increased temperature of the ocean will be releasing humidity and heat until well into winter when ice can finally form. By then must summer heat has vented to space or become trapped in the deeper ocean.

 To me, this summer/winter, ocean/ice interaction says that after the first BOE ungodly snow storms will form over the NH.  This is an already observable continuum that is bound to get worse as heat is accumulated in the Arctic Ocean.

I think there is a distinct posibility that a BOE leads to a snowball NH.  In turn, that snowball NH leads to sea ice recovery due to lower NH albedo.

Also, greenland. Following the D-O analogy, D-O events were often followed by Heinrich events. We don't have the glaciers to form an iceberg armada, but we do have Greenland ice. If it is warm N80, greenland is going to be melting. This will affect sea ice. It may help it, it may hinder it, I don't know.

So even if we have a returning Arctic, it can be very bad for humans.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on July 24, 2020, 02:31:27 PM
So you expect “ocean effect” storms?
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: El Cid on July 24, 2020, 02:43:24 PM
I imagine the increased temperature of the ocean will be releasing humidity and heat ...

 To me, this summer/winter, ocean/ice interaction says that after the first BOE ungodly snow storms will form over the NH.

Except, it won't be snowstorms but lots of rain. With an open ocean, all that heat and humidity will be pushed towards the Equator and will fall as rain not snow. With the Arctic Ocean at around 0+ C at that time I do not see how that would fall as snow. Yes, it will be snow in Siberia but it will most likely be rain in Europe. There might be somewhat more snow mass but less snow extent as the snowline moves ever closer to the Pole
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Archimid on July 24, 2020, 03:10:11 PM
In the "Northern hemisphere snow" thread, ASIFers track snow cover. I think the clear trend has been of "highly increased snow volume"  and  "highly volatile snow extent".

 So if a this is a continuum that has already started, the effects of a BOE on the climate could be an exageration of what is already happenning.

"Highly increased snow volume"  exagerate to "mountains of snow".

"Highly volatile snow extent" is more difficult to pin down but I imagine it means wild swings in temperature that will quickly render thick snow to melt water. Some of that water will indeed fall as water not snow.

But it could be that "highly increased snow volume" overrides the "highly volatile snow extent" and we get a snowglobe NH. In that case the ice could return with a vengeance, even if all of it is first year ice.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Tony Mcleod on July 24, 2020, 03:43:13 PM
a tipping point requires a feedback mechanism it is not just an arbitrary milestone along the way.

 What mechanism changes near a BOE? I say near a blue ocean event because their is little point in arguing the exact definition. If someone comes up with a tipping point near a BOE that would provide a compelling case to change the definition to that tipping point. A BOE may be radically different than the past what changes it from before a near BOE to after a near BOE

I fail to see how a BOE cannot be a tipping point. It marks the point when massive amounts of energy starts pouring into warming the water instead of just melting it. Summer temps are currently capped at a few degrees above freezing. Take a look at any previous year here http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
A BOE breaks that cap, resulting in spiking summer water temps, hastening the melt of the remaining ice, a later, even more feeble refreeze, etc, etc.
There are probably scores of feedbacks in the Arctic both positive and negative. Having no ice to soak up summer heat will be a massive positive. Another is the vast areas of water newly exposed to the wind. Not much wave induced mixing under a layer of ice, but with wide stretches of open water, wind driven waves can potentially stir up warmer water from below. That in combination with the latent heat issue overlaid on a background global warming will surely (barring the refuting of GHG theory and the deniers being right after all by a sudden plunge into a new Little Ice Age) accelerate the warming, making an ice comeback all but impossible. A clear, sharp tipping point.

Apart from the drop in albedo adding to the global warming rate, who knows what weather pattern changes we might see, including eye-watering blocking patterns causing unprecedented extremes in temperature and rainfall, a flip from a three cell atmospheric pattern to two. Nothing that is going to be of any help for complex, fragile, delicately poised human systems.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on July 24, 2020, 03:54:46 PM
Quote
a flip from a three cell atmospheric pattern to two
I read somewhere here that two cell atmospheric patters are unstable and quickly transition to one cell equitable patterns (IIRC).
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Tony Mcleod on July 24, 2020, 04:06:40 PM
Quote
a flip from a three cell atmospheric pattern to two
I read somewhere here that two cell atmospheric patters are unstable and quickly transition to one cell equitable patterns (IIRC).

Equitable as in hippos in the Thames?
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: bbr2315 on July 24, 2020, 04:24:43 PM
An equable climate is impossible as long as Greenland is extant. I would suggest we are transitioning to a regime where the CAB is seasonally ice-free and the peripheral seas / Hudson and CAA becomes "bastions" of MYI.

1. CAB goes BOE
2. North America / CAA / Hudson Bay become new cold pole adjacent to Greenland / MYI begins surviving in CAA and Hudson or Foxe as well as along Beaufort shoreline
3. Eurasia corresponds and MYI begins surviving along Siberian / Okhotsk shorelines
4. Situation continues / +SWE and +SCE anomalies continue growing until CAB refreezes in 5-10 years, at which point seasonal volume gains have deposited thousands of KM^3 of ice atop North America and Eurasia. As CAB refreezes, the crysophere reinvigorates further, and most continental areas above 40N begin seeing snowfall year-round, and MYI also begins rapid regrowth as human civilization collapses.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: kassy on July 24, 2020, 04:34:33 PM
A BoE means the Arctic changes from a polar desert to a normal sea that is a tipping point at least for that sea.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: bbr2315 on July 24, 2020, 04:37:40 PM
A BoE means the Arctic changes from a polar desert to a normal sea that is a tipping point at least for that sea.
Indeed it does, but why must a BoE be permanent? Why can't a BoE last until the heat anomaly is resolved through +continental albedo and +ice melt from Greenland / derivative surface cooling?

Why wouldn't the Earth-climate system attempt to equalize temps at current levels by balancing the deficient ice cover with enhanced continental snowcover? This resolves the anomaly and maintains stasis as best as possible, which an efficient system is designed to do (and evidently our stasis point is around the current global temperature).

We are definitely entitled to disagree however my personal opinion is that a BoE is the last phase before the continents begin to re-glaciate, with heat accumulated in the deep Arctic that surfaces during BoE corresponding to the severity of the event (more deep ocean heating = more snowfall when it goes BoE). Such an abrupt transition explains the Younger Dryas and other abrupt rafting / cooling events in the NHEM historically. Occam's Razor says it will also occur in this interlude.

I would suggest the scale of what is imminent re: Greenland / BoE CAB is equivalent to the Japanese military campaign in the Second World War. The initial battles were against enemies that were easily beaten and destroyed. However, cockiness and desperation re: oil ultimately led the Japanese to overconfidence, attacking Pearl Harbor, and waking a sleeping giant that ultimately resulted in their defeat. Greenland is our Pearl Harbor. The scale of the ice that is going to melt there once we go BOE is unprecedented, and the funny thing is the meltwater is probably going to end up in the NW NATL, NOT the CAB!
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: kassy on July 24, 2020, 04:44:24 PM
An equable climate is impossible as long as Greenland is extant. I would suggest we are transitioning to a regime where the CAB is seasonally ice-free and the peripheral seas / Hudson and CAA becomes "bastions" of MYI.

1. CAB goes BOE
2. North America / CAA / Hudson Bay become new cold pole adjacent to Greenland / MYI begins surviving in CAA and Hudson or Foxe as well as along Beaufort shoreline
3. Eurasia corresponds and MYI begins surviving along Siberian / Okhotsk shorelines
4. Situation continues / +SWE and +SCE anomalies continue growing until CAB refreezes in 5-10 years, at which point seasonal volume gains have deposited thousands of KM^3 of ice atop North America and Eurasia. As CAB refreezes, the crysophere reinvigorates further, and most continental areas above 40N begin seeing snowfall year-round, and MYI also begins rapid regrowth as human civilization collapses.

Ah our pet theory.

2 Basically the cold poles are already there. That does not really help now and i fail to see how it will help in the future.

3 By what mechanism?

4 Have you ever considered that the normal ice age scenario might not be possible out of certain bounds?
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: kassy on July 24, 2020, 04:50:48 PM
A BoE means the Arctic changes from a polar desert to a normal sea that is a tipping point at least for that sea.
Indeed it does, but why must a BoE be permanent? Why can't a BoE last until the heat anomaly is resolved through +continental albedo and +ice melt from Greenland / derivative surface cooling?

Maybe check the input heat.

Lets wait and see and for consistency the pet theory is of limits again.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Pmt111500 on July 24, 2020, 05:01:57 PM
I seem to be on a digging expedition, third link to old posts... This image is from last september.

Agreed on the necessity of absence of Greenland Ice Sheet if we're going equable climate but, waiting for that to disappear, some sort of distorted two-cell system might be a summertime phenomenon over Northern Hemisphere. The Arctic tries to build up a high pressure area during summers but can't because of constant moisture condensation. The moisture then wanders off to continents having higher pressure areas wandering round the high continental latitudes, wa/cc for winter and for summer it could be ma/dc (moist arctic/dry continents), to coin an acronym. Definitely fits to Siberian forest fires and why not Alaska/Canada as well.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: bbr2315 on July 24, 2020, 05:16:43 PM
I seem to be on a digging expedition, third link to old posts... This image is from last september.

Agreed on the necessity of absence of Greenland Ice Sheet if we're going equable climate but, waiting for that to disappear, some sort of distorted two-cell system might be a summertime phenomenon over Northern Hemisphere. The Arctic tries to build up a high pressure area during summers but can't because of constant moisture condensation. The moisture then wanders off to continents having higher pressure areas wandering round the high continental latitudes, wa/cc for winter and for summer it could be ma/dc (moist arctic/dry continents), to coin an acronym. Definitely fits to Siberian forest fires and why not Alaska/Canada as well.

To Kassy's point -- I don't want to drag the thread OT, so I will refrain from posting anything new, but I do agree with this ^ post as well in some respect, however I think WACCY weather is actually *most* prominent in spring / summertime as we approach BOE, as wintertime temps are still very warm over most of North America and Eurasia (although this is irrelevant to snowfall as the warmth is happening in places that are usually absurdly cold, in fact, wintertime warmth is actually beneficial to snowcover depth and extent in the most northerly / elevated areas of the continents).

I think we are moving towards a single Hadley Cell that encompasses the entire NHEM, with an embedded polar cell that will reside over Greenland and Hudson Bay / North America. At certain times of year multiple polar cells will exist under the "greater" Hadley Cell, bounded by geography and albedo, before we eventually shift to two distinct polar cells, one over NAmerica and one over Eurasia, which constantly evacuate heat all-year-round and do so most effectively due to their high albedoes and relatively low latitudes. In fact they will resolve heat so effectively that temperatures are ultimately going to plunge again, IMO.

Most succinctly, the above is summed thusly : as efficiency of the Earth-climate system increases in parallel with total heat added each year, the total heat added must continue growing in tandem with the increasing efficiency of its resolution OR the increased efficiency of the system will result in the runaway extraction of said anomalous heat.

Perhaps this is the crux of my argument: as total heat in the system in creases, the resolution of the heat in the system must also increase at the same rate or faster to avoid a spiraling in global temps, and the way this happens is +albedo atop the continents, especially higher elevations at lower latitudes (e.g. this year's Himalayan anomaly). We have seen this happen to date, I see no reason why it will not happen moving forward, and I do believe I have identified the mechanism already-present, and previously activated, that enables this return to "stasis".

<With some luck next year might provide a test already and if it doesn´t we just have to wait longer. kassy>
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on July 24, 2020, 05:17:46 PM
Quote
a flip from a three cell atmospheric pattern to two
I read somewhere here that two cell atmospheric patters are unstable and quickly transition to one cell equitable patterns (IIRC).

Equitable as in hippos in the Thames?

Bingo!
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: The Walrus on July 24, 2020, 05:22:40 PM
a tipping point requires a feedback mechanism it is not just an arbitrary milestone along the way.

 What mechanism changes near a BOE? I say near a blue ocean event because their is little point in arguing the exact definition. If someone comes up with a tipping point near a BOE that would provide a compelling case to change the definition to that tipping point. A BOE may be radically different than the past what changes it from before a near BOE to after a near BOE

I fail to see how a BOE cannot be a tipping point. It marks the point when massive amounts of energy starts pouring into warming the water instead of just melting it. Summer temps are currently capped at a few degrees above freezing. Take a look at any previous year here http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
A BOE breaks that cap, resulting in spiking summer water temps, hastening the melt of the remaining ice, a later, even more feeble refreeze, etc, etc.
There are probably scores of feedbacks in the Arctic both positive and negative. Having no ice to soak up summer heat will be a massive positive. Another is the vast areas of water newly exposed to the wind. Not much wave induced mixing under a layer of ice, but with wide stretches of open water, wind driven waves can potentially stir up warmer water from below. That in combination with the latent heat issue overlaid on a background global warming will surely (barring the refuting of GHG theory and the deniers being right after all by a sudden plunge into a new Little Ice Age) accelerate the warming, making an ice comeback all but impossible. A clear, sharp tipping point.

