Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - VeliAlbertKallio

Pages: [1] 2 3
Arctic Background / Re: Whose data is wrong?
« on: September 22, 2017, 03:05:13 PM »
I have been away, will respond in due course to various valid points raised. As with many others, I am busy with my research grant applications related work (many deadlines in September) and also in conducting research and meeting leaders. I've also given job refs and got NGO nominees jobs.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: September 04, 2017, 02:08:17 AM »
Around Antarctica scattering of pulverized and transported sea ice helps its rapid re-growth. In this sense Arctic has become not too dissimilar. So, I expect easy re-joining and growth from the loose pieces of ice... ::)
I'm with oren on this one.
If an early refreeze occurs (and the slush on the ice edge suggests so) then the minimum will be early, not late.

It's nice that you think that if event A occurs, unrelated event B will also occur.  It's more interesting if you explain a causal link between the two events.

Fair enough, cesium.
The thought was that there are many pixels in the north-of-ESS area that are ice free, and these pixels will freeze over quickly once re-freezing starts. If that's early, there will be an early minimum, and if that starts late, the minimum will be late. But I admit that the causal link is not that strong.

Arctic Background / Re: Whose data is wrong?
« on: August 30, 2017, 12:06:05 AM »
The sliding GrIS ice slabs minimum thickness is determined as follows [1,085 m - 126 m] / 0.87]) =  1,110 metres (where 1,085 m is the water depth on IPM's keel marks, 126 m is the sea level minimum, and 0.87(*) is the ratio of GrIS ice to sea water). The Davis Strait sill appears to be a constricting southern entry at 700 metres, therefore, leaving the likeliest sourcing of these collapsed ice sheet slabs (ice islands) to be from Greenland or the Hudson Strait regions.

Abstract During a recent (2006) cruise of RV ‘Dana’ high resolution side-scan sonar and sub-bottom profiling was carried out on selected shelf and slope transects offshore Disko Bugt, central West Greenland. Available commercial seismic data from the margin indicate here irregular seabed morphology with erosional features locally extending down to c. 1100 m water depth. The newly acquired side-scan sonar data reveal the presence of giant iceberg plow marks extending (sub)parallel to the slope between about 800 and 1085 m water depth. The height difference between bottom of the scours and rim crest is up to 40 m. The largest plow marks are about 750 m wide. To date no observed modern icebergs including those from Antarctica have drafts in excess of c. 500 m. Taking into account maximum glacial sea level lowering of c. 120 m, the paleo-iceberg keel depth was at least 950 m. Due to the presence of the relatively shallow (b700 m) sill of Davis Strait to the south, calving of these paleo-icebergs is thought to have occurred from an ice margin in the Baffin Bay region (Jakobshavn Isbræ paleo-ice stream?). The depth of occurrence (N1000 m) and dimensions of the plow marks are concluded to be exceptional, and comparable to glacial scouring features reported from the Arctic Ocean.

A. Kuijpers, F. Dalhoff, M.P. Brandt, P. Hümbs, T. Schott, A. Zotova: "Giant iceberg plow marks at more than 1 km water depth offshore West Greenland", Marine Geology 246 (2007) 60–64. Elsevier.


Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 28, 2017, 05:15:20 PM »
"Why would you assume anyone at NSIDC would correct any model? If they changed some model they a) would have published that and b) they would recalculate all previous data also, so a change of models would not start somewhere in between years, that just wouldn't make any sense. The point of those SIE numbers is, that you have a *consistent* record of SIE over multiple decades."

This is the very point the Republican Party policy advisors made recommending for scrapping of F20 satellite as this would help Donald Trump and Congress to cite that the ice measurements are discontinuous, and thus provide inconsistent SIE numbers when once the opportunity rose as F17 failed and F19 too, with nothing to fill the data gap when F18 falters. To help further the cause of uncertainties and discontinuities, the government decided to scrap F20 to break the SIE series.  ;D

Model correction .... or the slippery slope?
The former I think.
Why would you assume anyone at NSIDC would correct any model? If they changed some model they a) would have published that and b) they would recalculate all previous data also, so a change of models would not start somewhere in between years, that just wouldn't make any sense. The point of those SIE numbers is, that you have a *consistent* record of SIE over multiple decades.

The NSIDC numbers are not here to show you some predefined goal, to which SIE should drop and someone is monitoring that and thinks "ice extent is a little slow this year, so just change something in the algorithm". NSIDC extent numbers just show you every day what the ice extent numbers are, calculated from the same satellite data using the same algorithm...

Arctic Background / Re: Whose data is wrong?
« on: August 28, 2017, 04:51:23 PM »
OK. I agree with you this time what you say here.

I have also wondered if there was possibly a tall ice dome section sitting over the Disco Island, but then this may still have the problem how the ice carved northern and southern passage ways round Disco if it were just local ice pile "falling off". The Disco Island formations suggest me that there was a wider infeed of ice across a broad exit front - similar to the Hudson Strait and the Melville Bay broad and flat exits. As per the isostatic rebound across the Melville Bay front, note the image of 2010 anomaly how sensitive that isostatic rise is to weather events like snow or rain accumulation v. off-loading by melt. There will be a tipping point where this reverses as slushy, water-infested ice begins to pack against the Melville Bay. In fact, the rise changes year-on-year.

I'll take time to list all references carefully, and also take some screen prints which can be discussed as I also have unanswered questions rising from them. I am very afraid of blue ocean.

Please post the references/citations here please, of course only published research will do. No need to have secret papers on shady hard disks :P

There was a lot more ice around at the end of the last ice age than now, including now extinct ice sheets. Therefore it's not surprising to me that bigger icebergs were being created. If you think there's a threat please show the references...

Arctic Background / Re: Whose data is wrong?
« on: August 28, 2017, 03:57:04 PM »
Hi Nukefix, I have been offering the references but you are not emailing me to get these articles or been citing them through your own library resources. How can there be a dialogue if you do not even bother reading the science papers I am talking about?

"The most likely source area for this extreme deep-draft type of iceberg is inferred to be southern Greenland. Plowmark direction, which in our case indicates iceberg entrainment by the North Atlantic Current, is suggested to be a useful indicator of (sub)surface paleo-circulation during late Pleistocene iceberg surging and deglaciation episodes." Antoon Kuijpers & Friedrich Werner: Extremely deep-draft iceberg scouring in the glacial North Atlantic Ocean; Geo-Mar Lett (2007) 27:383–389, DOI 10.1007/s00367-007-0059-1.

My question to you was:

Where do you see 1km and taller ice slabs coming out of Greenland as happened the last time there was a warming in Greenland? Where you place their source in Greenland Ice Sheet?
You have not posted any references that point this being a glaciological concern in the near future of GIS.

I have only stated that once the northern, low-lying part of GrIS has an exhaustive surface melting (water-ponding on surface) the accumulation of meltwater within its ice and beneath it metamorphoses the cold, dry, stable and moraine-forming ice sheet into the warm, wet, dynamic and aggregate-forming ice sheet (before the next Heindrich Ice Berg Calving and the subsequent Last Dryas cooling effect occurs). The rapid erosion forces of cavitation, plucking, kolking and planing activate in post-sea ice. These are terminal ice sheet processes. The role of accumulative impact moulins and crevasses in the GrIS interior behind shield then dominates. Currently, moulins are seasonal impact moulins that drain water down along shield slope into sea or through fjords rather than building up the melt water behind subglacial shield barrier. Loss of sea ice and permafrost soils and seabed releasing CO2 and CH4 will further contribute to the warmth.

I wish to know how do you cool most of the North Atlantic surface waters within a single summer (within a few weeks) by 15 Celsius degrees other than by a major discharge of melt water and ice? That is a big, sudden drop of surface water temperature very quickly. I cannot see long wave radiation under any weather condition causing so much heat loss from the ocean water. Please note that the Germans are concerned of this occurring again and flooding nuclear reactors. Just revisit the article enclosed. Its worth trumpeting out before building more sea side reactors in UK.

