Freezing season 2013/2014 open thread 2

First open thread reached the 200 comment mark, so it's time for a new one.

Over on the Arctic Sea Ice Forum commenter Espen keeps track of several things related to sea ice and the Greenland Ice Sheet, one of those being the Jakobshavn Glacier - also known as Jakobshavn Isbræ and Sermeq Kujalleq - which I wrote about a bit back in 2010, in 2011 and last year.

It looks like Jakobshavn has retreated another 3 km inland, despite a cold melting season for Greenland:

This time it was the southern branch that retreated most. As NASA's Earth Observatory had it, also back in 2010:

In the winter of 2010, Jakobshavn’s ice front did not re-advance as it usually does, so it began the 2010 melt season in the same location as the 2009 summer melt season. As a result, the glacier had the potential to experience significant retreat during the summer of 2010. The breakup in early July 2010 occurred on the northern tributary to Jakobshavn Glacier. The southern tributary actually drains a larger portion of Greenland’s central ice sheet, so a retreat there could lead to a more substantial ice discharge.

Thank you, Espen!

Comments

[Kevin McKinney]

Carrying over from OT #1--that's "Open Thread," of course, not the Other Thing--I'd like to give a big hat tip to Tenney Naumer for the incredibly nifty link he posted:

http://cci-reanalyzer.org/DailySummary/index_ds.php#

And a bigger one to the folks at U. Maine!

[Werther]

Thanks, Neven, Espen,

Very interesting and steadfast that you kept following this, even as this summer wasn’t spectacular on Greenland.

Meanwhile, chasing info on the October atmospheric pattern, I stumbled upon The Weather Centre, announcing a SSW event.
And yeah, it also shows on NCEP/NCAR:

And that while 10-day forecasts point to a stronger Polar Vortex…

Very interesting to follow this. Hope RGates is ‘online’ too? This SSW was initially announced late september on the lee-side of the Alps. Then the signal flared up from the mountain ranges near Lake Baikal.

[Werther]

Twice in the spam filter, Neven?

[Yes, but luckily not thrice, one of the two now published above this comment; N.]

[Lynn Shwadchuck]

@ Kevin. Tenney Naumer is the mistress of great links. She's been posting her lists of them every month for years.

http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.ca/

[Colorado Bob]

Thanks for the report about the Jakobshavn here's a short post from 2007 about it picking up speed.

"I've always been a fan of Nova, and Robert Kurlwich, so I was watching 2 years ago when this Nova Science Now program first aired on the Jakobshavn Glacier. Kurlwich introduces the story by doing a little glacier 101 speed report.
The clip is here and it's 7 min. long .
World's Fastest Glacier.
In the story , they report that around the year 2000 the Jakobshavn started to pick-up speed.

It went from the "normal" speed of around less than 1 foot a day to 113 feet a day in 5 years. This was widely reported then, so it's a pretty good benchmark. The program aired in July of 2005, so this morning I went looking to see what the Jakobshavn was doing 2 years later.

Sure enough, the Washington Post ran a story on June 9, 2007 about the research being done on the glacier.
And in that story we get speed report on the largest glacier in Greenland :

“
From the air, the Jakobshavn looks like a still-life portrait of a river in white, rippled with frozen waves, sinuous as it moves toward the ocean at a rate of 135 feet per day. "

http://coloradobob1.newsvine.com/_news/2007/07/10/828271-jakobshavn-glacier-the-worlds-fastest-picking-up-speed

[Colorado Bob]

One more old friend, the first thing I ever followed online was the calving of B-15 in 2000. At the time she was the size of Delaware , now the Aqua/MODIS took a great shot of some of her daughters. ..........

Iceberg B15B in the South Atlantic Ocean

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/imagery/single.cgi?image=B15B.A2013294.1455.250m.jpg

[Colorado Bob]

Study shows unprecedented warmth in Arctic

(Phys.org) —The heat is on, at least in the Arctic. Average summer temperatures in the Eastern Canadian Arctic during the last 100 years are higher now than during any century in the past 44,000 years and perhaps as long ago as 120,000 years, says a new University of Colorado Boulder study.

The study is the first direct evidence the present warmth in the Eastern Canadian Arctic exceeds the peak warmth there in the Early Holocene, when the amount of the sun's energy reaching the Northern Hemisphere in summer was roughly 9 percent greater than today, said CU-Boulder geological sciences Professor Gifford Miller, study leader. The Holocene is a geological epoch that began after Earth's last glacial period ended roughly 11,700 years ago and which continues today.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-10-unprecedented-warmth-arctic.html#jCp

[Colorado Bob]

Nuclear Waste Lurks Beneath Arctic Ice

Large-scale Soviet nuclear tests, dumping of spent fuel and two scuttled nuclear-powered submarines are a major source of pollution in the Arctic ocean, a Russian research institute has said.