Apart from the drop in albedo adding to the global warming rate, who knows what weather pattern changes we might see, including eye-watering blocking patterns causing unprecedented extremes in temperature and rainfall, a flip from a three cell atmospheric pattern to two. Nothing that is going to be of any help for complex, fragile, delicately poised human systems.

It is not really a tipping point, as the changes are incremental.  There is nothing drastically going from 4M square km to 3, from 3 to 2, etc.  Each change is a small step, and each change is reversible.  Under the right conditions, the ice could increase from 2 to 3, etc.  It has in the past.  As Archimid stated in his post, an open ocean absorbs more heat in the summer, but releases more in the winter.  Nothing has really changed, unless hippos are spotted in the Thames.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: bbr2315 on July 24, 2020, 05:23:49 PM
It is not really a tipping point, as the changes are incremental.  There is nothing drastically going from 4M square km to 3, from 3 to 2, etc.  Each change is a small step, and each change is reversible.  Under the right conditions, the ice could increase from 2 to 3, etc.  It has in the past.  As Archimid stated in his post, an open ocean absorbs more heat in the summer, but releases more in the winter.  Nothing has really changed, unless hippos are spotted in the Thames.

This is incorrect, 3->2 can involve most of the CAB going ice-free and its halocline being permanently disturbed. The major changes to CAB look to happen from 3->2M KM^2, IMO.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: kassy on July 24, 2020, 05:51:46 PM
Actually the numbers are pretty useless. What is happening with the seas with all the open waters over the year? (No ice/fresh water lens). How will the currents mix and what will be the weather that actually results?

You can plot lines on extent and area and then uses trends but when it collapses it actually changes to a different system so that will wreck all those in the end. At least that is my working hypothesis.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Archimid on July 24, 2020, 06:23:57 PM
It is a tipping point.
Please see the variability of average surface summer temperatures vs the variability of winter temperatures.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Focean.dmi.dk%2Farctic%2Fplus80n%2Fanoplus80N_summer_winter_engelsk.png&hash=d809e67be96149a19154a4988b9d1e65)

Summer temperatures at the surface are fixed to the temperature of the ice.
Winter temperatures at the surface vary greatly, according to the weather and climate.

Quote
It is not really a tipping point, as the changes are incremental.

All the years before the first BOE, summer N80 surface temperatures hover aroung 0C. The year of the first BOE N80 surface temperatures will go much higher than typical variablity.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: The Walrus on July 24, 2020, 06:41:06 PM
It is not really a tipping point, as the changes are incremental.  There is nothing drastically going from 4M square km to 3, from 3 to 2, etc.  Each change is a small step, and each change is reversible.  Under the right conditions, the ice could increase from 2 to 3, etc.  It has in the past.  As Archimid stated in his post, an open ocean absorbs more heat in the summer, but releases more in the winter.  Nothing has really changed, unless hippos are spotted in the Thames.

This is incorrect, 3->2 can involve most of the CAB going ice-free and its halocline being permanently disturbed. The major changes to CAB look to happen from 3->2M KM^2, IMO.

But will it?  I will admit that this is all conjecture at this point, as we cannot truly say what will happen.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: kassy on July 24, 2020, 06:50:39 PM
And all damage accruing over a year by extra warming on the way will add. Not just the sunlight on water but also waters mixing that are no longer stopped by ice in certain area.

Watch the break around 2007 here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw7GfNR5PLA&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: El Cid on July 24, 2020, 07:18:25 PM
Many, previously icy seas had seen their "BOE event" without any runaway processes. Take the Chukchi. It used to be 50-60% covered by ice even during summer and 100% during winter. Now, the past couple of years it almost completely melts out and SSTs rise well above zero - as well as observed air temperatures. This definitely has effects on NH climate but it is not a tipping point. The same would be true for the CAB. There is absolutely no difference (even when the CAB melts out there will be Greenland to keep it close to 0 C). It is just the same as the Chukchi now.

As for snow. I attach the Rutgers NH snow extent for winter. Despite many previously frozen seas melting out during summer there is really no trend in it. The trendline goes from 45,2 to 45,8 mln sqkm which is basically just noise.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: KiwiGriff on July 24, 2020, 07:23:17 PM
Quote
A typical ocean albedo is approximately 0.06, while bare sea ice varies from approximately 0.5 to 0.7. This means that the ocean reflects only 6 percent of the incoming solar radiation and absorbs the rest, while sea ice reflects 50 to 70 percent of the incoming energy.Apr 3, 2020
nsidc.org › cryosphere › seaice › processes › albedo

That is one hell of a lot of extra energy within the earth system.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Tammukka on July 24, 2020, 07:47:16 PM


As for snow. I attach the Rutgers NH snow extent for winter. Despite many previously frozen seas melting out during summer there is really no trend in it. The trendline goes from 45,2 to 45,8 mln sqkm which is basically just noise.
What about snow volume and water content in north? Last winter was record breaking ( at least 120 years of observations) in snow volume and water content in northern Finland. I would not be surprised if winter's above Arctic circle would be warmer and more snowy in future.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: El Cid on July 24, 2020, 08:15:52 PM
janne,

i have said as much above. snow volume will very likely grow. what i doubt is the growth of snow extent
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Archimid on July 24, 2020, 08:33:36 PM
As for snow. I attach the Rutgers NH snow extent for winter. Despite many previously frozen seas melting out during summer there is really no trend in it. The trendline goes from 45,2 to 45,8 mln sqkm which is basically just noise.

I'll attach Rutgers fall and spring NH snow cover:

First Fall

(https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/images/nhland_season4.png)

 The trend is clearly INCRESING, very likely due to things like:

Quote
Take the Chukchi. It used to be 50-60% covered by ice even during summer and 100% during winter. Now, the past couple of years it almost completely melts out and SSTs rise well above zero - as well as observed air temperatures.

Now look at spring:

(https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/images/nhland_season2.png)

During spring extent is DECREASING as expected by global warming and higher temperatures.

The tug of war between these two is in the middle of winter when extent has almost no clear trend. It is warmer yet cold enough to freeze, but there is much more water available.

Quote
Many, previously icy seas had seen their "BOE event" without any runaway processes.

Because the Arctic core of cold is still there. N80. Any year now we should see the first blips in the summer temperatures of the N80 chart. I expect it to coincide with record low volume, not necesarily extent. Late blips (late aug) with heavy weather influence are only warnings, if we get them.

I don't think we will get early blips. If it goes early ( July), it goes all out.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: bbr2315 on July 24, 2020, 08:39:22 PM
While NHEM is declining in spring still, I think the trend has reversed in North America, since 2010, 2012, and 2016. It looks like those may have been pivotal years in contributing to the new state of the Arctic. While North America may see continued spring gains moving forward NHEM could still decline overall due to Eurasia IMO.

(https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/images/namgnld_season2.png)

Fall SCE has grown explosively over North America, although apparently this is now banned from being mentioned. <data is fine. kassy>

(https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/images/namgnld_season4.png)
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: El Cid on July 25, 2020, 07:17:43 AM
Take the Chukchi. It used to be 50-60% covered by ice even during summer and 100% during winter. Now, the past couple of years it almost completely melts out and SSTs rise well above zero - as well as observed air temperatures....

Many, previously icy seas had seen their "BOE event" without any runaway processes.

Because the Arctic core of cold is still there. N80.

Yes, that is why I wrote that the Greenland ice-mass will still be there (for hundreds of years), stopping the Arctic from reaching 20-30 C temperatures during summer even with all the ice gone from the seas.
There WILL be changes, no doubt. But I see no gamechanger exactly because of Greenland. NH mid-to hig latitude weather will change for sure, it will likely be wetter and warmer.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Archimid on July 25, 2020, 03:25:48 PM
Quote
Yes, that is why I wrote that the Greenland ice-mass will still be there (for hundreds of years), stopping the Arctic from reaching 20-30 C temperatures during summer even with all the ice gone from the seas.

Greenland ice will be buffering a significant part of the heat produced by a BOE event, yes. But I classify this as one of the many consequences of a BOE, not a magical reset mechanism. Sea level will rise faster. Fresh water will change Atlantic circulations. Atmospheric patters will change drastically.

If DO events are an indication, the warming happens over decades and the cooling happens over centuries.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: glennbuck on July 26, 2020, 07:42:10 PM
As it happens, only recently, inordinately high levels of methane emissions have been reported, to wit:

(1) Methane Observation – October 2019 -“This is the most powerful seep I have ever been able to observe… No one has ever recorded anything similar.” (Source: Research Vessel Encounters Giant Methane Seep in Arctic Waters, The Maritime Executive, Oct. 10, 2019) The quote is from Igor Semiletov, professor Tomsk Polytechnic University on the research vessel Academic M.A. Lavrentyev on a 40-day Arctic mission.

(2) Methane Observation – December 2019 – Three months later at COP25 in Madrid, Dr. Peter Carter, an IPCC expert reviewer, in an interview d/d December 10th, 2019, referenced an ongoing eruption of methane above Barrow, Alaska, saying: “We’ve never seen anything like it. And, it has stayed at elevated levels to the present week. Looking at the 2.2 million year ice core, the maximum methane concentration ever was 800 ppb. In Barrow, Alaska it is 2,050 ppb and staying there. It’s been up there for 4 months.”

A note about the Barrow observation – Dr. Peter Carter believes the origin may be permafrost decay from land. However, according to Dr. Wadhams, he’s not so sure of Carter’s explanation and even though the waters offshore Barrow are not known to contain subsea methane, it is theorized the 4-month extremely high CH4 reading may have originated at ESAS and drifted, a theory with forceful negative ramifications.

The Barrow Atmospheric Baseline Observatory was established in 1973 by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Earth System Research Laboratory to track hourly methane readings.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/01/17/the-rumbling-methane-enigma/
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: glennbuck on July 27, 2020, 12:09:36 AM
Watched a conference video with Roger Hallam from Extinction Rebellion and he was talking to a Top Scientist at the IPCC recently off camera who said we would have a BOE by 2025! Another scientist said we would have 6 Celsius warming not 5 Celsius and at 4 Celsius half the world is uninhabitable in 2050, nice there open off camera to admit these things shame they will not go on record!.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Lewis on July 27, 2020, 01:33:25 AM
Watched a conference video with Roger Hallam from Extinction Rebellion and he was talking to a Top Scientist at the IPCC recently off camera who said we would have a BOE by 2025! Another scientist said we would have 6 Celsius warming not 5 Celsius and at 4 Celsius half the world is uninhabitable, nice there open off camera to admit these things shame they will not go on record!.

Can you provide the link to the conference video. Thanks
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: glennbuck on July 27, 2020, 01:45:38 AM
Watched a conference video with Roger Hallam from Extinction Rebellion and he was talking to a Top Scientist at the IPCC recently off camera who said we would have a BOE by 2025! Another scientist said we would have 6 Celsius warming not 5 Celsius and at 4 Celsius half the world is uninhabitable, nice there open off camera to admit these things shame they will not go on record!.

Video is 22 minutes in for Roger Hallam .

Can you provide the link to the conference video. Thanks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNO3tSJYz_M&t=182s

Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: glennbuck on August 06, 2020, 12:08:02 AM
Losing the remaining Arctic sea ice and its ability to reflect incoming solar energy back to space would be equivalent to adding one trillion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, on top of the 2.4 trillion tons emitted since the Industrial Age, according to current and former researchers from Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego.

At current rates, this roughly equates to 25 years of global CO2 emissions. It would consequently speed up the arrival of a global threshold of warming of 2ºC beyond temperatures the world experienced before the Industrial Revolution.  Scientists and analysts, including the authors of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report released in October 2018, have stated that the planet runs the risk of catastrophic damage ranging from more intense heat waves and coastal flooding to extinction of terrestrial species and threats to food supply if that threshold is passed.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/research-highlight-loss-arctics-reflective-sea-ice-will-advance-global-warming-25-years
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: glennbuck on August 06, 2020, 11:05:21 AM
As it happens, only recently, inordinately high levels of methane emissions have been reported, to wit:

(1) Methane Observation – October 2019 -“This is the most powerful seep I have ever been able to observe… No one has ever recorded anything similar.” (Source: Research Vessel Encounters Giant Methane Seep in Arctic Waters, The Maritime Executive, Oct. 10, 2019) The quote is from Igor Semiletov, professor Tomsk Polytechnic University on the research vessel Academic M.A. Lavrentyev on a 40-day Arctic mission.

(2) Methane Observation – December 2019 – Three months later at COP25 in Madrid, Dr. Peter Carter, an IPCC expert reviewer, in an interview d/d December 10th, 2019, referenced an ongoing eruption of methane above Barrow, Alaska, saying: “We’ve never seen anything like it. And, it has stayed at elevated levels to the present week. Looking at the 2.2 million year ice core, the maximum methane concentration ever was 800 ppb. In Barrow, Alaska it is 2,050 ppb and staying there. It’s been up there for 4 months.”