Arctic Background / Re: Whose data is wrong?
« on: August 26, 2017, 07:13:55 PM »
I understand that you don't agree with our point of view, but jibes aren't helpful. I'm keen to try to address challenges as they often expose other aspects not mentioned (and papers missed out).

Arctic Background / Re: Whose data is wrong?
« on: August 26, 2017, 06:57:45 PM »
I have a list of articles just send email to myself and you get .pdf files. I will only send recent files, not any Cuellar or Ghali era although the complainant nations have not changed their position (accusing corruption in the Western academia and delay in publishing). i.e. the Argentineans and Chileans pointing out that it was US/UK/EU academia whose reports about the Larsen A collapse in 1995 came out in papers, not Statement on Ice Failure by Juan Pedro Brückner, the Director of the Argentinean Matienzo Base in Antarctica although they were eye witnesses. Their detailed descriptions came out with 17-year delay (after many US/UK/EU papers had been published in the mean time) when, finally appearing in The Scientific American, July 2012. This was about 5 years after it was raised to Ban ki-Moon's office who subsequently conducted due diligence investigations on scientific conduct and visited the region and people involved.

Note that the file I mentioned quotes South Greenland IPM sourcing. This cannot occur now due to the narrowing of Ilulissat ice fjord outlet when the isostatic forces pushed its neck tight altering the contour that allowed the supersize icebergs to come out and the retreat of the ice sheet's edge towards inland. The canyon system feeding this formerly wider exit is still extant beneath ice sheet (graph enclosed). The contour also reflects the larger, more western ancient edge of ice sheet and bergs causing ultra-deep IPMs could have formed in area now covered by sea around the Disco Island, thus reducing need for geological deformations for supersize ice islands exit.

The ice dome not only causes perimeter's vertical uplift to form an elevated shield around the ice dome's edges, but also a spatial tightening of the continental edges when the ice pushes the interior down the edges get squashed tighter. Similarly, the Weischelian Ice Sheet's outlet that crossed across the middle of Sweden has almost completely disappeared by now. (This palaeo-strait let ice out from the Baltic Sea Ice Dome which sat at the centre of the Weischelian Ice Sheet). Even as recently as in the Middle Ages, the Viking's Capital, Birka, was at the seaside in the middle of Central Sweden. Today it is far inland and only the deepest part of that palaeo ice stream carved strait remains water-covered as a freshwater lake.

The above process will cause Melville Bay initially to subside catastrophically by water infested slushy ice (post-sea summer ice era), in the process causing turbidic rockfalls and pulling flat shoreline into a tight neck (like currently in Ilulissat). Once the ice is off-loaded, the wet solidus damage and the nucleation of gases in asthenosphere fluids drives isostatic uplift. This produces either a tight Ilulissat-type narrow passage surrounded by mountains on both sides. Or, if the discharge of rock is large enough to produce a sufficient 4th rapid erosion force (planing), enough abrasion can occur to remove rocks to get the Hudson Strait type wide opening to form there. The immersed rocks in front of the Melville Bay appear fractured and subsided in the past (refer to the Melville Bay bethymetric map between the red bars), there Greenland's subsidence has shown a slight acceleration in recent years (see Greenland map enclosed).

Today it is impossible for 1 km tall ice bergs to start slide over Ilulissat town. This section has attained its equilibrium state with the perimeter there too tight for large intact ice islands to pass through the current Ilulissat Ice Fjord. When Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS) studied IPMs in that cited article, a much wider and far more flat outlet terrain existed in the south - similar to Melville Bay's flattened coastline. This was similar to the neck of the Hudson Strait barrier which failed between the Baffin Island and the Newfoundland (see my earlier images).

Ilulissat's palaeoicefjord was divided into the two main branches. The southern branch pushed ice south of Disko Island, the northern branch north of Disco Island. These remain still today very wide palaeofjords, whereas the present-day's narrower ice fjord due to coastal margin's tightening caused by the subsidence of Greenland's interior. The wider southern outlet of Disco discharged the largest and deepest-swimming ice islands, northern outlet route discharging smaller ones.

The fourth source of the Northern Hemisphere's ultra-deep IPMs was the Kara Ice Dome when the dome's footing on the north end crashed due to melt water lubrication causing a slip-slide. Its outlet moraine terminus is left intact. This event discharged large ice islands that lodged into the Lomonosov Ridge hitting the sea floor 1,200 metres below the current Arctic Ocean sea surface. There remains many obscure details of these super-deep IPMs: i.e. the nucleation of gases within magmas during lowered sea surfaces that caused magma-swelling related isostatic seabed uplift. (This reduces the actual, required keel depth for the ice bergs to hit the ocean floor to make IPMs.)

It is vitally important to differentiate between Holocene stability era fjords that are basically overspilling mechanisms over the edges from Pleistocene instability era fjords that drove Heindrich Ice Berg Calvings as continental edges failed to contain ever changing and unstable ice masses. The metamophosis of cold, dry, stable and moraine-forming ice sheets into warm, wet, dynamic and aggregate-forming ice sheets post-Arctic-Ocean-sea-ice is at the centre of all this 'climate change experiment' today.

Note that I have not said what Nukefix must have mis-read. We fear the failure occurs in future after the Arctic Ocean is summer-time ice free from midseason and it requires EXHAUSTIVE surface melting. I never said such situation is there already, nor anyone worried nuclear reactors say so.
I don't think that is glaciologically possible, according to present understanding the Greenland ice-sheet just isn't unstable the way WAIS is. Or can you find recent research articles arguing so?

BTW this is why I called the claim "alarmism" - scientists could not invent threats and present them to the parlament/media as their reputation would be seriously damaged.

Arctic Background / Re: Whose data is wrong?
« on: August 25, 2017, 08:13:51 PM »
Sorry, I mis-pasted from the full .pdf file by leaving out the most relevant point!

"The most likely source area for this extreme deep-draft type of iceberg is inferred to be southern Greenland. Plowmark direction, which in our case indicates iceberg entrainment by the North Atlantic Current, is suggested to be a useful indicator of (sub)surface paleo-circulation during late Pleistocene iceberg surging and deglaciation episodes."

Yes, Oren. There are other IPMs related to the exit of water and ice not only the Lake Agassiz but also relating to the collapse of the seaside between Newfoundland and Baffin Island that held the Foxe-Laurentide Ice Dome. If you read my evidence, I cited one particularly relating to the collapse of that part of the Laurentide Ice Sheet. (The Lake Agassiz was at the perimetry where medium thick and shallow snow field accumulated, the northern tall dome despatching later. There were several routes where meltwater escaped. Most relevant is here the Hudson Strait route.)

The Lake Agassiz does not explain on its own the process properly. While NH cooled, this was opposed by simultaneous warming of SH. This because ice debris and melt water was pushed Northewards by the Gulf Steam, this barrier of ice deflecting it also more towards east (Europe), i.e. the Iberian Peninsula as 1 km tall ice wall blocked northward movement of the current. Curiously, the implement of sea water tongue on the initial sea level jump also caused Northward movement of broken ice shelves and sea ice from the Ross Sea and the Weddell Sea and elsewhere. But on the SH movement from the Ross Sea towards North is towards the Equator, thus ice piled up on the Chilean coast, some went along Brazil to the Amazon estuary and also turning east towards the Congo. The Weddel Sea ice and shelves packed the West and South coast of Australia. As ice shifted rapidly to the Equator, it was replaced by a very powerful current towards Antarctica keeping it warm (SH positive feedback effect v. NH negative feedback effect).

I trust this answers fully where the complaints to the UN Secretary-general lie. You may want to study archives of Javier Pérez de Cuéllar. The full statement of Ban ki-Moon is enclosed.

Note that I have not said what Nukefix must have mis-read. We fear the failure occurs in future after the Arctic Ocean is summer-time ice free from midseason and it requires EXHAUSTIVE surface melting. I never said such situation is there already, nor anyone worried nuclear reactors say so.