There are 17,000 containers and 19 vessels holding radioactive waste submerged in the Kara Sea, as well as 14 nuclear reactors, said a report passed by Russia to the Norwegian authorities in 2012, according to Bellona, an environmental group that acquired a copy of document.

Read more: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/nuclear-waste-lurks-beneath-arctic-ice/488382.html#ixzz2iesSYpsp
The Moscow Times

[NJSnowFan]

Cherry picking Neven, good luck

[NJSnowFan]

Russian's take second trip to N pole in 2013, video of set sail in October on World's largest ice breaker to bring Olympic flame to N pole
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chRT3ekr8gU

http://www.rosatom.ru/en/presscentre/highlights/e3504680417709d7b825b84f5b177cea

Still waiting for Walt Myer to respond to my may questions on Ice breaking ships on the Arctic Ice Cap.

E-mail from yesterday.

********, Oct 23 14:31 (MDT):
Hi Chris,

The scientist I sent your question to was not working due to the government shutdown. I am sure he is just getting caught up on his emails. I will check in with him again.

Regards,
*******

__________________________________________________________________________________________

NSIDC User Services
CIRES, 449 UCB
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0449, USA
Phone: +1 303-492-6199
Fax: +1 303-492-2468
Email: [email protected]
WWW URL: http://nsidc.org

National Snow and Ice Data Center * Distributed Active Archive Center

[Rob Dekker]

NJ, if you want an answer from NSIDC's Walt Meier about your pet icebreaker theory, you could start by spelling his name right.

[idunno]

@NJSF, the NSIDC has a small entry on icebreakers here...

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#icebreakers

Personally, I'd see aircraft contrails as much more potentually significant than icebreaker wakes...

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,606.0.html

IIRC, there are now over 80,000 flights over Arctic airspace each year; if we assume that each one leaves a contrail 4,000km long, that's 320,000,000 km of contrail deposited in the Arctic atmosphere per year.

[Boa05att]

"The heat is on, at least in the Arctic. Average summer temperatures in the Eastern Canadian Arctic during the last 100 years are higher now than during any century in the past 44,000 years and perhaps as long ago as 120,000 years, says a new University of Colorado Boulder study."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131024102243.htm

[Boa05att]

Sorry ColoradoBob I din't sport your post higher up.

[Boa05att]

Eurasian Arctic climate over the past millennium as recorded in the Akademii Nauk ice core (Severnaya Zemlya)

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/10/freezing-season-20132014-open-thread-2.html?cid=6a0133f03a1e37970b019b004b1be3970b#comment-6a0133f03a1e37970b019b004b1be3970b

[TenneyNaumer]

Thanks Kevin; however, credit should go to noted meteorologist Ed Hummel of Maine.

Ms. Naumer

[Colorado Bob]

Posted by: Boa05att
I posted the same paper above you .
I read most of the articles , and the press release from CU in Boulder, and the abstract . I blows my mind that no one as made any comments from this paper, on any of threads I read.

Yet WUWT has long post , sowing doubt, about the whole paper.

We deserve lose , because we are idiots.

[Colorado Bob]

I mean the paper said this :

"the Eastern Canadian Arctic during the last 100 years are higher now than during any century in the past 44,000 years and perhaps as long ago as 120,000 years, says a new University of Colorado Boulder study."

And this thread has been dead as boot .
What's Up With That ?

[Colorado Bob]

By the way , lead author Gifford Miller, associate director of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Is bullet proof .

[Colorado Bob]

What really troubles me, when we get new ammo, no one with power uses it . We just set there like potted plants. And David Rose, and Mr. Watts go to work.

Why are we always behind the curve ?

[Colorado Bob]

Neven -
This a big paper about the Artic , and Watts has beaten you like a rented mule .

[Neven]

CB, I did send an improved and updated version of that Summer SAT graph in the WUWT post to HotWhopper if that makes you feel any better.

But I don't have time to investigate Watts' gut feeling claims, like:

"Since plant material in the Arctic doesn’t decay like it does elsewhere due to low temperature and low humidity, it could very well remain intact while exposed for quite some time."

[Neven]

Rented mule, I like that. :-)

But is Watts the rented mule, or am I?

I'm not in a competition with Watts. If he wants to lie and distort, that's his problem. Again, I don't have time to investigate all this. This blog isn't in cryo-sleep for nothing.

[Chris Reynolds]

Werther, Doomcomesoon,

On the previous thread you gave answers to my question about how long the volume increase of 2013 would last. Sorry for failing to get back earlier, work has been in the way, and as a result of looking into the issue of the effects of the 2013 increase in volume I wasted the only free evening I had on a dead end (more calculations using PIOMAS gridded data).