A note about the Barrow observation – Dr. Peter Carter believes the origin may be permafrost decay from land. However, according to Dr. Wadhams, he’s not so sure of Carter’s explanation and even though the waters offshore Barrow are not known to contain subsea methane, it is theorized the 4-month extremely high CH4 reading may have originated at ESAS and drifted, a theory with forceful negative ramifications.

The Barrow Atmospheric Baseline Observatory was established in 1973 by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Earth System Research Laboratory to track hourly methane readings.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/01/17/the-rumbling-methane-enigma/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa13KrOvE2s

Dr Peter Carter: summarising the lack of "climate emergency" at #COP25
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: metalreflectslime on August 26, 2020, 07:58:10 AM
After a BOE occurs, how many years would it take for the agricultural industry to collapse?
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: kassy on August 26, 2020, 11:46:33 AM
It will kick warming up a notch. And having no ice in summer might make for some really interesting changes in the atmospheric teleconnections.

No idea what the overall effects on agriculture will be. It must already be really hard to decide which trees/winegrape varieties to plant for the next decades.

Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: metalreflectslime on September 03, 2020, 12:58:53 AM
Will the release of methane gas cause crops to fail?

If yes, how?
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: kassy on September 03, 2020, 02:13:06 PM
Not directly.

But crop failure is a complicated thing. They can fail because it is too hot and too dry.
Or you have an excellent year ended by a month of rain at harvest time which will also ruin them.
And there are many more factors depending on the type of crop.

In the BOE context the ice loss will push global temperatures up at a faster rate then methane.



Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: The Walrus on September 03, 2020, 02:46:29 PM
Not directly.

But crop failure is a complicated thing. They can fail because it is too hot and too dry.
Or you have an excellent year ended by a month of rain at harvest time which will also ruin them.
And there are many more factors depending on the type of crop.

In the BOE context the ice loss will push global temperatures up at a faster rate then methane.

Yes, it is much more complicated.  Each crop has its own ideal temperature and water requirements, not to mention other nutrient requirements.  To make a broad, sweeping statement about crop failures is rather difficult.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: A-Team on September 16, 2020, 06:15:54 PM
Quote
One ice cube left = not a BOE
That is not how it is used in the scientific literature. There are a fair number of peer-reviewed articles on this very subject. They are primarily concerned with light energy reflected back into outer space, the loss of the Arctic as planetary refrigerator concept. This is a huge deal in itself, calculated below as a trillion tons of CO2 emission equivalent. (No one gives a hoot about local DMI 80N graphics.)

Radiative Heating of an Ice-Free Arctic Ocean
K Pistone I Eisenman V Ramanathan
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/efba/e15abb5f10ae821efdecbe6dcca113bb1e77.pdf

During recent decades, there has been dramatic Arctic sea ice retreat. This has reduced the top-of-atmosphere albedo, adding more solar energy to the climate system. There is substantial uncertainty regarding how much ice retreat and associated solar heating will occur in the future. This is relevant to future climate projections, including the timescale for reaching global warming stabilization targets.

Here we use satellite observations to estimate the amount of solar energy that would be added in the worst-case scenario of a complete disappearance of Arctic sea ice throughout the sunlit part of the year. Assuming constant cloudiness, we calculate a global radiative heating of 0.71 W/m2 relative to the 1979 baseline state. This is equivalent to the effect of one trillion tons of CO2 emissions. These results suggest that the additional heating due to complete Arctic sea ice loss would hasten global warming by an estimated 25 years.

It is perhaps better to use BOE 0.0, BOE 0.5, BOE 1.0, BOE 2.0, BOE 3.0 etc according to what you intend as no one has the authority or scientific justification to declare a definition, though BOE 1.0 has traction on forums even though it lacks any grounding in physics.

However any choice is ill-posed. The problem, as @zlabe put it earlier, is we are really talking about the area and latitudinal timing of open water albedo vs insolation calendar. In other words, the energy retention integral over the whole summer season is growing worse as more ice is lost earlier. This extra retained heat will be redistributed somewhere within the climate system, the very last thing it needs right now.

This year was very bad by late July because of early open water, early melt and fire soot in terms of fractional BOE (the fraction of how bad it could possibly get, assuming some middle-ground cloud model).

I posted two graphics earlier that explain how to calculate this with two clicks (without dipping into math); no one had any interest either way.

Next post will show various BOE areas as polar latitudinal caps, then reshape and reposition with the Gimp loop and histogram tools, keeping pixel count constant. This has to be done separately for each projection scale, eg SMOS, OsiSaf, AMSR2 etc.

The word event suggests wrongly a single point in time, ie a day in mid-Sept when albedo is irrelevant. BOE is really about the albedo part of the energy budget of the entire high latitude season, the major modeling imponderable being cloud properties, snow cover and weather temperature distribution.

The land permafrost albedo is another huge consideration very much affected by Arctic Amplification. A BLE (bare land event) interacts strongly so it is difficult to carve out just an Arctic Ocean BOE from observation of overall extra solar energy retention from loss of northern latitude albedo.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: A-Team on September 16, 2020, 09:37:06 PM
Here I want to calculate a range of fractional BOE area values and display them over various common Arctic Ocean graphics in plausible areas and shapes for remnant ice. For example, what does two million sq km of ice look like up against the Canadian coast?

According to wikipedia, a polar cap area on a spherical earth (not quite our WGS84 ellipsoid) can be calculated by a simple formula given the radius of the earth and the latitude of the bottom of the cap. Having some target areas for BOE in mind, inverting the area formula will give the cap latitude yielding them.

The formula given is area = 2 pi r*r (1-cos (theta)) where theta is the polar angle included from the center of earth to the pole and to the bottom of the cap. This is not the latitude but rather its complement lat = 90-theta. Solving for theta for target area with the shorter polar radius of the earth taken as 6357 km amounts to finding a spreadsheet to provide the arccos function and convert radians to degrees:

90 - theta = 90- degrees(acos(1-(target area ÷ 2 *3.1416 * 6357 *6357)))

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cap

target area   cap lat
 500000   86.40
1000000   84.91
1500000   83.77
2000000   82.80
2500000   81.95
3000000   81.18
3500000   80.48
4000000   79.82
4500000   79.20
5000000   78.61

These need to be checked against a daily NSIDC matching area during late melt season (eg four million sq km but Greenland Sea and CAA unwelcome minor contributions) because the polar stereographic projection is not equal area -- the pole region is off by 5-6%. However for simply visualizing what remnant ice would look like, it is good enough.

The outcome shows the 85º latitude is convenient for BOE 1.0 as it comes provided on products such as AMSR1_UHH. The 80th parallel is similarly appropriate to the four million BOE 4.0. Elsewhere, the radius for the circle tool centered on the pole can be figured after pixels/degree are calculated from parallels provided or from known land latitudes such as the Bering Strait at 65.89°.

After drawing the polar cap out to the chosen radius in an auxiliary layer and filling it, the pixel count should be noted in the histogram tool. This will vary depending on the scale of the underlying image resource, eg OsiSaf, AMSR2_large, Mercator Ocean etc etc.

Next, the move and loop tools in Gimp freeware can be used to move the cap area to another location and to another shape while holding the pixel count at the histogram constant. For example, the fractional BOE area might adjusted so its bottom uses the upper contours of the CAA islands.

Some examples in a bit. The final shape favored will vary from person to person for each fractional BOE as the 2012-2020 shapes of remnant ice vary quite a bit.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Villabolo on September 16, 2020, 10:13:24 PM
After a BOE occurs, how many years would it take for the agricultural industry to collapse?

We might have a collapse of conventional agriculture even without a BOE. It might take a while, but the situation is so bad that we will be in a world of hurt within the lifetime of our grandchildren with or without a BOE.

I believe that by then we will have indoor, multilevel agriculture utilizing aeroponics. Indoor aeroponics uses 5% of the water that conventional agriculture does, so lack of reliable rainfall or lowering aquifer levels would not seriously impact it.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: A-Team on September 16, 2020, 10:40:59 PM
It's worth a look at what climate scientists have recently published specifically on the topic of large scale open water gain and consequent albedo loss has during an early fractional BOE summer because the extra heat kicks in immediately adding to the earth's heat imbalance.

A truly comprehensive bibliography is beyond the scope of a post: thousands of papers going back decades on the overall impact of arctic amplification or sea ice loss on the global climate, for example J Francis et al 2009 on "20th and 21st century Arctic cloud amounts in global climate models". or JE Overland et al 2016 "Nonlinear response of mid-latitude weather to the changing Arctic".

The K Pistone 2019 paper mentioned above is directly on-topic: sunlight that formerly bounced off the reflective ice back into outer space is greatly diminished during a near-BOE summer due to the dramatically decreased albedo of open water, greatly enhancing retained solar heat.

This heat will be redistributed across the whole climate system affecting many processes but the paper focuses solely on how much less solar energy goes back out to space. This is readily measurable over the Arctic.

An earlier 2014 paper by these same authors appeared in PNAS along with some later back-and forth based on a misunderstanding of Arctic-specific top-of-the-atmosphere albedo vs globally averaged vs surface.

Observational determination of albedo decrease caused by vanishing Arctic sea ice
K Pistone  I Eisenman V Ramanathan
PNAS March 4, 2014 111 (9) 3322-3326;
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1318201111 open access
128 cites

A thoughtful technical paper discussing the two Pistone papers in detail appeared as Donohoe 2020 (with a Piomas co-author). After developing alternatives to perceived shortcomings, the authors conclude with a lower but similarly shocking estimate of the sea ice albedo loss effect (10-19% vs 25%).

K Pistone has four new above-cloud aerosol papers in 2020 but nothing further yet on BOE albedo. I have not yet checked on the two co-authors.

he Effect of Atmospheric Transmissivity on Model and Observational Estimates of the Sea Ice Albedo Feedback
A Donohoe E Wrigglesworth A Schweiger Philip J. Rasch
J. Climate (2020) 33 (13): 5743–5765.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/article/33/13/5743/345297
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: gerontocrat on September 17, 2020, 08:28:40 PM
Nico Sun (aka Tealight) has produced some really good visuals on Albedo Warming Potential. (see links below).

The table and graph attached show how sea ice loss to date, especially in the 7 seas of the High Arctic,  has merely allowed a fraction of the AWP to be released compared with an ice-free Arctic.

The third graph shows that nevertheless increased AWP to date has the potential to significantly affect the incidence of ice-free days.

It was the work by Nico Sun & others and a comment by A-Team some time ago about the seas being in transition from icy deserts to open water that gave me the idea to show open water instead of ice in graphs The last graph is an example..

____________________________________________________
Noco Sun limks....
https://cryospherecomputing.tk/awp-region.html
https://cryospherecomputing.tk/NRTawp
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: kassy on September 17, 2020, 10:17:19 PM
Is Central Arctic a combination of the blue seas or a separate entry?
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: nanning on September 18, 2020, 07:14:58 AM
Beautiful gerontocrat. That gives much information, thank you.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: A-Team on September 18, 2020, 10:45:24 AM
Quote
Central Arctic?
That may refer to Region 11 of Masie map at NSIDC. These divisions are widely used but have no physical basis for basin boundaries and do not correlate well with ice age or thickness distributions.

Great to see Nico links and gerontocrat graphs; it's been a most excellent bottom-up effort. Earlier posts have said potential albedo doesn't take clouds into consideration. The Pistone papers are top-down, all about clouds, the satellites that observe them, and the sunlight coming in vs that decreasing portion lost to space under a growing fractional BOE trend and consequent greater adsorption, retention and redistribution of extra heat within the earth climate system.

With just scattered buoys and the occasional ship, given the rapidly changing cloud layers, phases  and fog we see all summer blocking WorldView and microwave observation of the surface, it's hard to convert potential into actual albedo without field observations and simplifying assumptions.

The evolving complexity over the summer of ice/snow surface reflectance/transmittance of incident sunlight and indeed measuring it over time but just over one sq km among millions has been a main focus of Mosaic and its buoys, towers, drones, balloons and aircraft as well as similar expeditions before it such as Sheba and N-ICE2015. These expeditions are funded because it is not yet feasible to calculate critical parameters ab initio or observe them from space.

Even open water varies a lot on its albedo according to capillary waves and sun angles. However the dramatic factor-of-ten difference between sea and ice albedos does allow estimation of the effect of an ever-encroaching fractional open water on the insolation season.

In terms of precipitation, wx-savvy posters sometimes differentiate rain vs snow using RAMMB. GFS/nullschool provides 3HPA, TPW and TCW channels for 3-hr accumulation, precipitable water in the air column, and total cloud water. Rain has a huge effect on albedo and its latent heat on snow/ice melt and thus on early attainment of open water so its future trend (and that of clouds under Arctic Amplification) is critical:

The impact of Arctic warming on increased rainfall
R Bintanja 2018
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-34450-3

No one here has taken an interest in CERES which seems to be the satellite sensor scientists mainly use to characterize Arctic clouds and incoming storms. WorldView has recently added nine new cloud data layers; those too have not yet gotten a forum mention. Posts do frequently use the M3 13 11 (pink vie) on NOAA-20 VIIRS to see where clouds are not obscuring ice surface visibility.