VAK, why resort to an iceberg armada to explain sudden cooling, when lake Agassiz suddenly emptying is a much simpler explanation?

Arctic Background / Re: Whose data is wrong?
« on: August 25, 2017, 02:08:24 AM »
I suggest familiarising with the subject of Iceberg Plow Marks (IPMs) around Greenland seas.

A good starting point for this subject is this paper cited below. If you can't get hold of it email me: for full .pdf (it seems that only its abstract is on the Internet): 

"Side-scan sonar and sub-bottom profiling investigations of the Iceland-Faeroe Ridge have revealed the widespread presence of iceberg plowmarks at water depths between 750 and 860 m. This is well beyond the maximum water depth reported for ice scouring in the adjacent areas of the North Atlantic. An exceptionally deep iceberg plowmark was found at the southern flank of the ridge, which could be traced down to 940 m water depth. Supported by published nearby sediment core data, a Saalian (MIS 6) age of that iceberg plowmark is suggested. Considering a glacial sea level of 120 m below present, the paleo-draft of this iceberg is estimated to have been at least 820 m. The keel depth of such giant icebergs drifting in the glacial northern North Atlantic significantly exceeds the draft dimensions of large icebergs seen today in the Antarctic." Antoon Kuijpers & Friedrich Werner: Extremely deep-draft iceberg scouring in the glacial North Atlantic Ocean; Geo-Mar Lett (2007) 27:383–389, DOI 10.1007/s00367-007-0059-1.

The issue of rapid ice sheet failure has sat on the UN Secretary-general's desk at least 26 years, being there even before Rio Earth Summit convened in 1992. It has seen Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Kofi Atta Annan, and here it is cited by Ban Ki-moon. (It is basically a complaint lodged by non-western nations who disagree that ice sheets will end by melting peacefully over many millennia.) Note the first article pointing that North Atlantic Ocean and the climate for Younger Dryas cooled 15 Celcius degrees within just one summer season - there is no other force on the planet or sun that can cause this steep and fast water and air temperature dropping within just a few weeks - except very large volume of ice and icy melt water. If you look at GCMs on this, you notice the cold specks of water on the Chilean coast (due to associated failure of Ronne Ice Shelf bent by rapid sea level rise and pile up of ice against South America), Australian South and West Coasts (due to associated failure of Ross Ice Shelf bent by rapid sea level rise and pile up against Australia). In addition, the oil drillers have found deposits in the estuaries of the Amazon and the Congo that are also very cold isolated anomalies (small dots). The assumptions what GCMs have, artificially have tried to 'blot out' these cold anomalies  but it is rather obvious that there was something going on very rapidly that coupled by tearing off Southern Hemisphere ice shelves: a sudden sea level jump from massive ice load on the NH. This is what many nations protest against the West, also manifested as ice shelf shearings on SH apparently as the tongue of rapidly rising water bent and sheared off the ice shelves (breaking them loose to be able to drift off Antarctica).

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (August mid monthly update)
« on: August 22, 2017, 05:06:40 PM »
Surely, we will see thin ice eventually becoming "Hudson Bay" type ice. Peter Wadhams was pointing out long before any noticeable area reduction that sea ice was thinning based on submarine's upward sonar soundings. We may see more years of thin volatile (unpredictable!) sea ice (at the mercy of winds, waves, sunshine, & heat waves) but soon it all melts away like Hudson Bay. As a group, we must reorient ourselves beyond summer sea ice as many mitigatory actions such as sea defences, siting of nuclear reactors, etc take decades of planning in advance. Telling in the last minute there isn't any sea ice left now, therefore the land ice is destabilising fast, does not help anyone! I do not believe there is any major sea ice rebound until there is next Heindrich Ice Berg Calving event from Greenland that pumps large amounts of meltwater and slushy ice into the ocean. The flip side of this is sea level jump & a sudden failure of agriculture (the Last Dryas). Only then, I see people willing to accept the Arctic geoengineering to preserve sea ice.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 16, 2017, 06:25:31 PM »
The reduction in compressive strength is crucial during warm winter and subsequent spring like 2016/2017 winter. In addition, pulverization itself leads to further weakening as sides and the ice fractures sitting in water leak in heat from sides and thus this a positive ice pulverization feedback.

I suspect, PIOMAS underestimates importance of switchover from 2D melt to 3D melt - as the sides have become far greater to add "side melt" to the "bottom melt". Notably, bottom melt and side melt continues weeks after surface melting has ended and I suspect PIOMAS isn't geared to see into 2D bottom melt becoming a 3D event. Ice may continue to soften too - keeping it fragile.

<snip>the variation in mechanical strength with temperature <snip>

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 16, 2017, 06:06:48 PM »
The rear-end (Pacific side) is far from the North Pole. Around the Bering end of the sea, the sun appears early but the 24-hour sunshine season is least pronounced. At NP midsummer insolation is the most intense, but very brief. So far, the North Pole's ice misses strongest sun way before surface melting starts. The cooling arrives there first and ice movement is most constricted - quite the opposite to the most extreme southern reaches around the Bering Straits end. Thus this may not be extrapolated indefinitely towards NP: "Findings from this study show that the feedback effect triggered by early-season divergent ice motion plays a key role in the seasonal evolution and interannual variation of sea ice retreat in the Pacific Arctic, particularly since the early 2000s."
This recent interesting paper, published online yesterday, may help further our understanding of the melting season a bit.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 15, 2017, 06:19:38 PM »
The explanation for the current Laptev polyna is here: Even back in early 2000's when the Laptev Sea to north area was covered by very strong MYI, there appeared a tunnelling water current beneath sea ice that weakened it from that line. The sea ice began splitting down from the riparian deltas across the sea all the way to Canada. I believe that the shallow Siberian sea bed may also have additional subterranean rivers transport of water which takes water north. It could also be the collision of riparian discharges to saline oceanic water that causes turbulence that extracts heat from underlying warmer water source. Even a very thick and hard MYI could not prevent ice weakening and breaking in this area in 2000's, so the Laptev polnya isn't a miracle.  ;)

Does anyone have an explanation for the Laptev polyna? Considering how mobile the ice appears to be, I'm surprised not just that a hole would appear way off in the pack, but how persistent it is.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 15, 2017, 05:48:15 PM »
This year has seen Chukchi-East Siberian Sea having the 'blue ocean' season moving earlier melting, could this be partly due to prevailing winds pushing the ice edge towards FJL-Svalbard at the Atlantic edge. May be there is a connection: late onset of the winter ice on the Atlantic front, preconditioning ice movement (weak ice therein), causing the Pacific end of ocean clearing early. Is the winter ventilation gained on the Atlantic > than insolation gain in the Beaufort-Chukchi-ESS? May be this is just related to something like warm winter in Russia, is cold winter in Canada, vice versa type of thing? May be it isn't lopsided atmospheric polar hat, but same with sea ice as well?

<snip> Indeed, it appears that the 'blue ocean' season is primarily extending in the opposite direction, towards Oct-Nov-Dec rather than Aug-Jul-June. If so, then encroaching atlantification is becoming a key driver of observed sea ice trends, at least around to the Laptev.

Here, we show that recent sea ice reductions, weakening of the halocline, and shoaling of the intermediate-depth Atlantic Water layer in the eastern Eurasian Basin [Laptev] have increased winter ventilation in the ocean interior, making this region structurally similar to that of the western Eurasian Basin [Barents]. The associated enhanced release of oceanic heat has reduced winter sea-ice formation at a rate now comparable to losses from atmospheric thermodynamic forcing, thus explaining the recent reduction in sea-ice cover in the eastern Eurasian Basin.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 14, 2017, 04:56:09 PM »
I find this extreme pulverization to the infinitely small scales very intriguing. The co-existence of all sizes of ice pieces suggest water temperature is very near +0.01C triple point. Otherwise, the small items would melt very rapidly and the bigger ones would be rounded by melting.