I've just re read your comments on the previous thread, I'm not going to discuss them critically, they seem reasonable to me. I too am tending towards a short persistence. Crucially the increase of volume this year hasn't taken volume back into pre-2010 territory.

Here's my initial thoughts.

The August volumes (as we don't have September) pretty well tell the story of recent years. Column 1 - year, column 2 - PIOMAS volume (Aug), column 3 - previous year minus current year volume, i.e. volume change.

2013 August was 1.43k km^3 above 2012. Carrying the volume increase of 2013 through to next year year (adding to April 2013 volume) implies an April volume of about 2010's (23.11 for April 2014, 23.24 for April 2010).

The 2010 volume loss event was largely from thicker MYI, 2007 was due to weather but occurred from a higher thickness of ice, so volume loss between now and next year is not likely to be as great as in those years.

In the period post 2007 the smallest loss between years was 0.69k km^3, in the above image the volume calculated for 2014 is assuming this smallest likely interannual volume loss from current volume, and it brings the volume for August 2014 to between 2010 and 2011. This is not far off the level of 2011 before the losses of 2012.

So the 2013 increase in volume may not persist for even a year, in terms of bringing the ice volume back to the level
just before the 2012 crash.

However the ice age work of Fowler/Maslanik/Tshudi may be affected for longer. Their ice age plots are available here. Week 39, the latest, shows the increased area of multi year ice due to this years ice surviving from last winter being moved into the second year ice category (on week 37). This ice will be subject to loss from Fram Strait export, and export into the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. However some will survive and over the coming years will resupply the levels of older ice with each passing year, this resupply will happen to a smaller degree as each year passes. The rate of decline of this replenishment strongly depends on sea ice extent at the end of coming melt seasons.

[Chris Reynolds]

Models show a decline in sea ice volume with anthropogenic and natural forcing, no decline with natural only forcings.

The models that assimilate observed atmospheric forcings (PIOMAS, Maslowski's model) show a more aggressive volume loss than GCMs which do not assimilate atmospheric forcing. This suggests that th atmosphere is likely acting as a feedback on sea ice loss.

There are similarities in terms of the underlying physics of both GCMs and assimilating models. Many of the behaviours of sea ice are parameterised - equations are worked out for the small scale physics and are expanded to a grid box scale. For a model to include a physical process it must be included in the model as a numerical component.

while the models show a decline of sea ice volume, they do not parameterise ice breakers.

Therefore ice breakers have nothing to do with the observed volume loss.

Case closed.

[Linda Serena]

Colorado Bob wrote:
What really troubles me, when we get new ammo, no one with power uses it . We just set there like potted plants. And David Rose, and Mr. Watts go to work.
Why are we always behind the curve ?
-------------------------------------------------

Science is not ammunition.

What really troubles me is reading such partisan attitudes from young students of science.

This may be a fallout from preaching climate wars or from the shocking look behind the scenes through the climategate emails.

Are things that bad in Colorado ?

For a fair initial review read:

[Sorry, no links to untrustworthy sites that are about only one thing: delaying any action on climate change. And sorry for having to block you, but I'm about done with (concern) trolls who keep regurgitating denier talking points (not about Arctic sea ice) that have been discussed/debunked a billion times elsewhere; N.]

[Susan Anderson]

Linda Serena, you have a partisan way of presenting biased information that provides a reason for the attitude you criticize. Here's some unbiased material about it that also mentions ClimateGate, "Steal More; Reveal Less":
http://www.desmogblog.com/tags/climateaudit

The accompanying cartoon of a speeding train bearing down on somebody yelling about the "partisan emails" gives you the picture.

I have been attacked by McIntyre's troops because among other logical points readily accessible to the commonsensical, I pointed out that temperature, no matter how it is measured, is a continuum, something the thought police wanted to censor, at the time of the extension of the climate record by Marcott and Shakun. They could only discredit it by a relentless personal attack, full of honey and nastiness, very characteristic.

ClimateAudit is a partisan site that does its best to discredit the best and most truly skeptical science, as represented by all the world's top scientific authorities; the list is too long to list here, but this gives you the picture:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

After a the list of organizations supporting the true scientific opinion on climate change, there is a short list of uncommitted, and this final entry:

"As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change."

As for "ClimateGate", once again you reveal your prejudice by denying the existence of many investigations demonstrating that these scientists suffered from nothing more than the indiscreet conviction that they could speak honestly to each other about the state of siege pertaining against real scientists in the field, and the prejudice they faced in getting the truth out. The hack was shown to have flowed through Russia, which is in itself indicative of its clandestine nature.