The cloud layer is very complicated; it is not a binary topic of cloud vs not cloud or high vs low but many types and combinations with highly variable optical properties. Indeed when that Finnish firm Vaisala shared their lightening event database for the Central Arctic, it suggested far more convective thunderstorm weather occurs than anyone had imagined.

Interannual variations of Arctic cloud types in relation to sea ice
R Eastman 2009
https://atmos.uw.edu/~rmeast/ThesisSub.pdf

Cloud radiative forcing of the Arctic surface:
The influence of cloud properties, surface albedo, and solar zenith angle
MD Shupe JM Intrieri 2004    Sheba and later Mosaic co-leader
https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/article/17/3/616/30440/Cloud-Radiative-Forcing-of-the-Arctic-Surface-The

Given the difficult of just monitoring albedo over a single ongoing melt season, one can wonder just how accurately the Pistone and Donohoe papers above can calculate loss of Arctic refrigerator effect as the fraction of early open water continues to grow. Encouragingly they come out with quite similar numbers despite very different approaches.

The latter paper sees a slightly lower effect, calling it 'modest' whereas in fact it is still catastrophic as in the Pistone papers.

As with ESAS methane, nobody wants to hear about albedo, better to err on the side of least drama, hundreds of examples documented by AbruptSLR on that forum.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: gerontocrat on September 18, 2020, 12:33:37 PM
Is Central Arctic a combination of the blue seas or a separate entry?
I'm pretty sure it's only the Central Arctic Sea - as in the NSIDC definition of 3.2 million km2 which is MAISIE Area 11.

Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: kassy on September 18, 2020, 05:55:44 PM
Thanks. I found the percentages oddly similar but looking at graphs it is a seasonal effect for most of the time.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: kassy on September 18, 2020, 07:57:38 PM
As with ESAS methane, nobody wants to hear about albedo, better to err on the side of least drama, hundreds of examples documented by AbruptSLR on that forum.

Thanks.

People are also not that into real simple climate science.

Paris agreement. We keep under some ´safe´ 2C level.
Safe is not actually defined so lets substitute the usual climate tipping points. Keeping the permafrost a sink has failed. Saving the arctic ice has failed. Not triggering Antarctica too etc.
And that is with current temps.

The Arctic ices ´old ice skeleton´ is clearly failing so next year might be even worse in the Central Arctic. I think this region is more vulnerable then people usually argue so we might see unprecedented losses there soon (this decade) and then we will see what Earth calculates for the budget and what the actual knock on effects are.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Archimid on September 19, 2020, 08:59:12 AM
This is a huge deal in itself, calculated below as a trillion tons of CO2 emission equivalent. (No one gives a hoot about local DMI 80N graphics.)

The last sentence of the abtract in "Radiative Heating of an Ice-Free Arctic Ocean" seems to agree with the above sentence.

Quote
This is equivalent to the effect of one trillion tons of CO2 emissions. These results suggest
 that the additional heating due to complete Arctic sea ice loss would hasten global warming by an estimated 25 years.

IMHO, this is the wrong way to understand the consequences of a BOE.  Annualizing and globalizing the local impact of the loss of sea ice minimizes its impact.  A BOE is more impactful for the magnitude of the local change than for the potential increase in global temperatures.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: gerontocrat on September 19, 2020, 10:00:02 AM
This is a huge deal in itself, calculated below as a trillion tons of CO2 emission equivalent. (No one gives a hoot about local DMI 80N graphics.)

The last sentence of the abtract in "Radiative Heating of an Ice-Free Arctic Ocean" seems to agree with the above sentence.

Quote
This is equivalent to the effect of one trillion tons of CO2 emissions. These results suggest
 that the additional heating due to complete Arctic sea ice loss would hasten global warming by an estimated 25 years.

IMHO, this is the wrong way to understand the consequences of a BOE.  Annualizing and globalizing the local impact of the loss of sea ice minimizes its impact.  A BOE is more impactful for the magnitude of the local change than for the potential increase in global temperatures.
I would go even further, and suggest a future BOE is somewhat of a distraction - by just looking at the climatic effects of a BOE we can end up ignoring the here and now.
And by concentrating on Albedo we can end up ignoring the climatic effect of open water in winter.

There is a study that links a very cold winter in North America with low winter sea ice in the Bering Sea. As I write this, it looks like some real weather will hit the central Arctic from Siberia by mid-week. Insolation will be minimal, but that weather will be travelling over large areas of open water where a few years ago it would have been ice. there are climatic effects in the here and now.

A BOE will likely be just another marginal addition to climatic effects accumulated over the years.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Archimid on September 19, 2020, 02:58:18 PM
Before I continue I want to make it clear. I think that paper is great in its own merits and I understand the tremendous usefulness of casting the problem in terms of CO2 and global temps. We need more papers like that.

That said, I think the spectrum of changes that will happen due to a BOE started already. We are seeing the beginings of a BOE.  I think BOE induced climate change will exponentially increase  from here until surface Temperatures N80 depart their historic temperature variability ( or lack thereof)  during summer.  At that point climate change will already be the stuff of our worst nighmares.

However, that point will mark a further acceleration of change that would make an outside observer take the year of a BOE as a tipping point for Earth's climate. To an observer inside the planet, it will be a continuum of SHTF.

I think the lack of variability of Summer N80 temperatures, even after decades of global warming, is what makes it such a great marker.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Focean.dmi.dk%2Farctic%2Fplus80n%2Fanoplus80N_summer_winter_engelsk.png&hash=d809e67be96149a19154a4988b9d1e65)

This is air temperatures, but taken so close to the surface that surface conditions mostly dictate the temperatures. When this number departs its long term variability the planet will enter a distinctly different climate regime in the NH.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: El Cid on September 19, 2020, 07:12:53 PM
When talking about BOE one should never forget that Greenland (2,1 M sqkm) is basically constantly ice covered and will be so for hundreds of years. The total ice covered area is therefore Arctic Ice+ 2,1 M sq km. Even during a BOE (which is defined by some as ice below 1 M sqkm in the Arctic Ocean), there will still be a grand total of 3 M sqkm of ice - with all its effects on NH climate.

So a BOE is NOT a qualitative change, it is part of a trend. It is going from last summers' cca 6 M sqkm of ice (4+2) to 3 or 2,5. It will have effects but not qualitatively different from the trends we already see. And this is what we see:
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: A-Team on September 19, 2020, 07:30:44 PM
Quote
My effect is so much more important than your effect.
Please keep comments appropriate to the "Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event" forum. This is not a catch-all forum for climate change or climate policy discussion. 'Climatic' means inappropriate for local Arctic-only seasonal impacts as these have their own forums.

Consider discussing and developing your favorite BOE climatic effect based on other recent scientific journal articles. Just making bald assertions or intuiting is not going to work quantitatively given the complexity of planetary climate systems. Try https://scholar.google.com/ to see where a given subject is at. Full text can always be located at https://sci-hub.se/.

Rightly or wrongly, the vast majority of climate science focuses on long-term build-up of greenhouse gases and their effects at NH mid-latitudes where most white people live and most of their food is grown. Rightly or wrongly, messaging is currently centered on CO2 levels and what can be done to reduce it (more trees, less beef consumption, fossil fuels, consumerism). All this is incredibly important but unacceptably off-topic given this forum's restricted remit.

The authors here framed their result in the above context, the trillion extra tons. Their calculated effect on annual heat retention alone is enough by itself to seriously undercut current global policy planning on climate change and to significantly offset benefits from planting trees, going vegan and riding wind-powered electric bicycles. Yes, lots of other feedbacks like ESAS methane could pile on but there are forums for those too.

My subsequent posts will be looking into the calculation itself and its reliability. Science does not arrive written on clay tablets. Already, an alternative method has been published. Those authors find less of an effect but actually their results still call for a massive effect (which they call 'modest'). Still, both calculations could be wrong or have too high a level of uncertainty to deserve concern priority.

To repeat, the loss of the planet's primary climate-buffering refrigerator (seasonal high latitude albedo) is only one aspect of downstream consequences of fractional loss of Arctic sea ice increasingly matching the insolation season.

BOE events do not happen overnight on Sept 14th but instead will have a long lead-up of increasing areas of low albedo open water, a much better match to peak insolation than mid-Sep dates which don't match at all. More sunlight absorbed means less reflected up and, after cloud and atmospheric processes, less incident sunlight escaping out to space.

The papers under consideration look only at this: heat retained = TOE input - TOE output above 60ºN and attributable to massive sea ice loss.

The three articles do not aspire to represent all downstream aspects nor to compare its impacts to all others; they merely assert it is large and real. If you find scientific errors missed by peer reviewers -- and that happens -- please document specifics. Alternatively, write a separate post based on different articles about your pet effect.
 
The first graphic is taken from a pair of easy-read classics by Perovich, Stroeve and others. They follow the solar insolation distribution during seasonal evolution of the surface, the complement of the Pistone 2019 independent top of atmosphere observations and projections.

Solar partitioning in a changing Arctic sea-ice cover
DK Perovich et al
Annals of Glaciology 52(57) 2011

"The daily values of albedo depend on the local onset dates of melt and freeze-up. The albedo sequence includes melt ponds, assuming they follow an evolution similar to that observed by Perovich and others (2002). Using the method of Markus and others (2009), daily averaged satellite passive microwave temperatures are used to map four onset dates for each grid cell for each year: early melt, full melt, early freeze-up and full freeze-up.

"Briefly, the melt season is determined using temporal changes in brightness temperatures at 37 GHz and temporal changes in the gradient ratio between 19 and 37 GHz

1. Before melt onset the snow albedo is 0.85.
2. At early melt the albedo decreases to 0.81.
3. Starting with full melt, there is a linear decrease to 0.71 in 15 days.
4. For the next 6 days, decrease from 0.70 to 0.50.
5. Albedo decreases by 0.0029 d–1 (but to no less than 0.2).
6. At early freeze-up set albedo to 0.46, representing some ponds freezing.
7. At full freeze-up, albedo increases by 0.026 per day to 0.85."

Increasing solar heating of the Arctic Ocean and adjacent seas, 1979–2005:
DK Perovich et al
Geophys. Res. Lett., 34(19), L19505. (10.1029/2007GL031480.)

The graphical time series will look at incipient fractional BOE: open water in the Arctic Basin at the time of maximum insolation (summer solstice, June 21). There is a surprising amount of open water already on that date and has been for years. However the AMSR2 record used is not long enough to distinguish trend from natural variability. That is a fool's errand anyway if the New Arctic is qualitatively different. However the unweighted locational average is still instructive.

The animation will show open water for the years 2013-20 (since 2012 data starts later). The second graphic will provide the average geographic distribution for open water for eight years on the solstice and later dates. A preliminary version gives the idea.

This average is calculated graphically to sidestep the flawed netCDF. Select open water blue in each year and color it 240 white (out of 256 pure white). If every year has open water at a given pixel location, then all the pixels will be 240 and the average atoo in the output graphic. If 7 years are open water, then 7/8 or 210 is the output, and so on down to 1/8 yielding 30, not quite black. 

Thus the average-graphic is strongly but accurately binned into a 8-10 colors (allowing a few extra for land and and pole markers. The image can then be recolored with any discrete palette without disturbing quantitative accuracy.

To weight recent years more heavily, their layer simply needs to be duplicated by the chosen weighting number.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: The Walrus on September 19, 2020, 07:47:13 PM

I think the lack of variability of Summer N80 temperatures, even after decades of global warming, is what makes it such a great marker.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Focean.dmi.dk%2Farctic%2Fplus80n%2Fanoplus80N_summer_winter_engelsk.png&hash=d809e67be96149a19154a4988b9d1e65)

This is air temperatures, but taken so close to the surface that surface conditions mostly dictate the temperatures. When this number departs its long term variability the planet will enter a distinctly different climate regime in the NH.

I believe that the lack of summer warming north of 80 is more than just a result of the ice cover.  The entire Arctic ocean covers 14 million km2.  At minimum, the ice covers ~4 million km2.  That means that over 70% of the ocean is ice free.  That should have some effect on the overall temperature.  But according to the graph, it does not.  Therefore, it must be more an effect of rising concentrations of CO2 and other gases than ice cover.  While the trapping effect of CO2 can be seen easily during the winter months in the graph, there is little trapping effect during the summer months.  The long hours of darkness mean that much heat is lost to the atmosphere, and subsequently, space.  The added CO2 in the atmosphere decreases that loss, and the result is an increase in temperature.  During summer, there are no hours of darkness, so consequently, no heat loss.  The incoming solar radiation is decreased just slightly by the increased concentration of CO2, such that the difference is unapparent in the graph (it may balance the added heat from ocean circulation also).  Further ice loss is not likely to change summer temperatures significantly.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: oren on September 20, 2020, 12:26:24 AM
Walrus, please don't spread nonsense pet theories bordering on denial. Heat is radiated to space in the daytime too, and CO2 does contribute to warming in summer. Temps N of 80 do not cover 14 million km2, and the DMI weighting is further skewed towards the pole. So the region is still refrigerated by sea ice, the loss of which will surely lead to increased summer temperatures.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: oren on September 20, 2020, 12:27:30 AM
A-Team, thank you for the educational posts in this thread.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: The Walrus on September 20, 2020, 02:48:52 AM
Walrus, please don't spread nonsense pet theories bordering on denial. Heat is radiated to space in the daytime too, and CO2 does contribute to warming in summer. Temps N of 80 do not cover 14 million km2, and the DMI weighting is further skewed towards the pole. So the region is still refrigerated by sea ice, the loss of which will surely lead to increased summer temperatures.