This is due to the vast areas (if not entire Arctic basin's) ice pulverizing - hence each small piece of ice pulls air and water temperature down as they all mop up heat from the air and water into ice. Soft ice, thin ice, big waves. I wonder if this ice-ARIEL pulverizes into microscopic scales as well?

This is probably as near 3-dimensional water-sitting surface area maximum as practically possible in an ocean. How do you model this ice-ARIEL that will quickly dissolve if water mixes vertically?

An important feature is the sharpness of ice objects, it appears as if they mechanically break when pulverizing. This surface topology of ice objects is an important cue that points towards mechanial breakage as the primary, driving mechanism. Here melting is very far behind (a respondent process). Ice breaks, rather than melts on this picture showing the smallest scales.  :-X
Here's 2013.

Sébastian Roubinet didn't have much luck attempting a similar feat in 2013. Pen's fleet consists of two rather different craft though:

In Western Europe and Greenland, the Younger Dryas is an extremely well-defined synchronous cool period as illustrated in the first diagram (Image 1, enclosed) that shows 30 Celcius degree mid-winter cooling across parts of North Atlantic, Greenland, Iceland and Scandinavia due to aggressive sea ice and snow formation. The severe cooling brought about high temperature gradients causing strong precipitation in Greenland. Alley, Richard B.; et al. (1993). "Abrupt increase in Greenland snow accumulation at the end of the Younger Dryas event". Nature. 362 (6420): 527–529.

The severe cold impact is widely seen across the entire Northern Hemisphere - even China where well-expressed Younger Dryas events in the Chinese δ18 O records of Termination III are seen in stalagmites from high-altitude caves in Shennongjia area, Hubei Province, China. Chen, S., Y. Wang, X. Kong, D. Liu, H. Cheng, and R.L. Edwards. (2006) A possible Younger Dryas-type event during Asian monsoonal Termination 3. Science China Earth Sciences. 49(9):982–990.

While Younger Dryas is clear in NH GCM (Image 1), same cannot be said about Southern Hemisphere and tropics (Image 2).

The Younger Dryas cooling, in the Northern Hemisphere, began while the Antarctic Cold Reversal (ACR) was still ongoing, and the ACR ended in the midst of the Younger Dryas. Blunier, Thomas; et al., "Phase Lag of Antarctic and Greenland Temperature in the last Glacial...," in Abrantes, Fatima; Mix, Alan C., eds. (1999). Reconstructing Ocean History: A Window into the Future. New York: Kluwer Academic. ISBN 0-306-46293-1., pp. 121–138.

The GCM (Image 2) interestingly shows freezing conditions in estuaries of the Equatorial rivers (the Amazon and the Congo) while GCM delivers overall warming for SH and tropics. It is assumed from YD images 1 and 2 that the ACR had ended and thus SH SST had largely increased, but isolated pockets of cold existed because there were grounded ice bergs that were still melting - or SH GCM model is overstating the SH warmth and more of it was cooler.

Notable exceptions to overall SH warmth (Image 2) are the large cold regions (i.e. the Chilean Coast of South America and Western and Southern Shores of Australia):

It is here proposed that GCM probably overstates the SH warming, or there were significant persistent pile ups of ice bergs along the coast lines of South America (i.e. the Amazon cold anomaly), or the Western Equatorial Africa (i.e. the Congo anomaly). The failure of Ross Ice Shelf would be behind the Chilean cold anomaly, the Brazilian coastal anomaly (i.e. the Amazon cold spot), the Equatorial African anomaly (i.e. the Congo cold spot) and the failure of the Ronne Ice Shelf on the Weddell Sea and other Antarctic shelves were behind the ice pile up on the southern and western shores of Australia.

The rapid cooling within one summer season is indicative of ice sheet / melt water lake collapse to cool the Northern Atlantic Ocean and its associated climate just within few weeks (Image 3). Teleconnections of such rapid cooling of ocean require large ice volume dumping which should have rapidly increased the sea level projecting a tongue of water beneath continental ice shelves world wide and making them to calve rapidly on both hemispheres due to a bending effect. German sea level fears may be well placed and correct in seeing coastal nuclear reactors as risk.

Arctic Background / Re: Whose data is wrong?
« on: August 13, 2017, 12:28:20 AM »
Further: <text from UN Secretary-general's excerpt on this matter>

While Her Excellency Verónica Michelle Bachelet Jeria raised this to then-current UN Secretary-general Ban ki-Moon for the ABC Nations at New York during the UN General Assembly of September 2007, I raised it simultaneously for the First Nations at Arctic Mirror of Life symposium convened by Ban ki-Moon's predecessor the former UN Secretary-general HE Kofi Annan.

My representation there (RSE VII) was based on the First Nations ethnoclimatology motion (UNGA 101292) which was presented to the United Nations General Assembly in immediate aftermath of The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit (ECO92), held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

Both motions of the above nations stipulate a very rapid loss of cryosphere which is occurring well within one's lifetime, instead of long geological period (beyond one's lifetime) as advocated by the Western academia. Here is Ban ki-Moon's statement on resultant sea level rise after meeting ABC nations (Argentine | Bolivia | Chile) representatives that maintain Antarctic research communities.

The First Nations position is likewise but based on their ancient recollections of the rapid collapse of Foxe-Laurentide ice dome from the Hudson Bay area.

My evidence-giving at the UK Houses of Parliament has been largely reflecting these nations' positions and Germany's decisions to pull out nuclear reactors from the sea sides as a precaution of perceived risk of unpredictable sea level instabilities in future. The draft paper can be read here:

Arctic Background / Re: Whose data is wrong?
« on: August 12, 2017, 11:53:55 PM »
F. Trinoli, so many thanks for taking the opportunity to respond and to give your perspective!
<Discussion moved here from "The 2017 Melting Season" thread:>

Drawing from my 39-year experience (1978-2017) of hearing experts' sea ice forecasts, so that you perhaps understand my perspective listening to this almost four decades - and also drawing on complaints made to the UN Secretary-general's offices by nations outside the US-UK-EU axis:

that back:

- in 1980's when I was at school, I was taught that climatic warming from GHG was becoming a problem but it would be around year 3,500 (or about a millennium and a half) before the Arctic Ocean becomes "ice free" in summers.

- in February 2007, the Arctic Council's "Arctic Impact" report predicted summer sea ice loss occurring by the year 2150 (then 143 years in future). The Arctic Council also produced sea ice area and extent forecast maps for two periods (2040-2060's and 2070-2100) as enclosed

- in May 2012 Professor Sir John Beddington stated that summer sea ice may survive until the year 2099 or 2100 (for 87 or 88 summer seasons) as stated by HM Government reply to AMEC on 30.05.2012 as enclosed. This was apparently a stretch from the UK Meteorological Office's view of ice being lost by 2070 using creative wording "towards the end of the 21st century"

I see these 'geological time' scale-based optimisms melt time and again. Sadly, I fear to have to see more of them come and go. For me, "job finished" is that for all practical intents and purposes all frozen water of Arctic is gone soon after the blue ocean emerges:

(1) Bøllinger Warming by methane, followed by
(2) exhaustive North GrIS surface melting and
(3) Heindric Ice Berg Armada (= Ice Debris Flows + Slip-Slide Ice Discharges + Hydrofracturing of North Greenland Ice Sheet on land + Rapid Erosion Forces + Perimeter and Continental Slope Failures), producing the job finished:
(4) the Last Dryas as Greenland Ice Sheet land containment failure fills the Atlantic/Arctic Ocean with ice debris. During this final - brief - episode sea ice suddenly spreads out far to the Atlantic,
(4a) so that the Gulf Stream is pushed sideways (towards the Iberian Peninsula) and that
(4b) rapid ice and snow advance results until the ice bergs melt away and only then
(5) resumed warming of ice-free Northern Hemisphere emerges (with high CO2-base-load, unlike the Ice-Ages-of-185-ppm whose warming was driven by seabed and permafrost methane destabilization) as lighter-than-air methane accumulates at stratum well above land (ice) surfaces to leave no mark on ice cores.

I have expressed in geoengineering circles my view that at the point (5) Arctic Geoengineering will become acceptable to the general public to prolong the Last Dryas induced sea ice. Before that Solar Radiation Managment (SRM) is unlikely to get adequate public support for it to be tested, financed and deployed in large scale. My work at Sea Research Society is based on this time horizon. (Yet, I hope things do not go my way and I am totally wrong this time, but many earth systems are showing signs of great stress already). Neither is the past sea ice / ice shelf / land ice destruction time scaling proved anywhere reliable and so UN will see more complaints.

My position is that current "fast-forward" ice melting saga will continue seamlessly from sea to land at the same speed of change, or even greater than that we have seen since optimism of pre-Jim Hansen 1988 testimony era and Rio summit 1992 and all above misguided 'glacial' timescales.

We'll see within 10 years from now, if you are right or me, on post-blue ocean melting job finished on a fast or a slow lane. I exclude minor, thick ice in rugged elevated mountain pockets of Arctic. The totality prospects of absolute ice loss is comprehended my many nations of the world outside US-UK-EU group-think and reflected in the statement by the UN Secretary-general Ban ki-Moon (enclosed).

: F.Tnioli  August 10, 2017, 12:09:31 PM

    : VeliAlbertKallio  August 10, 2017, 12:02:50 AM

        " finish the job?"

        Misconception. I disagree! The job isn't "finished" at that point, but only at its very beginning! The ocean melting advances and its re-freeze delays further. This exposes the ocean to sunlight much closer to the solstice and then staying exposed to that sunlight for longer. I say, this will be the beginning, not the end! This because sun's extra energy from growing insolation will be mopped up by the glaciers, permafrost soils and seabed containing methane. The real drama, 'ko.yaa.nis.katsi', then begins.  :-\

    Not misconception on his part. Misunderstanding on yours, rather. He meant the specific job of making Arctic go blue for the 1st time, most probably. Even if he didn't mean exactly that, - what he said _means_ exactly that. While what you described - is a set of "next jobs" in line. The term "job", itself, implies finite amount of work required to complete it; what you described is (practically) not finite, but rather geological thing in terms of its timescale. This topic is practical.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 12, 2017, 11:24:14 PM »
<snip, off-topic and too long, send a PM to F.Tnioli or post elsewhere.>

Discussion moved from here to "Whose data is wrong?" thread:,635.0.html

I went for my final for 3.75 m km2 max.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 10, 2017, 12:02:50 AM »
" finish the job?"

Misconception. I disagree! The job isn't "finished" at that point, but only at its very beginning! The ocean melting advances and its re-freeze delays further. This exposes the ocean to sunlight much closer to the solstice and then staying exposed to that sunlight for longer. I say, this will be the beginning, not the end! This because sun's extra energy from growing insolation will be mopped up by the glaciers, permafrost soils and seabed containing methane. The real drama, 'ko.yaa.nis.katsi', then begins.  :-\

That's exactly it. We've seen weather similar to 2013 and 2014, the rebound years that followed 2012 (someone over on the ASIB just wrote that "According to the NOAA-ESRL measurements 2017 has been colder than 2013 and 2014 in both the Arctic and the high Arctic (80N+) over most of the May - Jul period and on average"), but 2017 just keeps digging low.

This is perhaps the most educative melting season I've seen. It means that when volume is as low as it was after a mild winter, and the weather is just slightly less clement than it was this year during May-June-July, records will be broken for sure. And I dare say than when such low volume ice at the end of winter is presented with the build-up of melting momentum seen in 2010 and 2012, or the endlessly clear skies of 2007, the Arctic could go below 1 million km2 SIA, ice-free for all practical purposes.

If the extent loss of 2012 had been repeated this year, we would be looking at a Jaxa  minimum extent of around 2.5 million km2. There is no reason to suppose the situation will improve. Just one more mild wild winter to finish the job?

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (August)
« on: August 07, 2017, 01:27:44 AM »
<snip> I have forwarded your reply to AMEG. (I do not want government decision-makers to get mixed up with different time periods and draw wrong conclusions from mixing 20+ and <7 year and current season conditions.) Many thanks!

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (August)
« on: August 06, 2017, 01:51:46 AM »
I was at one point discussing this with Peter Wadhams to reverse engineer US NAVY charts by converting sea ice thickness pixels to volume and adding them up to receive volume to compare year-to-year. The reason was that US NAVY charts showed sea ice volume falling whereas Cryosat people said it was increasing. I would have printed a poster, then divided it like a puzzle into boxes of colour codes and then tallied them all up to prove that NAVY lost ice, Cryosat gained ice.  I felt like it was a conspiracy. Because of a lot of manual working, other priorities took over that.
It probably is possible to implement CICE in a manner that would give a better volume product than PIOMAS, but no one has tried to do it yet.

Thank you for all the information in your post --  it is exceptionally useful. This last tidbit is intriguing. I don't suppose you would care to elaborate?

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (August)
« on: August 05, 2017, 01:35:23 AM »
OutofWater, the paper by Florian Sévellec et al (July 2017), suggest a reduction of Arctic sea ice weakening the North Atlantic Ocean's current, whereas you state that the North Atlantic Ocean current has been strong and behind reduced melting of Arctic sea ice: PIOMAS volume (July 2017). May be you, or somebody, can clarify and extrapolate from the two points made.  :o
Arctic sea-ice decline weakens the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation

The ongoing decline of Arctic sea ice exposes the ocean to anomalous surface heat and freshwater fluxes, resulting in positive buoyancy anomalies that can affect ocean circulation. In this study, we use an optimal flux perturbation framework and comprehensive climate model simulations to estimate the sensitivity of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) to such buoyancy forcing over the Arctic and globally, and more generally to sea-ice decline. It is found that on decadal timescales, flux anomalies over the subpolar North Atlantic have the largest impact on the AMOC, while on multi-decadal timescales (longer than 20 years), flux anomalies in the Arctic become more important. These positive buoyancy anomalies spread to the North Atlantic, weakening the AMOC and its poleward heat transport. Therefore, the Arctic sea-ice decline may explain the suggested slow-down of the AMOC and the ‘Warming Hole’ persisting in the subpolar North Atlantic.

The PIOMAS results for the last month make sense to me and apparently to a number of other long time watchers of Arctic sea ice. Rather than accept the results of a model blindly because good scientists have done their job well, I always look at model results with the question, "Does this make sense". The PIOMAS model this year fits what we learned in 2013 and 2014 from years with cool, stormy weather and positive Arctic Oscillation values. The results fit what we know about the effects of snow on albedo. This year's summer melt season was set in motion by the heavy snow in the Arctic that began last September in Siberia and by the intense storminess, combined with strong blocking highs in the Greenland sea. What we are seeing in the Arctic is part of a weather pattern of intense storminess around the Greenland sea that has global teleconnections.

Low pressure in the far north Atlantic tends to bring low pressure to the Arctic. The very heavy snowfall in Greenland in 2016-2017 is associated with a reintensified thermohaline circulation. So is the positive Arctic oscillation that has kept this summer's weather on the cool side.

So the PIOMAS results make sense, but they are not reassuring because the positive AO will help bring warm Atlantic water into the Arctic ocean. Over the intermediate term of the next 5 years this means there will be more ocean heat in the Arctic which will tend to increase the rate of ice melt from below when storms and coastal winds cause upwelling.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 03, 2017, 06:07:47 PM »
If there is any fun in these matters, the fun is that often we do not know the outcome of matters and this drives our curiosity over how things will end up - and so often getting it all wrong. Nothing self-evident doctrinarian certainty. Many ups and downs instead.  ;D

Controversy is a big part of ASIF. Challenging the conventional wisdom is how science and just about everything progresses.
Do not be afraid of being uncertain. If I did that I would scarcely post anything.

Could not agree more, any idea is worth posting and discussing. Also, uncertainty (as in I can't understand) was the whole point of my post.