Since when is the concept that sunlight warms the earth and it cooks at night a “nonsense pet theory?”  The arctic is covered by more ice in winter, but that does not prevent temperatures from increasing.  You cannot possibly be implying that stating that increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have a greater impact on nighttime heat loss than daytime heating is somehow denialism!  Perhaps you need to read more about how the atmosphere warns the planet and arctic amplification.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: kassy on September 20, 2020, 10:55:43 AM
Temps N of 80 do not cover 14 million km2, and the DMI weighting is further skewed towards the pole.

That is the relevant part. So for now the ice is still there.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: The Walrus on September 20, 2020, 02:45:32 PM
Temps N of 80 do not cover 14 million km2, and the DMI weighting is further skewed towards the pole.

That is the relevant part. So for now the ice is still there.

Yet, temperature changes in Greenland do not support this theory.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5258655/

"The marked warming during February deserves attention and a more detailed investigation of its origin should be made. Since it is observed over large parts of the West coast, it is unlikely that changing sea ice conditions are the main trigger as we assume that the warming would then predominantly affect the stations where the sea ice change occurs. Since both regions with and without seasonal sea ice show this warming signal, we rather assume it is connected to changed atmospheric patterns, asymmetric changes in the north Atlantic oscillation or the Greenland blocking index"
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: kassy on September 20, 2020, 10:28:01 PM
It´s not a theory since we can see the ice there even if it is in bits.

A significant air pressure decrease in September is evident for the 1996–2014 period, which may be linked to delayed sea ice formation.

Which is mainly happening outside the core region of the graph.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: metalreflectslime on September 21, 2020, 07:56:47 AM
How would a BOE cause famines?
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on September 21, 2020, 12:09:11 PM
How would a BOE cause famines?
By changing the wind patterns of the NH and hence the precipitation patterns, thus causing drought and flooding in diverse places and lowering crop production.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: El Cid on September 21, 2020, 12:44:21 PM
How would a BOE cause famines?
By changing the wind patterns of the NH and hence the precipitation patterns, thus causing drought and flooding in diverse places and lowering crop production.

That is the biggest question. Warmth in NH midlatitudes is usually not harmful. Actually, in most places it is beneficial because of a a longer growing season. Huge areas of Canada, Russia and the US will be better for agriculture IF the rains come.
We know that globally there will be more rain with warming, we just don't know where and how much will fall.

I think our best indication for future rain patterns is studying Pliocene climate/biomes/climate conditions. For example here:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2002GC000358

Table 2 lists 72 places, where we have temperature and/or precipitation estimates for the Pliocene warm period, when temperatures were cca 3-5 C higher and there was no Arctic Ice cap. Generally, Europe and North America saw more precipitation, eg. Arizona had savannas , Nevada ponds, marshes, Utah at least 600 mm rain, Europe had more rain than now, etc.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: josh-j on September 21, 2020, 10:31:31 PM
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2002GC000358

Table 2 lists 72 places, where we have temperature and/or precipitation estimates for the Pliocene warm period, when temperatures were cca 3-5 C higher and there was no Arctic Ice cap. Generally, Europe and North America saw more precipitation, eg. Arizona had savannas , Nevada ponds, marshes, Utah at least 600 mm rain, Europe had more rain than now, etc.

While I certainly don't have the knowledge to disagree on this point, I would guess there might be a difference between rainfall within the stable warm period and rainfall during a rapid transition into a warm period.

Its the potential year-to-year unpredictability I'm worried about.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: El Cid on September 22, 2020, 07:27:21 AM
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2002GC000358

Table 2 lists 72 places, where we have temperature and/or precipitation estimates for the Pliocene warm period, when temperatures were cca 3-5 C higher and there was no Arctic Ice cap. Generally, Europe and North America saw more precipitation, eg. Arizona had savannas , Nevada ponds, marshes, Utah at least 600 mm rain, Europe had more rain than now, etc.

While I certainly don't have the knowledge to disagree on this point, I would guess there might be a difference between rainfall within the stable warm period and rainfall during a rapid transition into a warm period.

Its the potential year-to-year unpredictability I'm worried about.

That is an absolutely valid argument
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: KiwiGriff on September 22, 2020, 07:41:41 AM
I am of course in the south
How  ever we seem to be getting wild swings in rain fall
Record wet things die we lost trees due to soggy soil three years ago.
Record dry things die I lost many ten year old tree ferns last year.
You can not plan for a future with such unpredictable weather.
The local ecology can not hope to cope with such swings and neither can human infrastructure.

Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Archimid on September 22, 2020, 09:26:43 AM
Quote
Warmth in NH midlatitudes is usually not harmful. Actually, in most places it is beneficial because of a a longer growing season.

The growing season will not grow longer. It will grow more irregular. More early/late frosts. More early/late heatwaves. More heavy rains and droughts.  More heavy snows and droughts. Less regularity. That is what is happening now, I expect it to increase as we approach a BOE.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: El Cid on September 22, 2020, 09:51:51 AM
Quote
Warmth in NH midlatitudes is usually not harmful. Actually, in most places it is beneficial because of a a longer growing season.

The growing season will not grow longer. It will grow more irregular. More early/late frosts. More early/late heatwaves. More heavy rains and droughts.  More heavy snows and droughts. Less regularity. That is what is happening now, I expect it to increase as we approach a BOE.

That is not the experience of the past 10 years, at least not in Europe. There seems to be no growth in the standard deviation of temperature. Both monthly high and low temperatures are higher. The growing season IS longer. There is a marked change since 2007 for sure but that is a change of general warming.
For example in my country the average last frost date is now earlier by 13 days (2010s vs 1960-1990), the average first frost date is later by 13 days and both monthly minimum and maximum temperatures are higher by 1-3 C. This is true for most of Europe. Not based on anecdotal evidence but on hard data measurements.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Shared Humanity on September 22, 2020, 03:36:39 PM
There is a marked change since 2007 for sure but that is a change of general warming.



Hmmmm...I seem to recall some big event happened in 2007 regarding Arctic Sea ice. Can't quite put my finger on it.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on September 22, 2020, 03:51:40 PM
There is a marked change since 2007 for sure but that is a change of general warming.



Hmmmm...I seem to recall some big event happened in 2007 regarding Arctic Sea ice. Can't quite put my finger on it.

Just one roadmark on a long road.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: The Walrus on September 22, 2020, 03:51:54 PM
Quote
Warmth in NH midlatitudes is usually not harmful. Actually, in most places it is beneficial because of a a longer growing season.

The growing season will not grow longer. It will grow more irregular. More early/late frosts. More early/late heatwaves. More heavy rains and droughts.  More heavy snows and droughts. Less regularity. That is what is happening now, I expect it to increase as we approach a BOE.

That is not the experience of the past 10 years, at least not in Europe. There seems to be no growth in the standard deviation of temperature. Both monthly high and low temperatures are higher. The growing season IS longer. There is a marked change since 2007 for sure but that is a change of general warming.
For example in my country the average last frost date is now earlier by 13 days (2010s vs 1960-1990), the average first frost date is later by 13 days and both monthly minimum and maximum temperatures are higher by 1-3 C. This is true for most of Europe. Not based on anecdotal evidence but on hard data measurements.

A similar observation can be made for the U.S.  While, rainfall has generally increased, the standard deviation has remained constant.

https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-precipitation_.html

A study focusing on just the Midwestern U.S. showed an "increase in the number of heavy precipitation events as well as overall increase in the number of wet days and multiple wet day events."  This trend is exemplified in both the "increased flood risk" and "decreased incidence of drought" as well as "reduced numbers of extreme and exceptional droughts."

http://glisa.umich.edu/media/files/NCA/MTIT_Historical.pdf

The increased precipitation has not been accompanied by an increase in variability.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: El Cid on September 22, 2020, 07:36:59 PM
There is a marked change since 2007 for sure but that is a change of general warming.



Hmmmm...I seem to recall some big event happened in 2007 regarding Arctic Sea ice. Can't quite put my finger on it.

Yes, It is not a coincidence. Europe's weather changed very much after 2007. If you compare before 2007 and after 2007 there is a significant difference. And that difference in temperatures is a higher average but not a higher standard deviation. The weather has gotten warmer but not more volatile. That was my point.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Shared Humanity on September 22, 2020, 09:55:27 PM
There is a marked change since 2007 for sure but that is a change of general warming.



Hmmmm...I seem to recall some big event happened in 2007 regarding Arctic Sea ice. Can't quite put my finger on it.

Yes, It is not a coincidence. Europe's weather changed very much after 2007. If you compare before 2007 and after 2007 there is a significant difference. And that difference in temperatures is a higher average but not a higher standard deviation. The weather has gotten warmer but not more volatile. That was my point.

As I read it, your statement suggests that the marked change after 2007 was not due to far more ice free Arctic Ocean but rather simply general warming. I would argue the marked change is directly related to less ice.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: A-Team on September 22, 2020, 10:23:21 PM
Here is a clearly written August 2020 scientific BOE paper from the modeling community that makes for interesting reading. The focus is paleo, not on the little understood Pliocene but rather the last inter-glacial, as analyzed in HadGEM3 (HadGEM3-GC3.1-N96ORCA1 CMIP6 PMIP4) which is said much improved for its Arctic melt pond treatment (so timely, given the Polarstern's pole photos!). After validation, HadGEM3 is run forward to predict a 2035 BOE with a million sq km threshold for ice free.

The latest Hadley model (with its higher equilibrium climate sensitivity of 5.5K) concludes that the Arctic Ocean was ice-free during much of 130,000–116,000 years before present. Sediment cores (isotopes, Beaufort shelf microfauna, planktonic foraminifera in Arctic cores, ostracodes from the Lomonosov and Morris Jesup Rise) established  long ago that temperatures were 4–5 °C warmer than pre-industrial and sea ice a lot less but previous simulations were missing something and could not reproduce the higher temperatures. That missing something was earlier melt pond albedo loss according to this paper.

The authors duly note a conflict with a new sea-ice proxy IP25 (a branched isoprenoid of 25 carbons) interpreted as evidence of perennial ice cover in the central part of the Arctic Ocean but the applicability here is unclear.

They also write that HadGEM3 mid-latitude temperatures are higher than some proxy records but that the "validation of LIG temperatures outside the Arctic is beyond the scope of this study and suffers from sparse data records'.

The sea-ice loss in August and September is robust and persistent with (non-BOE) sea ice being present in just 2% of the model runs by Aug/Sept. This is due to an oddity of how the earth's orbit affects insolation reaching various latitudes in various months, see attached figure.

"The interglacial top-of-atmosphere radiative flux north of 70°N is 60–75 w/m2 higher than during the pre-industrial 1850in early summer. This increase in incoming radiation is well known and has been applied in previous LIG climate-model simulations. The crucial aspect is to what extent this increase causes additional melt of sea ice. Snow-covered sea ice has a high albedo, so only a small fraction of the additional incoming short-wave radiation flux causes more melting.

"The substantial increase of surface net short-wave flux (with maximum value of around 70 w/m2 in July) is caused by a decrease of surface albedo. In contrast to previous simulations, HadGEM3 includes a physically based melt-pond model, which substantially modifies the ice-albedo feedback. Sea ice melts because of the direct absorption of sunlight and transmission of short-wave radiation through ponded and bare ice to the ocean, which in turn warms. Melt ponds forming in summer months thus contribute to melting sea ice as more radiation reaches the ocean.

"We find that clouds over sea ice play little role in determining LIG − PI anomalies in the surface energy balance of the Arctic region. The contribution from the long-wave radiation to the total energy balance anomalies (computed between 70 and 90°N) is almost zero. Indeed, north of 70°N, the Arctic cloud area fraction is almost identical in the LIG and PI HadGEM3 simulations. Fewer clouds during these summer months allow more solar radiation to reach the ocean.

"In contrast to previous simulations, HadGEM3 includes a physically based melt-pond model, which substantially modifies the albedo feedback. Sea ice melts because of the direct absorption of sunlight and transmission of short-wave radiation through ponded and bare ice to the ocean, which in turn warms. Melt ponds forming in summer months thus contribute to melting sea ice as more radiation reaches the ocean. This relationship is implicated in a faster rate of summer sea-ice melt in HadGEM3 in the LIG than in the PI. In July, most of the LIG sea ice is already melted or has a concentration smaller than 50% . By September, all the LIG sea ice is melted.