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland ice sheet retreat
« on: August 03, 2017, 05:27:31 PM »
nukefix, Many thanks for your comment and for Sentinel check! I come to agree with you that topographic factor is here behind the water flow direction and edit my text accordingly.

When it comes to GDF, I maintain my concern that post Arctic summer sea ice, the summertime melting and rainfall becomes massive over North GrIS. I expect the heat waves and flash-floods  becoming a near continuous occurrence over the low-lying ice sheet in North Greenland within just a few summers of the opened Arctic Ocean.

I see this risk the same way as I see ice coming off car windscreen when it warms first, then soon after even the ice on my flat car bonnet detaches and comes out. Reduction of bind and the disappearing friction at the base of ice causes virtually flat-lying ice to fall off the bonnet. Whether you accept pushing my extrapolative analogy that far is a value judgement and I see the German decision to pull the plug from nuclear reactors on sea side better than British idea to build more.

In North GrIS it is the critical amount of water in ice that should cause a likewise ice detachment as meltwater takes too long to drain out especially as most of it is likely to become subglacial water deposits in North Greenland before it eventually makes its way out to the sea.

I see mountain GDFs as a symptomatic example of 'medium-scale' ice detachment events and I see this principle applicable also to the very largest scales - provided that there is enough surface melting and basal water accumulation involved. Growing hydrofracturing will be one of the key indicators before largest scale GDF is possible. There must be extensive meltwater pooling that drains water into moulins over very large areas (though not at all necessary that all ice base would need a water-layer).

johnm33, thanks also for your comment. The article: Gruber, S. and Haeberli, W., 2007. Permafrost in steep bedrock slopes and its temperature-related destabilization following climate change. Journal of Geophysical Research 112, p. F02S18, is particularly illuminating in the dangers of deep-penetrating melting of rocks (as seen this summer when a mountain collapsed into sea triggering a tsunami in Greenland killing 4 and injuring 10) and followed in this forum.

EU has done a foresighted job to foresee this risk as mountain rocks increasingly thaw.

I expect some of the ice sheet holding perimeter barriers in Greenland to collapse the same way: Frost creep has made ice to fill many crevasses in Greenland's bedrocks over the aeons which now begin to melt causing increasing collapses. Some of these events will be in very large scales like the event in Alaska, read the article cited in my paper on page 5, see ref: (endnote 13) gives the link to this: Summers, Chris : “Pilot discovers massive Alaska landslide that took huge chunk out of snow-capped mountain and unleashed millions of tons of rock into debris field stretching nearly SEVEN MILES”, The Daily Mail, 6 July 2016.

AMEG and John Nissen suggested me to add a potential shield area / continental slope margin failures in Greenland as one explanation for the Eemian tsunamis of Bahamas discussed by Hansen on page 6 and their re-emergence now. See refs. endnote 15 (summary article), endnote 16 (full paper):

Mooney, Chris (story) & Uhrmacher, Kevin (graphics): That's heavy - Climate-change warnings include rising seas and wild weather shifts. But giant flying boulders? The Washington Post, 28 November 2015.

Hansen, J. et. al.: "Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2◦C global warming could be dangerous". Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (Atmos. Chem. Phys.), 16, 3761–3812, 2016. doi:10.5194/acp-16-3761-2016

It obviously goes that our paper does not recommend sea side nuclear reactor construction. I am myself, however, a member of EFN (Environmentalists For Nuclear) and support them in principle when built in seismically stable areas, away from sea and riversides. The best option is the larger lakes where water table is near constant with no dangerous variations.

I believe the inconsisency German v. British/French is due to the latter possessing nuclear explosives (and that nuclear energy gives 'justification' for nuclear weapons). I would not oppose lakeside nuclear. Following closely election campaigning in Russia, Britain, US and France, I find it incomprehensible that the taxpayers in these countries truly wish to carbonize each others' taxpayers with nuclear weapons and would think it as a good way of spending their tax monies.

I re-enclose the rift image a year ago 24.07.2016. If you had read my paper with care, you should have seen this link to the original NASA image (ref: endnote No. 40).

I don't see a "rift", only some topography-related differences in brightness. They could be related to bedrock-topography but I don't see anything out of the ordinary. I'm also checking a stack of Sentinel-1 radar images via Google Earth Engine and everything looks fully normal.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 03, 2017, 03:42:08 PM »
I think the explanation for all this mystery lies in:

(1) the increase in 3-dimensional water-sitting ice surface - due to pulverized sea ice mopping up heat extremely efficiently  :-[

(2) the increased mobility of crushed sea ice + the increased mobility & (vertical/horizontal) mixing of sea water to facilitate a very fast transfer of thermal inertia of sea water into sea ice  :-X

(3) the resultant sea ice honeycombing, fracturization, flushing and softening by winds/waves  :-\

<snip> However in the Arctic July wasn't in the top 20 years. Over the past three months, the Arctic average wasn't even in the top 25 years. 

This lack of heat over the past three months gives us an indication of just how weak the ice must have been at the start of the melt season to still be in contention for the lowest three values.

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland ice sheet retreat
« on: August 02, 2017, 11:07:14 PM »
"As I commented elsewhere the slope of Greenland margin is small and not conducive to rapid runaway collapse than can happen on much steeper mountain glaciers. "
I offer GDF as a possible (probable) cause for Heindrich Ice Berg Calving (D-O) Events accompanied by other events such as: land-based GrIS hydrofracturing post-Arctic summer sea ice and in conjunction with the slip-slide effect (filling of subglacial dentures in bed rock by melt water) and rapid erosion effects, the rising heft of GrIS calving front gradually destabilising it to ever faster collapses, and the metamorphosis of cold and dry (hard) ice into warm and wet (honeycombed 'rotten' ice on the bottom third of the ice sheet [see page 19]).

"Can you share the location of the NEGIS-crevasse you mention, it would be interesting to track it with Sentinel-1?" The information below should offer the best chances to find it with Sentinel-1.

I re-enclose the rift image a year ago 24.07.2016. If you had read my paper with care, you should have seen this link to the original NASA image (ref: endnote No. 40).

My suggestion is that you open both links as separate tabs, you can then flip between the two:,MODIS_Aqua_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Terra_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor,Reference_Labels(hidden),Reference_Features(hidden),Coastlines&t=2016-07-24&z=3&v=-462016.0215509016,-1726176.8272150634,-199872.02155090158,-1561056.8272150634

I also enclose it a year later as a link 23.07.2017 (for your comparison). You may see it also on 24.07.2017, but this shows only the NW section, whereas a day earlier you can notice the dry denture in ice extending and branching much further to the E-SE:,MODIS_Aqua_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Terra_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor,Reference_Labels(hidden),Reference_Features(hidden),Coastlines&t=2017-07-23&z=3&v=-462016.0215509016,-1726176.8272150634,-199872.02155090158,-1561056.8272150634

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 02, 2017, 10:18:50 PM »
I go for sunlight reflection from the water of the open sea. If it were methane eruption, the fire could also be seen over the land (and we would have heard of it in media). If it were aurora borealis, it would be above clouds, not under them. Forest fires occur on land, not over sea. 8)

Has anyone any idea of what these pictures show ?

These were extracted from:
I attached AVHRR Imagery to show the clouds.;topic=382.0;attach=49261

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland ice sheet retreat
« on: August 02, 2017, 03:41:37 PM »
I don't think GDF's lower limit is 4-degree ground inclination. The spatial spread of North Greenland Ice Sheet disallows an easy meltwater drainage from GrIS interior, a precondition for GDF disallowance for the rapid ice cap collapse (continued here from the discussion on "the 2017 Melt Season" thread: the impact of the pulverized sea ice on land ice melting in a long-term). Given conditions of Northern GrIS, GDF threshold is smaller than 3-4 degrees. I suggest reading:

Meyer, Robinson: "When Glaciers Transform Into Deadly 150-mph Avalanches - After happening only once in the 100-year record, catastrophic glacial collapse occurred twice in Tibet this summer", The Atlantic | Science, 18 October 2016.