"In previous work, the persistence of summer sea ice in the cen- tral Arctic during the LIG was linked to a slowdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). However, over the 200 years of our simulations, the AMOC is almost unchanged between the LIG and PI. Thus, the hypothesized compensating mechanism, by which a reduction in northward oceanic heat transport (owing to a weakening of the AMOC) prevents sea-ice loss in the central Arctic during the LIG13, does not occur.

"the Arctic sea ice in HadGEM3 historical simulations is too thick compared with present-day observations. However, this bias towards thick sea ice in HadGEM3 does not provide protection from complete Arctic summer sea-ice loss during the LIG. Indeed, the transition under LIG insolation into a summer sea-ice-free (zero multiyear ice) state in HadGEM3 takes around five model-years to complete. Once the multiyear sea ice has disappeared in our simulations, it does not return. Over 200 years of simulation, the August and September sea-ice extent exceeds the ice-free threshold of 1 million km2 only in four and five years for September and August resp.

"The ability of the HadGEM3 model to realistically simulate the very warm LIG Arctic climate provides independent support for predictions of ice-free conditions by summer 2035. This should be of huge concern to Arctic communities and climate scientists."

I wanted to look at text annotations of the melt pond code component. However this requires multiple registrations and even license applications. The authors declare all other data is available in the paper and its voluminous Supplementary Information.

Data availability
The CMIP3-6 model data used in this study to compute ECS and ice-free years are available from the Earth System Grid Federation (https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/). The HadCM3 and HadGEM3 model outputs used to support the findings of this study are available from http://gws-access.ceda.ac.uk/public/pmip4/vittoria/CMIP6LIG_ HadGEM3_CMIP3_HadCM3/. The HadGEM3 model outputs prepared for CMIP6 can be found at https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.419 

Code availability
The source code of the HadCM3 model and the HadGEM3 model’s atmospheric component (Unified Model) is available under licence. To apply for a licence, go to http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/modelling-systems/unified-model. JULES is available under licence free of charge; see https://jules-lsm.github.io/. The NEMO model code is available from http://www.nemo-ocean.eu. The model code for CICE can be downloaded from https://code.metoffice.gov.uk/trac/cice/browser.

Sea-ice-free Arctic during the Last Interglacial supports fast future loss  [2035 BOE]
MV Guarino ... J Stroeve D Schroeder D Feltham et al  complementary pdf attached
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0865-2  August 2020

Past evidence supports complete loss of Arctic sea-ice by 2035
British Antarctic Survey August 2020
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200810113216.htm
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: interstitial on September 23, 2020, 06:58:26 AM
Their has been an increase in extreme events. High temperatures extreme rainfall storms etc.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: El Cid on September 23, 2020, 07:55:45 AM
As I read it, your statement suggests that the marked change after 2007 was not due to far more ice free Arctic Ocean but rather simply general warming. I would argue the marked change is directly related to less ice.

We have no argument here SH. Arctic sea ice loss seems to have a very direct effect on NH midlatitudes climate. My argument (based on European data) was only that temperature-variability has not become bigger so far.

***

Modelling results: Great article quoted by A-team but I have little faith in (regional effects based on) climate models since they can not even replicate known Holocene Optimum Europe precipitation patterns and temperatures and can not replicate the Green Sahara - only with very unreal tweaks. Maybe these new models are better than previously, don't know.

***

LIG Arctic sea ice cover: I read studies that (based on paleo data) claimed that the Arctic was mostly ice-free and some that claimed the opposite. Anyway, during the Eemian thermal optimum, studies show warmer temperatures than today in Europe, a treeline moving north by a lot and more precipitation. Europe was covered by forests much further to the north than now possible.

***

intestitial,

I know the popular narrative of growing variability. However, claiming that there will be more extreme  heat days does not mean that variability is higher. Variability is growing if there are more extreme hot AND cold days. That does not seem to be the case. There are more very hot days and less very cold days. That is a significant difference.

As for rain, it is likely that with more energy in the system there will be more extreme rain events but that hasnt happened yet either
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Archimid on September 23, 2020, 10:11:35 AM
Thanks for the link A-team.

Quote
Once the multiyear sea ice has disappeared in our simulations, it does not return.

Yup. Winter ice returns, but Arctic sea ice becomes seasonal all the way to the North Pole. This will change the Northern Hemisphere climate in a geological instant.
 

To El Cid and others:

The "growing season" does not equal summer or "not winter". Growing anything requiere many more variables than just temperatures or the variability of temperatures. All these variables are changing faster as the world warms ( entropy increases) AND as the arctic melts these variables change even faster in the NH.

Even then, global or country temperature variability say nothing about extreme events, in fact the overly broad variables you are using hides extreme events.

Quote
LIG Arctic sea ice cover: I read studies that (based on paleo data) claimed that the Arctic was mostly ice-free and some that claimed the opposite.

A-team's link probably explains it.

Quote
"In previous work, the persistence of summer sea ice in the cen- tral Arctic during the LIG was linked to a slowdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). However, over the 200 years of our simulations, the AMOC is almost unchanged between the LIG and PI. Thus, the hypothesized compensating mechanism, by which a reduction in northward oceanic heat transport (owing to a weakening of the AMOC) prevents sea-ice loss in the central Arctic during the LIG13, does not occur.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: El Cid on September 23, 2020, 01:43:16 PM
The "growing season" does not equal summer or "not winter". Growing anything requiere many more variables than just temperatures or the variability of temperatures. All these variables are changing faster as the world warms ( entropy increases) AND as the arctic melts these variables change even faster in the NH.

That sounds like religion to me ("temperature and precipitation volatility does not matter, a longer growing season does not matter, because there MUST be some variables that portend tragedy for agriculture, although I don't know what"). 

Last time I checked the Eemian probably did have only seasonal ice (BOE!), yet Europe was heavily forested even in Northern Scandinavia where we currently have tundra, and the Sahara was green, so somehow this must have been beneficial for life there. If trees grew very well, it must not have been that terrible I guess.

And no, this is not denialism, this is science. Let's see what happened the last (few times) when we had BOE. Then we can have an idea about the climatic effects of BOE, the title of this thread.

A BOE by itself will not destroy mankind. A hothouse Earth might. That's why we must stop AGW as fast as we can, because we are not just going towards BOE, we are actually rushing towards hothouse Earth. There is a huge difference between the two!
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: interstitial on September 23, 2020, 09:43:25 PM
The average is getting warmer but more extreme events are occurring. Recently Colorado went from record heat to snow in a short time. Plants don't survive things like that very well. If you have drought conditions for months or even a few years than it is followed by a years worth of precipitation in one day. We are used to a planet that slowly transitions through seasons now we get whiplash. On reflection variability may not be the right word for what I mean but it is a huge problem.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: The Walrus on September 23, 2020, 11:23:10 PM
The average is getting warmer but more extreme events are occurring. Recently Colorado went from record heat to snow in a short time. Plants don't survive things like that very well. If you have drought conditions for months or even a few years than it is followed by a years worth of precipitation in one day. We are used to a planet that slowly transitions through seasons now we get whiplash. On reflection variability may not be the right word for what I mean but it is a huge problem.

We may be used to slow transitions, but nature is anything but.  Warming is occurring more strongly at night and during winter, such that diurnal and seasonal changes have been less extreme.  Rainfall has increased also, but it has been accompanied by a decrease in drought, so that farmers have been better able to adjust.  By the way, Colorado is known for its sudden changes.  That was not even a record breaking change.  I think variability is the correct word, and the weather is getting less variable.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: El Cid on September 24, 2020, 08:04:51 AM
The average is getting warmer but more extreme events are occurring. ...
... If you have drought conditions for months or even a few years than it is followed by a years worth of precipitation in one day.

Once again, you would need to prove this. Current data that I have seen has not shown a significant increase in extreme rain events in Europe, has not shown significantly longer drought periods and has not shown  extreme intramonth temperature swings either. I studied data from many European cities.

If we remain scientific, we need to  examine the available data, not anecdotal evidence. I do not see even theoretically why temperature swings would be bigger with a BOE (and I do not see that in data from the 2010s vs the historical average either), although I understand that storm strength and extreme rain events could (and likely will) increase - in theory.

prove me wrong, give us the data, eg on the change of first and last frost dates in the USA, average monthly minima and maxima, number of precipitation days. If I see later first frosts, earlier last frosts, lower minima and at the same time higher maxima for each month and a significant fall in precipitation days for most of the US, then you are right.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: KiwiGriff on September 24, 2020, 09:03:55 AM
Frequency of extreme precipitation increases extensively with event rareness under global warming
G. Myhre, K. Alterskjær, C. W. Stjern, Ø. Hodnebrog, L. Marelle, B. H. Samset, J. Sillmann, N. Schaller, E. Fischer, M. Schulz & A. Stohl
Scientific Reports volume 9, Article number: 16063 (2019)

Abstract
Quote
The intensity of the heaviest extreme precipitation events is known to increase with global warming. How often such events occur in a warmer world is however less well established, and the combined effect of changes in frequency and intensity on the total amount of rain falling as extreme precipitation is much less explored, in spite of potentially large societal impacts. Here, we employ observations and climate model simulations to document strong increases in the frequencies of extreme precipitation events occurring on decadal timescales. Based on observations we find that the total precipitation from these intense events almost doubles per degree of warming, mainly due to changes in frequency, while the intensity changes are relatively weak, in accordance to previous studies. This shift towards stronger total precipitation from extreme events is seen in observations and climate models, and increases with the strength – and hence the rareness – of the event. Based on these results, we project that if historical trends continue, the most intense precipitation events observed today are likely to almost double in occurrence for each degree of further global warming. Changes to extreme precipitation of this magnitude are dramatically stronger than the more widely communicated changes to global mean precipitation.

The increase in the frequency of extreme precipitation, i.e. the number of events per unit time with intensity above a given threshold, has generally received much less attention18,19,20,21. Unlike for intensity changes, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) gave no quantitative estimates of frequency changes22. Recent analyses of observations over Europe4,23 and over the US23,24,25,26 however show a substantial frequency increase. Here, we analyse a comprehensive data set of changes in the total amount of water falling as extreme precipitation, quantifying the contributions from changes in the intensity and the frequency, and including both observed and simulated precipitation. We investigate events that are rarer than those used in earlier studies, and find larger changes in the total amount of extreme precipitation than has been previously quantified.

To illustrate how changes to the total extreme precipitation are affected by both frequency and intensity, Fig. 1a shows a conceptualized probability density function (PDF) of daily precipitation corresponding to a reference surface air temperature (purple line), compared to one with a higher surface air temperature (orange). The increase in the intensity of heavy precipitation is illustrated by the horizontal blue arrow; the increase in frequency as the vertical green arrow. If we define “extreme” precipitation to be any event above a certain percentile, as illustrated by the dotted vertical line, Fig. 1a demonstrates that the total change in extreme precipitation amounts depends on changes to both intensity and frequency.

(https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41598-019-52277-4/MediaObjects/41598_2019_52277_Fig1_HTML.png)

Further.
Heavy precipitation in Europe.
Not a file format that i can link to directly here please go to website.
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/precipitation-extremes-in-europe-3/assessment#:~:text=The%20intensity%20of%20heavy%20precipitation,eastern%20Europe%20since%20the%201960s.&text=Heavy%20precipitation%20events%20are%20likely,and%20eastern%20Europe%20in%20winter.
Observed trends in maximum annual five-day consecutive precipitation in winter and summer.




 

Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Archimid on September 24, 2020, 09:45:48 AM
That sounds like religion to me ("temperature and precipitation volatility does not matter, a longer growing season does not matter, because there MUST be some variables that portend tragedy for agriculture, although I don't know what").

No. It is merely a matter of precise words. The "growing season" requieres a host of elements other than temperature.

Global warming is much worse for its climate change than for its warming.

Quote
Last time I checked the Eemian probably did have only seasonal ice (BOE!), yet Europe was heavily forested even in Northern Scandinavia where we currently have tundra, and the Sahara was green, so somehow this must have been beneficial for life there. If trees grew very well, it must not have been that terrible I guess.

Your understanding of the time frames involved and the order of events is terribly mixed up.

The eemian warming happenned over centuries and the cooling happenned over millenia.

They were heavy forests in scandinavia AFTER hundreds of years after the warming happenned. It takes centuries to grow  thick forests but they can burn in an instant. So to an outside observer observing the woods that formed over millenia and applying them to human timescales it would look as if "it must not have been that terrible".

Quote
And no, this is not denialism, this is science. Let's see what happened the last (few times) when we had BOE. Then we can have an idea about the climatic effects of BOE, the title of this thread.

No you are talking nonsense by using events that took place over millenia and applying it to a BOE, an event that happens over decades.

Quote
A BOE by itself will not destroy mankind. A hothouse Earth might. That's why we must stop AGW as fast as we can, because we are not just going towards BOE, we are actually rushing towards hothouse Earth. There is a huge difference between the two!