I would also suggest reading pp. 24-25 on rapid erosion forces on terminal state ice sheets here:  I will be updating the document regarding the spread of crevasse in North-West Greenland which appeared draining melt water along 80 km stretch 24/07/2016. Due to weak melt 2017 summer, this formation appears as dry depression with total length branching 250 km. (The finalized text is due by September/October 2017.)

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 02, 2017, 03:16:47 PM »
Let's move discussion here:,1120.0.html
The low-lying north Greenland ice sheet builds water within its ice and beneath it most rapidly until the whole flat-lying ice sheet collapses due to (the newly discovered) process "Glacier Debris Flow" (GDF):  Meyer, Robinson: "When Glaciers Transform Into Deadly 150-mph Avalanches - After happening only once in the 100-year record, catastrophic glacial collapse occurred twice in Tibet this summer", The Atlantic | Science, 18 October 2016.
That is needless "alarmism". The slope of the Greenland ice sheet is just a few degrees close to the coast (+it's a lot flatter everywhere else) - this very effectively prevents it from turning into a 150-mph avalanche!

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 02, 2017, 02:41:23 PM »
The pulverization of sea ice ejects its coldness to the surrounding water and air increasingly efficiently as per the surviving ice mass. As ice gets warmer and weaker it further pulverizes to eject its coldness (due to the growth of its water-sitting 3D-surface area). The oil-slick like sea ice's  tipping point is a rapid, near vertical cliff edge once there is not enough of this 'ARIEL' left to dissolve more coldness into sea water and air. A rapid flip to the 'blue ocean' results, this then (within just a few summers) accumulates enough heat for exhaustive ablation of all Arctic glaciers. The low-lying north Greenland ice sheet builds water within its ice and beneath it most rapidly until the whole flat-lying ice sheet collapses due to (the newly discovered) process "Glacier Debris Flow" (GDF):  Meyer, Robinson: "When Glaciers Transform Into Deadly 150-mph Avalanches - After happening only once in the 100-year record, catastrophic glacial collapse occurred twice in Tibet this summer", The Atlantic | Science, 18 October 2016. There are four rapid erosion forces (cavitation, plucking, kolking - and above all - planing) pp. 24-25 to enhance Greenland Ice Sheet's glacier debris flow, the ultimate cause of the Heindrich Ice Berg Calving (D-O) events.  :-[
In regards to the melt season being less than spectacular, I think the reason is very simple; The energy budget for the energy entering the Arctic, including that which comes from lower latitudes has, for a number of reasons, been distributed somewhat more evenly throughout the year. That means a milder summer, but a less cold winter, accompanied by winter storms. Much of the heat that in prior winters was blocked by various mechanisms, PV and jetstream and so on, can leak into the Arctic year around now versus saving itself up each year waiting on a summer passport.

Wonder what the long term effect of this pattern will be for arctic glaciers at higher altitudes. All this additional precipitation and lower summer temp may have some effect.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 02, 2017, 02:02:01 PM »
This is what vertical mixing of water does easily for thin and broken ice: the clearing of sea ice from within the ice. The perfect example of localised vertical mixing melting out regions from within pack. As the ice gets thinner (let's hope cold winter), it could appear everywhere - with whole sea opening almost overnight. This is when I compared in the past pulverizing sea ice to an oil slick.
Yes, a surprisingly strong effect for a weak storm. It's mostly cloudy today in the worst-affected area, but here's a gif of what is peeking through. First 2 frames are July 29 and 31 (the 30th was cloudy); 3rd frame is Aug 1. Note the rapid acceleration in change over 1 day compared to 2 preceding days: ice edge, melting out in regions inside the edge (e.g. right side of image), and pronounced darkening.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 30, 2017, 02:08:20 AM »
I would also say that melt water accumulation from MYI between pulverized CAB sea ice floes has similar stabilizing effect as long as winds do not whip up and mix water. But as perimeter ice retreats to the centre, the buffer zone narrows and vertical mixing accelerates. I would not be suprised of "Atlantic Bite" style open water incursions starting to appear from other directions, especially as it is FYI. It will be combinatorix of buffer zone retreat and depressions stirring water to extract heat from deeper water's thermal inertia. I do not know if protective melt water pooling survives, but it is surely there as much as it exists around melting Hudson Bay ice.
This might be a bit of a stupid questions, but why is there still ice in hudson bay?
I went though world view and it what appears like slush, but its been like this for several weeks.
The ocean is dark all around it and have been for over a month, hence should have picked up a lot of energy.
Is this a remnant of MYI, or is there a different explanation?
That is quite common in the Hudson Bay. In nearly every year the ice is driven to the western shore of the bay and stays there for multiple weeks. My guess is, that there aren't much currents in that area and not much overturning, so the cold meltwater stays near the surface, providing a cold environment for the remaining ice.

2016 had ice around till August 7th exactly at the same spot, and 2015 had it there even till end of August.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 24, 2017, 03:39:30 AM »
TT Superb! Note the albedo change to darkened surfaces covering almost half of the image on the right. Darkening of sea ice by leads in ice is probably worse than melt and rainwater pools: the sea water can mix vertically in all darkened areas in sea ice. I suspect big melt ahead in this area.
I bit the bullet, stacked one week of images from the eastern Arctic and removed the clouds manually (took hours). The images I used go from the 17th to the 23rd, latest image on top to avoid distortion by drift and melt as much as possible. Some contrast enhancement is applied.
Thanks TT, that's very helpful.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 24, 2017, 12:26:41 AM »
Images of a warm Atlantic water current which is pushing beneath sea ice in the Fram Strait. A large landfast piece of sea ice will shortly detach. Further fractures appeared in the land fast ice. A removal of yet another slow-down feature slowing southward sea ice transport from the Arctic.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 23, 2017, 02:15:10 AM »
I have thought about the same comparison. It means we will see winter ice forming, most of it then going through summer, if not all. Once this happens, there is an important change, however: The inversion of Arctic Ocean re-freeze. The ocean currently freezes from the centre ice pack towards perimeter, after the central ice is gone, the sea ice starts first forming on the coasts, then slowly progressing its way towards the centre that may stay open very long due to storms. I expect the onset of freezing season proper then reaching comparable ice area 6-8 weeks later. It will also be volatile as winds, waves, and ocean currents will break thin ice pace many times over.

Both NSIDC and IJIS extent have moved into 2nd place. And the graphic below indicates that at least NSIDC may/will even take 1st place from 2011 (which started to flatten out the last week of July), and stay there until the first week in August, when the GAC took 2012 on its major downward excursion.

What good is extent if thickness is incomparable to 2012?
What's left over is very thin. 95% of 2 meter ice is gone now, 99% of the 3,4 and 5 meter ice too.

I agree. It is very bleak. 2012 was still melting through multi-yr ice of 2-3M thickness, 2017 is going to be feasting on 1-1.5M ice that hasn't seen a summer yet. The losses vs. all other years over the next 30 days are going to mount to absurd levels due to the volume deficit which is now going to manifest in continued area/extent drops. It's as if nearly the entire Arctic was covered in the ice of Hudson Bay.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 21, 2017, 11:04:31 PM »
2017 image is showing low-level clouds, not sea ice. For comparison, I would say two quartiles is necessary, one quartile isn't enough adjascent to the pole. I recall 2013 having one quartile broken, three solids, since then two broken, two solid has been the rule. (Quartiles from 80N to the pole.)
Interesting to compare 2017 with 2013 near North Pole Worldview imagery. 2013 appears to be worse:

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 20, 2017, 12:17:30 AM »
The mysteries of the pulverized sea ice may continue. But there is one thing certain. It the open water between ice floes is large, the overall surface colour darkens (hence more sunlight retention). Despite seeing pulverized and fractured sea ice almost everywhere, huge areas appear still relatively white --> This means that sunlight continues to be dumped into space. If the whole ocean gets darker hues due to pulverization and/or ponding, then it will be bye-bye  ;)

... OTOH, pertinent to our understanding of compactness,  what's N and E of Svalbard I think contributes significantly to that high ratio, and isn't exactly reassuring, considering the image I captured below. I will add, that recent changes and melting out in the Barents are starting to show a return to both higher SST's, and a reassertion of the "Atlantic Front" we saw last year.  The second image shows how a combination of drift and warmer Atlantic from the south has started opening up the water north of Svalbard as we have seen frequently over the last few years.

    <Discussion moved here from 2017 melting season>

    High level of ice pulverization has the SAME ultimate effect as melt water ponds. Fact No. 1!
    The gaps within sea ice (albedo only 5%) mop up sunlight which turns into heat - that percolates into nearby ice. Warm and dark water on top of ice, or beside and under it - really NO difference.

    Whether warm water that licks the ice is due to water ponds, or warm water created by dark leads nearby --> water travels past and beneath (and also around) moving ice floes
    (sea ice warms <=> sea water cools).

    People fail to see the synergies of insolation, albedo and sea ice pulverization. In the past the sea ice pulverized only from the margins, leaving the affected area very small with a minimal effect to overall Arctic sea ice area tally (especially CAB wasn't ARIEL powder what it is today).

    The August 2012 shaker-storm was the eye-opener to many how pulverized ice makes its demise easier. The real psychological thriller to me here is that some people constantly deny the change or admit but fail to apply it. Sort of ice hopium, we already know that 2017 sea ice volume is low and ice is thinner than usual due to bad winter. Yet, the weather is an unpredictable trickster.

    In psychology a term 'mortality salience' describes people that live just beneath water dam. They think about the collapse danger of dam LESS than people who live 20 kilometers downstream. Why? I think we all have this issue here, the ice is bad, there is very bad, bad methane hidden under it, and then there is this big 'lump of ice on the land' next corner. So we shut up our minds.

    Sea ice is not a problem-isolate. It is linked to all problems with melting permafrost soils and methane storing seabed, coastal mountains glued together by frozen water only (recall July tsunami in Greenland): So, also problems have a synergy within them (the sum is greater than its the sum of its individual components), this last thing was my core message at UK Houses of Parliament in April: [/li][/list]

: F.Tnioli  Today at 11:39:45 AM

    : VeliAlbertKallio  Today at 12:38:29 AM

        ... The countless leads also mop up sunlight near the Pole most efficiently. ...

    Obviously, yes. July is high insolation month, and lots of CAB now takes it head-on. Combined with lesser thickness in many places, this is nothing short of catastrophic development in me book, especially if it would last in significant proportions for mere 1 more week. Any clues whether it would, Veli?

Modify message
Report to moderator

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 14, 2017, 11:14:14 PM »
<snip; find some other thread for these long-winded posts; I've copied your text, PM me if you want it; N.> Dropped here:,1364.0.html

Antarctica / Re: Rift in Larsen C
« on: July 14, 2017, 10:52:03 AM »
I am aware of that but the figures given by many sites for sea ice go to the last decimal points. There are a lot more ice shelves to go and for the Weddel and Ross Seas the overall percentage is very high. For the same argument we could just omit CAA and the Black Sea / Caspian Sea / Baltic Sea NH sea ice figure but to my understanding, these are calculated to overall winter tally.

Does anyone know whether 10,000 km2 has been added to the global sea ice area to offset the lost segment of Larsen C ice shelf. When it will be included in the global sea ice area, if not already?  ???
Global sea ice area is currently 14.75 million (Antarctic) plus 8.04 million (Arctic) = 22.79 million km^2. Feel free to mentally add 10,000 km^2 to make 22.80 million instead.

It changes global sea ice area by less than one twentieth of one percent.

Antarctica / Re: Rift in Larsen C
« on: July 14, 2017, 12:55:15 AM »
Does anyone know whether 10,000 km2 has been added to the global sea ice area to offset the lost segment of Larsen C ice shelf. When it will be included in the global sea ice area, if not already?  ???

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 14, 2017, 12:38:29 AM »
Very heavily pulverized sea ice 13.07.2017 set between Greenland / Svalbard / Franz Joseph Land and the North Pole. (Enhanced). Large 3D-surface area and the increases in the vertical mixing of the ocean by winds and waves must cause volume loss across this wide area that is feeding to the Fram Strait and to the Barents Sea. The countless leads also mop up sunlight near the Pole most efficiently. (The picture is best seen by clicking it to the full-screen view on and then again with magnification glass to see further details.) Enclosed close-up shows softness of the sea ice.

Antarctica / Re: Rift in Larsen C
« on: July 12, 2017, 10:57:16 PM »
Larsen A --> Larsen B --> Larsen C --> Ronne Ice Shelf. It is a tragedy.  :'( 20 years maximum for R & R.  :(  I cannot see any reason that these chippings would end here but ever shoutwards...

Once upon a time was the Year 1995 and a fellow called Larsen Alpha: Statement on Ice Failure by Juan Pedro Brückner, the Director of the Argentinean Matienzo Base in Antarctica (attached).

Ban ki-Moon is always with us!  ??? He so much wanted climate to be on Rio+20 summit in 2012. I am enclosing his Larsen Beta statement as an image here.

I gave evidence on sea level rise risk (a good collection of links for Parliamentarians to browse many varied new phenomena - many familiar from here in ASIF, few others not yet discussed in ASIF):

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 08, 2017, 11:42:26 AM »
There is a bad omen to this. Back in the 1950's Maurice Ewing and William Donn of Columbia University's Lamont Geological Observatory in Palisades, New York proposed that the flips between the Ice Ages and the Interglacials resulted because the Arctic Ocean became ice-free in the summertime. The polar 24-hour sunshine would then warm up the ocean to the point that when the winter darkness sets in, the ocean would precipitate massive snowfalls that could not then melt during the subsequent summers and this kind of mechanism would lead to the onset of a new ice age. The Ewing-Donn Lake-Snow Effect of the Arctic Ocean was modeled after the Great Lakes Region in the North America which sees each fall huge snowfalls from the lakes.

Alas, Milutin Milanković's theory of slow orbital forcing effects re-emerged as the primary contender for the ice ages as the ocean sediment cores did not back up the Ewing-Donne hypothesis. The primary problem with their idea is that if the ocean warms up during the summers, so will the soils. The snow blanket is insular and does not let the heat to escape as easily as it gets thicker. The thermal inertia of wet soils is also quite large although there is no vertical mixing like happens in the ocean. In addition, the decomposition of soils continues deep beneath snow blanket releasing continually more heat as the soils warm in summers. There was no driver-respondent relation between the melting of the ocean and the melting of soils, although these do not run in tandem.

Therefore, it is expected that by the end of summer the heat will once again find its way into the ground to nudge the soil temperatures that little increment up each summer as the Arctic melts. To be sure of this, we should have inserted underground thermometers to different types of permafrost soils, but as it goes with President Trump, the Arctic melting shall be shroud in mystery...  >:(  But all the 1950's debacle about the 'lake-snow versus orbital forcing' isn't at all promising of any thickened snow cover becoming a reliable indicator to be sufficient for a steady negative feedback from the summertime melting of the Arctic Ocean.

2) Does this constitute a negative feedback that we will see happen more often? ie open, warm water in September -> influence on jet stream -> lots of snow -> high albedo during May and June both of both ice and land -> slowdown in Arctic sea ice loss

Or, 3) Does it constitute a positive feedback, i.e. lots of snow -> thin ice -> rapid (late) extent loss and other water -> (etc)

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 07, 2017, 01:18:03 PM »
I would extend this problem back to the last 5-10 days of May. I noticed back then a few discrepancies between visual satellite images and NOAA reported snow cover. May be there were "grey" areas also at end of May influencing results?
I only have a "but" with June snow cover: in many of the satellital images, the snow cover over land has been showing a "grey" appearance during June, in other words, that it is only a partial or a thin cover with many spots (trees, tundra vegetation, valleys void of ice) showing a much lowered albedo, as opposed to the absolutely white covers during much of May.

Probably that was taken into account.

Pages: [1] 2 3