Absolutely wrong. Climate change is worse for its changes in climate than for the rise in temperatures. One of those changes that will mark a change in climatic regime is a BOE.

Before a hothouse get us, the changes in weather, hydrology, fauna, flora and microbial life will.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: El Cid on September 24, 2020, 10:15:40 AM
Further.
Heavy precipitation in Europe.
Not a file format that i can link to directly here please go to website.
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/precipitation-extremes-in-europe-3/assessment#:~:text=The%20intensity%20of%20heavy%20precipitation,eastern%20Europe%20since%20the%201960s.&text=Heavy%20precipitation%20events%20are%20likely,and%20eastern%20Europe%20in%20winter.
Observed trends in maximum annual five-day consecutive precipitation in winter and summer.

This is not bad Kiwi but all this shows is the maximum five-day consecutive precipitation. Lots of rain is not necessarily a problem. There is plenty of rain in rainforests as well and plants grow well (I bet that NZ five-day cons.precipitation is at least double of Europe). That by itself is no problem. Besides. The EEA charts show basically no change in concentrated winter precipitation and only small growth in summer. This won't stop us from growing food.

Mind you, in the 80s no corn was grown in Poland and Russia because it was too cold (they grew wheat and rye back then). Now Poland and Ukraine are major corn producers. Russian grain production went across the roof. Summer rains probably help too.  Grain yields increased in the 2010s globally as well:
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Archimid on September 24, 2020, 10:55:34 AM
Quote
here is plenty of rain in rainforests as well and plants grow well

  Can we talk about the diversity of plant life and the type of plant that grow in each region? Or how about the time it takes to grow a tree vs  the time it takes to burn a tree?

Or forget about plants. Lets talk about how long it takes to create a forest vs how fast it can burn.

Maybe let's forget about the natural world and focus exclusively on the plants we grow. Why are there "zones" for growing? Why is wheat not grown in the the tropics? Why are mangoes not grown in the Arctic?

How do managed crops react to large changes in the flow of rivers?

Nah. You are glazing over the meat and bones of the problem with a blanket generalization that "the growing season " grows. That generalization is wrong.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on September 24, 2020, 11:24:29 AM
Intuitively I would think daily temperature swings in the Arctic would decrease if it is sea as opposed to ice, from the thermal inertia of water. Of course, intuition is seldom accurate in complex science like climate.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: kassy on September 24, 2020, 01:28:45 PM
That sounds like religion to me ("temperature and precipitation volatility does not matter, a longer growing season does not matter, because there MUST be some variables that portend tragedy for agriculture, although I don't know what").

No. It is merely a matter of precise words. The "growing season" requieres a host of elements other than temperature.


But it is the main driver. If it´s above 6 or 8 C for a while the plants start waking up for spring.
Of course if you live further south where it does not freeze there might be different definitions in use.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: kassy on September 24, 2020, 01:37:08 PM
Intuitively I would think daily temperature swings in the Arctic would decrease if it is sea as opposed to ice, from the thermal inertia of water. Of course, intuition is seldom accurate in complex science like climate.

Polar day and polar night work a bit differently...it´s not diurnal.

Also the DMI 80N chart shows that ice keeps temps pegged so that means the ice keeps temperatures stable.

We´ll know more in a decade.  ;)
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: The Walrus on September 24, 2020, 04:34:24 PM
Intuitively I would think daily temperature swings in the Arctic would decrease if it is sea as opposed to ice, from the thermal inertia of water. Of course, intuition is seldom accurate in complex science like climate.

Your intuition is supported by the data.  The last few winters have been almost 4C above average, while there has been little temperature change during the summer. 
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Archimid on September 24, 2020, 09:58:46 PM

But it is the main driver. If it´s above 6 or 8 C for a while the plants start waking up for spring.
Of course if you live further south where it does not freeze there might be different definitions in use.

Down at 18N the growing season begins now. It is hot outside, but it rains almost every afternoon, dousing the heat and preparing the soil for next morning growth spurt. If it doesn't rain it is so hot that many plants wilt, even if watered. They recover, but you can tell they are hurting.

Over the next few months temperatures will become very nice and humidity will drop to something similar to what you call "growing season". The plants will get less sunlight but still get a solid 10 hours with comfortable 25C weather and occasional ocean driven showers.

Believe it or not, my exposure to the consequances of a BOE will likely be less than people living much further North.

Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Tony Mcleod on September 25, 2020, 06:32:00 AM
Intuitively I would think daily temperature swings in the Arctic would decrease if it is sea as opposed to ice, from the thermal inertia of water. Of course, intuition is seldom accurate in complex science like climate.

Your intuition is supported by the data.  The last few winters have been almost 4C above average, while there has been little temperature change during the summer.
That has nothing to do with the thermal inertia of water, its about melting ice. Where there is still ice to melt there will be little temperature rise above 0C.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: El Cid on September 25, 2020, 08:15:31 AM

Your intuition is supported by the data.  The last few winters have been almost 4C above average, while there has been little temperature change during the summer.

Well, that is only true for the heavily skewed and therefore not really relevant DMI 80N temp data. For the broader Arctic, summers are egetting warmer, just like winters:
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Archimid on September 25, 2020, 09:19:22 AM
How is DMI N80 heavily skewed?
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: blu_ice on September 25, 2020, 09:47:29 AM
Down at 18N the growing season begins now. It is hot outside, but it rains almost every afternoon, dousing the heat and preparing the soil for next morning growth spurt. If it doesn't rain it is so hot that many plants wilt, even if watered. They recover, but you can tell they are hurting.

Over the next few months temperatures will become very nice and humidity will drop to something similar to what you call "growing season". The plants will get less sunlight but still get a solid 10 hours with comfortable 25C weather and occasional ocean driven showers.

Believe it or not, my exposure to the consequances of a BOE will likely be less than people living much further North.

At your location main bottleneck for growth is water.  At high latitudes it is temperature and (lack of) sunlight. This means temperature increase will extend the growing season.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: SteveMDFP on September 25, 2020, 01:29:50 PM
How is DMI N80 heavily skewed?

As I understand it, not all areas N of 80 are equally weighted in their "average."  Weighting increases as you approach the pole.  I can't fathom why it was set up this way.  But having started with this algorithm, it needs to be continued to enable direct year-to-year comparisons.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: The Walrus on September 25, 2020, 01:39:54 PM
How is DMI N80 heavily skewed?

As I understand it, not all areas N of 80 are equally weighted in their "average."  Weighting increases as you approach the pole.  I can't fathom why it was set up this way.  But having started with this algorithm, it needs to be continued to enable direct year-to-year comparisons.

It was done to relate temperature to equal measures of latitude, instead of area.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: The Walrus on September 25, 2020, 01:52:39 PM

Your intuition is supported by the data.  The last few winters have been almost 4C above average, while there has been little temperature change during the summer.

Well, that is only true for the heavily skewed and therefore not really relevant DMI 80N temp data. For the broader Arctic, summers are egetting warmer, just like winters:

Even the broader definition shows much more warming in winter than summer.  From your graph, winters warmed from ~-1C in the 1950s to ~2.5C in the 2010s, an increase of 3.5C.  Conversely, the summers warmed from ~025C to ~1.25C, an increase of 1C.  Your graph also excludes the temperature increase of the early twentieth century, which would eliminate that rise.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/article/17/20/4045/30396/The-Early-Twentieth-Century-Warming-in-the-Arctic
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Archimid on September 25, 2020, 02:10:16 PM
It was a trick question. N80 is weighted more heavily towards the north pole than the outer latitudes. This "skewness" makes N80 an outstanding marker for  the most central, most northern Arctic.

Air temperatures 2 meters above the surface of the ice, averaged over N80, weighted more heavily towards the North Pole.

DMI N80 and is the "heart" of the Arctic.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: kassy on September 25, 2020, 02:35:28 PM
Even the broader definition shows much more warming in winter than summer.

And that is because the remaining Arctic ice has a damping effect on summer temps.
Toms question mentions daily temperature swings which don´t really work there (compare summer and winter solstice f.e.).

When the ice is gone the central arctic temps will jump up.

I think that if you interpret the cycle on a year it will become more equal because it is all water.

If you look at actual daily temperature swings in the future at the pole well i don´t know but since Arctic ice was such a strong control on temps i will play for bigger. Now all we need is to wait some years.

Another open question is what the big scale weather will be like without arctic ice. I bet that is going to be really interesting.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on September 25, 2020, 04:55:28 PM
Is that “interesting” in the Chinese sense, kassy?
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: oren on September 26, 2020, 12:58:33 AM
DMI N80 is weighted by latitude rather than by area. So the circle 89-90 gets the same weight as the 80-81 belt, which has an area 19 times larger. Badly skewed.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Archimid on September 26, 2020, 07:45:02 AM
Badly skewed towards exactly the right direction one wants if one is trying to get a snapshot of the "heart" of the Arctic.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: El Cid on September 26, 2020, 09:05:49 AM
Another open question is what the big scale weather will be like without arctic ice. I bet that is going to be really interesting.

That is the gazillion dollar question. Will there be a rearrangement of NH atmospheric circulation without the ice? And if so, then how? Noone knows the answer.

I still say that Greenland will take the role of the Central Arctic, as Greenland will stay a bastion of ice for centuries to come (due to inertia and 100s of meters of ice there)
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: A-Team on September 26, 2020, 10:42:54 AM
Quote
I cannot fathom why DMI 80N was set up so biased
Me either. Terrible idea. Ever look at their own description?

"Since the data are gridded, it is straightforward to deduce the average temperature North of 80 degree North. However, since the model is gridded in a regular 0.5 degree grid, the mean
temperature values are strongly biased towards the temperature in the most northern part of the Arctic! Therefore, do NOT use this measure as an actual physical mean temperature of the arctic."

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/documentation/arctic_mean_temp_data_explanation_newest.pdf

In other words, the lat lon grid is a completely inappropriate choice of coordinate system here unfit for purpose but the global data came that way so they foolishly used it rather than take a moment to re-grid. A biased average, dependent on coordinate system choice, is scientifically unacceptable, perhaps explaining why DMI 80N analysis has never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal.

Denmark has 5.8m people, a quarter of Los Angeles. What can be expected?

It is merely a ECMWF reanalysis product called ERA40 that you can get anywhere for any place on earth (eg the whole Arctic Ocean basin) as a colored time series map (2D+T data) for the same time span of years. If what you want is ice surface temperature variation or ice temperature profile with thickness, we have satellites and buoy thermistor chains for that.

In the bigger picture, it is a poor idea to believe the state of the Arctic Ocean can be reduced to single numbers. This made some sense in the pre-computer age when journals had minimal ability to dot print even b/w graphics and simple pre-spreadsheet tasks like averaging were tedious. However today analysis of 2D+T displays is preferable as all information is retained, unlike with the single number approach 0D+T.

There's another issue here called pipeline immortality. Once a product algorithm is set up to run unattended, no matter how flawed, that's what it does. The project automator may have moved on or even died but, as long as the institutional electric bill is paid, the daily product continues to be served indefinitely from some nook or cranny in storage. Someone has to actively intervene to take it down. However inaction is a whole lot easier. Innocents come along later on the internet and are duped.

The 2m amsl level is by far the least accurate atmospheric choice because of topographic effects of rough ice on wind and boundary layer. Ask yourself how many instruments exist offshore actually measuring it for assimilation, typically none. How many 80º+ weather stations on land: 4-5 and diminishing. The Polarstern does not measure it; their mast is at 36m. It is model-driven assumption, not observation.

The case cannot be made that north pole is somehow the "heart" of the Arctic Ocean. It's representative of it in any way becing such an asymmetric basin, both at current sea level and for continental shelf bathymetry. The ice is not centered there at any time of year, the cold pole is not centered there, the geographic center of the the ocean is not there, the last remnant ice will not be located anywhere near it. (In 2016 it was already open water; see Jim H's photo.)

DMI 80 is an inappropriate product for detecting climactic impacts of incipient BOE (this forum) because it leaves out so much of the open water of the excluded ESS, Chukchi, Beaufort and Laptev where the insolation of large area, low albedo early open water counts the most. The low area NP region is where it matters least because of the lower angle longer path through the atmosphere and poor match to peak insolation even when it is melt pond (this year) or open water.

Thus the Bering Strait is at 65.9º which is 1,234 ignored km below 80º, causing a whole lot of Arctic Ocean to be left out. Meanwhile 80º north is tainted by its inclusion of the anomalous localized area impacted by incoming Atlantic Waters.

The slides below show the highly variable 80th parallel enclosure on Sept 15 for the years 2012-20. The bottom image shows how poorly this enclosure characterizes actual basin percentages of land, water, ice on that date.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Tor Bejnar on September 26, 2020, 08:20:29 PM
Great post, A-Team.
In the last graphic, it looks like about 75% ice and 25% water within 80N (ignoring land).  I presume the boxed percentages are derived from the entire rectangular graphic (not 80N), and therefore shows that "80N" just isn't a reasonable representation of the Arctic.  ["But what about the CAA?" I hear someone complain.  :)]

Why doesn't somebody make an easily accessed daily Arctic surface Temp website with a 'more reasonable' set of boundaries (etc.)?  If we had that, we wouldn't go to DMI. [Ideas:  ~85N equal area [where solar gain is minimal at the equinoxes), entire Arctic Ocean sea surface, a 10^6 km2 circle selected as being the mostly likely area to find ice in mid-September over the past decade)]

It's like atmospheric CO2 data from Mauna Loa, Hawaii.  It's not representative of the world, but it's not bad and the continuous record is worth a lot.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Archimid on September 26, 2020, 08:26:26 PM
Quote
I cannot fathom why DMI 80N was set up so biased
Me either. Terrible idea. Ever look at their own description?

I do. I think they were trying to capture the most central arctic but with small effects added at the lower latitudes.  I like to think of it as heavy center weight that fades as it reaches lower latitudes.

"Since the data are gridded, it is straightforward to deduce the average temperature North of 80 degree North. However, since the model is gridded in a regular 0.5 degree grid, the mean
temperature values are strongly biased towards the temperature in the most northern part of the Arctic! Therefore, do NOT use this measure as an actual physical mean temperature of the arctic."



Good thing we are not taking it as an actual physical mean temperature of the arctic. We are using it as a marker for oceanic vs desert conditions above the Arctic.
 

Quote
In the bigger picture, it is a poor idea to believe the state of the Arctic Ocean can be reduced to single numbers.


If there was one single number that could represent a state change of the Arctic is temperatures close to the surface very close to the North Pole. I can't think of a better one. That said, I agree that a simple number is not nearly enough to explain the event and its consequences.

Quote
There's another issue here called pipeline immortality.

I'm not defending any particular research group. I'm defending the concept that temperatures near the ocean/atmosphere interface, near the pole, during the summer, will be a very good indicator of when a tipping point in Arctic Sea Ice and world climate has occured.

Exactly how that temperature is calculated is up for debate, but I think DMI's tradeoffs are particularly excellent to mark the departure of the Arctic from cold frozen desert to open, relatively "warm"ocean.

Like I said before, these temperatures are fixed to the ice during summer. When temperatures depart variability it means that the ice is not serving its function as the NH refrigerator. This concept is independent from research groups or model vs observation or methodology.

Quote
The case cannot be made that north pole is somehow the "heart" of the Arctic Ocean.

The incident radiation of the Sun upon Earth is the ultimate driving force behind all the climate on Earth.  That radiation hits the Earth that spins around it's own axis, a day/night cycle. The Earth is also tilted 23.5 degrees from the plane of its orbit around the sun with the North Pole and the South Pole as the pivot points and global minimums for global insolation. This creates the winter/summer cycle.

The north pole is the darkest point in the NH, where the light of the sun is gone first and arrives last. The poles are global extremes.

I think that's a good case to call the latitudes N80 the heart of the Arctic.

Quote
DMI 80 is an inappropriate product for detecting climactic impacts of incipient BOE (this forum) because it leaves out so much of the open water of the excluded ESS, Chukchi, Beaufort and Laptev where the insolation of large area, low albedo early open water counts the most.


I believe the opposite. All the seas you mention are already seasonally ice free. Any measure of temperature that includes the regions mentioned above would be affected by the "noise of those seasonally ice free regions. Temperatures N80 excludes those regions. N80 has very likely been mostly ice-covered since the eemian.

Quote
The low area NP region is where it matters least because of the lower angle longer path through the atmosphere and poor match to peak insolation even when it is melt pond (this year) or open water.

For the topic of climatic consequences, the long term permanence of ice cover and relative non-variance of temperatures of air above the surface is what matters most.

Since the Eemian, the air above N80 has been a relatively fixed size during summer due to the presence of ice.  A BOE will change the size of the air above by virtue of warming the air above to levels that have not happenned since the eemian.
A BOE has two main compoents. 

1. Albedo
2. Enthalphy of fusion.

Temperatures will increase not just because there is less albedo, they will increase because there is no ice to melt so not only there will be more albedo, but all the energy that goes to melt ice will go to warm the water, which in turn will warm the atmosphere above all the way up to space, increasing it's size.

This changes the gradients of atmospheric and changes pattern that have been basically unchanged for thousands of years.

Quote
Thus the Bering Strait is at 65.9º which is 1,234 ignored km below 80º, causing a whole lot of Arctic Ocean to be left out. Meanwhile 80º north is tainted by its inclusion of the anomalous localized area impacted by incoming Atlantic Waters.

But being skewed towards the North minimizes Atlantic water influences. If Atlantification occurs   N80 surface temperatures will shoot up.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: oren on September 27, 2020, 09:48:41 AM
Archimid, all that your reply to A-Team's excellent post achieved is explain why the biased and non-physical DMI N80 product will be a severely lagging indicator. When BOE arrives we will have plenty of indicators, one more of those is not overly interesting except it would make for a good headline. What should be more interesting are leading indicators marking the Arctic transition as it occurs.

I do see the merit of single numbers (0D+T) as easy to chew on indicators for non-scientists, but at least these numbers should be constructed properly. Following on from Tor:
* North of 85 2m temps.
* North of 85 850 HPA temps.
* Arctic Basin (non-land) 2m temps.
* Arctic Basin (non-land) 850 HPA temps.
* Siberian land/island stations north of 70 and within 50km of the Arctic ocean (Kara to ESS, Chukchi, CAB), surface temps.
* North American land/island stations north of 70 and within 50km of the Arctic ocean (Chukchi, Beaufort, CAA, CAB), surface temps.

All the above of course, averaged and weighted properly.

Like Sep minimum extent, these single numbers will not capture the complexity of the Arctic and will not tell the whole story. But they could be useful as a popular indicator with a long history.
I still hope "someone with a website" will take some of these up.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Archimid on September 27, 2020, 10:16:25 AM
Quote
DMI N80 product will be a severely lagging indicator.

Yes, it will be. That is why is such a great marker to mark a BOE and a great starting point to theorize about consequences of a BOE. I have made no claim of its predictive power, in fact, I have been very clear that if that number departs summer variability it will be too late.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: kassy on September 27, 2020, 11:19:18 PM
Another open question is what the big scale weather will be like without arctic ice. I bet that is going to be really interesting.

That is the gazillion dollar question. Will there be a rearrangement of NH atmospheric circulation without the ice? And if so, then how? Noone knows the answer.

I still say that Greenland will take the role of the Central Arctic, as Greenland will stay a bastion of ice for centuries to come (due to inertia and 100s of meters of ice there)

I am not sure just Greenland is the same as the old Arctic system + Greenland. Wayne used to write about the cold poles moving around. One was usually on Greenland and the other(s) moved over the ice or where on it. The connection to the siberian side has broken and the cold pole also cannot be on the central arctic anymore so this opens up the siberian side to more long range connections.

Yes Greenland will stay cold for a bit but that is just not the same as the system staying the same when we lose the central arctic ice.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: A-Team on September 27, 2020, 11:55:05 PM
"do NOT use this measure as an actual physical mean temperature -- DMI"

Quote
Tor asks: it looks like about 75% ice and 25% water within 80N (ignoring land).  I presume the boxed percentages are derived from the entire rectangular graphic (not 80N), and therefore shows that "80N" just isn't a reasonable representation of the Arctic.
That's correct. We are well over half way to a full-on BOE restricted to the Arctic Ocean proper, with 55% open water and 45% ice using NSIDC's standard end of season, 15 Sep 2020 (first image below). There is still insolation on the open water today but it's inconsequential in September.

The problem is, there's a surprising amount of open water even before summer solstice peaks on June 20th. Gerontocrat posted to the melt forum the key sine-like graphic that furnishes the bottom-of-atmosphere heat input to each high latitude, with the peripheral basin seas getting hit harder earlier, the idea being to weight the weekly open water areas by the weekly heat input graph. I provided that rainbow tool for doing this on that same forum.

One aspect of Arctic Amplification is higher open water percentages creeping back earlier in the season, thus better matching the insolation season and worsening reflection back out to space. It's not easy though to take clouds and adjacent land albedo into consideration but that was done in the trillion tons of Co2e and 2035 first BOE papers above. People have also wondered if increasing fog and rain-on-snow are additional unfavorable feedbacks:
 
Trends and spatial variation in rain-on-snow events over the Arctic Ocean during early melt season
T Dou et al
https://tc.copernicus.org/preprints/tc-2020-214/

"Rain-on-snow (ROS) events can accelerate the surface ablation of sea ice, thus greatly influencing the ice-albedo feedback. However, the variability of ROS events over the Arctic Ocean is poorly understood due to limited historical station data in this region. In this study early melt season ROS events were investigated based on four widely-used reanalysis products (ERA-Interim, JRA-55, MERRA2 and ERA5) in conjunction with available observations at Arctic coastal stations.

The performance of the reanalysis products in representing the timing of ROS events and the phase change of precipitation was assessed. Our results show that ERA-Interim better represents the onset date of ROS events in spring and ERA5 better represents the phase change of precipitation associated with ROS events.

All reanalyses indicate that ROS event timing has shifted to earlier dates in recent decades (with maximum trends up to −4 to −6 days/decade in some regions in ERA-Interim), and that sea ice melt onset in the Pacific sector and most of the Eurasian marginal seas is correlated with this shift."

The graphic in #208 is done with a rectangular crop mask that works for almost all Arctic Ocean data products. It does pick up a portion of the Bering Sea that often has ice via its transport coupling with the Chukchi as well as some CAA but not much of the Kara, Barents or Greenland seas (those crops are just corner extensions retaining 'Greenland down').

The coastline being rather irregular, it takes a detailed google earth polygon to reproducibly specify the many lat lon coordinates of the AO basin mask. I've posted that editable .kml  before and have attached it again.

On the AMSR2_AWI mask, different days or years are layered into a stack, the light blue and gold mask applied, leaving the color picker tool free to count the pixels of open water and ice (of all concentrations). The latter pixels are the inverse of the combined selection of gold, light blue, and dark blue. If the color radius is increased, more of the concentration palette is picked, increasing the pixel count; however not by much.

The 80N product has no applicability to anything before its three errors are fixed: incorrect masking, false thermodynamic reasoning about non-laminar (turbulent) 2m flow of 7m/s, and non-utilization of one-click weighted zonal averaging. Some time back, the ice season moderator booted the 80N posts off to their own forum (with solar cycle collapses and sudden ice ages) to give yhe angle trisectors unlimited space of their own (if only they would use it!). For what it's worth, this is in line with US case law (Judge Posner's 1995 ruling):

"A crank is a person inexplicably obsessed by an obviously unsound idea—a person with a bee in his bonnet. To call a person a crank is to say that because of some quirk of temperament he is wasting his time pursuing a line of thought that is plainly without merit or promise … to say a person a crank is just a colorful way of expressing disagreement and it therefore belongs to the language of controversy rather than to the language of defamation."
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: El Cid on September 28, 2020, 08:28:13 AM
...
I still say that Greenland will take the role of the Central Arctic, as Greenland will stay a bastion of ice for centuries to come (due to inertia and 100s of meters of ice there)

I am not sure just Greenland is the same as the old Arctic system + Greenland.
...
Yes Greenland will stay cold for a bit but that is just not the same as the system staying the same when we lose the central arctic ice.
I am not saying that it would be the same as the "old system", but even it is worth noting that even after a BOE there will be plenty of ice  in the Arctic (=Greenland). How that new cold pole will rearrange the atmospheric circulation is anyone's guess.
Any research on that  would be very interesting
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Archimid on September 28, 2020, 10:05:57 AM
A BOE != an Ice Free Arctic.

Ice free arctic = less than a million square kilometers of ice on the Arctic ocean

BOE = a departure of the long term variability of summer temperatures right above the surface of the central arctic ocean.


If the ice reaches less than a million km2  in mid September, temperatures above the surface will not increase much for long, they might even drop significantly.

However, if by July/Aug temperatures N80 depart natural variability and warm up it will mean that there is no ice and albedo plus enthalpy are changing the state of the atmosphere above the most central Arctic.

This will change hydrologic cycles in a geological instant, even if it takes a few years. This is abrupt climate change.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Shared Humanity on September 28, 2020, 04:04:33 PM
Thank you A-Team. I never fail to learn things from your posts.
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: metalreflectslime on November 13, 2020, 12:26:05 PM
Will a BOE destroy soil?
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on November 13, 2020, 12:40:52 PM
Will a BOE destroy soil?
My uneducated guess...
No, not directly. Possibly through some indirect effect.
Anyone with a better educated guess?
Title: Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
Post by: El Cid on November 13, 2020, 01:14:27 PM
Will a BOE destroy soil?

Why and how would it?

Soil is mostly destroyed by human activities unfortunately (industrial agriculture, tillage, etc). We have the solution to these problems though (regenerative agriculture) but implementation is way too slow