As for Colorado, try this list:

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2564

Colorado is number 17 on the list. Those in agreement with you in the US Congress include Ted Cruz and his friends who are willing to spend billions to disable a properly functioning government able to provide information and relief from disasters like these. It is a pleasure to have US satellite information back on board, and hard not to suspect that preventing real information from getting out is one of the desires of their campaign. Unfortunately, with something as big as a real disaster, preventing information is likely to cause more rather than fewer problems.

Neven, this is not the place to let this disinformation railroad real conversation between people interested in the subject matter. Please take a hand; NJSnowFan should not be posting complaints about you cherrypicking either. If we want to waste our time at WUWT, ClimateAudit, ClimateDepot, Curry's, Heartland (with their new campaign to miseducate schoolchildren), we can easily do that, but this should be a relief from the posting of constant prejudice.

[Susan Anderson]

ColoradoBob, it's a bad idea to let the clever PR machine for hire and its dupes, magic thinkers, and also rans get to you. It's important to stick to the subject matter and not, for lack of an adequate target, point your frustration at those doing the heavy lifting and hard work.

Sometimes, I like to go to places like Rabett and Stoat, not to mention WottsUpWithThat and their ilk, for relief. A little astringent takedown of this nonsense can be a tonic.

[TenneyNaumer]

Hi Bob,

Steve McIntyre is not only a troll, but even a stalker, making a nuisance of himself at the AGU by trying to intimidate real scientists. He's pretty creepy.

Real scientists are busy trying to find the evidence and the truth, instead of trying to tear down the work of others with innuendo and outright falsehoods.

But a lie can run a mile before the truth puts its shoes on.

[Rob Dekker]

ColoradoBob, thanks a lot for the link to the recent Miller et al 2013 paper.
http://phys.org/news/2013-10-unprecedented-warmth-arctic.html#jCp

There has been some ambiguity in the past about whether the Arctic climate during the early Holocene was warmer or not than present.

But when Miller et al 2013 shows that the mosses appearing from underneath the melting ice sheets of the Canadian Archipelago appear to be carbon dead, and thus older than 55,000 years, they are making a strong case that the current Arctic warming is beyond what we experienced during the entire Holocene, and it appears to date back to at least the Eemian (some 120,000 years ago) when sea levels were some 7 meters higher than today.

Regarding "ammunition" against the Watts' type of crowd. Good luck.
There are a virtual infinite amount of ways to deny, misinterpret, ignore, attack, or simply throw red-herrings at scientific findings like this.
For example, note how internet entity " Linda Serena", (who's facebook account "https://www.facebook.com/Linda.Rittisat seems to be invalid, blocked or suspended) throws a red-herring by addressing the word "ammunition" in your post, and diverting attention to a McIntyre post. After which the discussion is about how credible or not McIntyre is.

No more talk about the scientific evidence you put forward.
See how that works with these guys ?

Any way, let me just tell you that I appreciate you posting this evidence that the Arctic may be warmer now than it has been for 120,000 years.

[Jim Hunt]

Bob - I don't answer to "potted plant" or "rented mule":

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2013/10/the-balding-arctic-exposed/

Feel free to spread the word!

[Chris Reynolds]

Werther,

I've just been looking at stratospheric warming hoping to see a precursor to cold winters as a result of Eurasian snow advance (i.e. Cohen).

Using 25 October, and 30 October if nothing on 30 October (noted A). Location and central intensity of warming noted. Cold winter following noted CW - I've used the AO index normalised to standard dev'n (1951 to 2013) for DJFM, with an AO index below -1 standard deviations making a cold winter from the following December.

2000 E Siberian Sea coast CW
2001 E Siberia, 8degC,
2002 None
2003 Large - Central Eurasia, 6degC. CW
2004 Lena River, 10degC
2005 East Sib Sea, 14degC, CW
2006 West of Lena River, 16 degC.
2007 From Bering to Mongolia, 10degC
2008 None
2009 E of Lena River, 14degC CW
2010 Scandinavia and Okhotsk (low between), 4 & 6 degC respectively
2011 Southern Canada, 8degC.
2012 FSU North of Mongolia, 6degC CW
2013 Laptev Sea, 10degC,

Stratospheric warmings are common, and I can't see a simple link to following winter conditions.

I've been looking into winter warming over the Arctic sea ice and sea ice thinning in the Siberian sector, blog post here:
http://dosbat.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/winter-warming-and-sea-ice-thinning.html

[Chris Reynolds]

Regards earlier post, 2003 marked as CW in error.

[Entropic man]

Spin-sceptic propoganda sites such as WUWT and McIntyre's can be a useful guide to the quality of new climate science papers.

It is noticeable that the more significant the paper, the more hysterical their attempts to discredit it.

[John Christensen]

On winter forecasting:

The very unscientific approach here in Denmark is that when rowanberries (rønnebær) are big and plentyfull then we will have a harsh winter, and the long, warm summer has provided plenty of these berries.

DMI will provide their seasonal forecast for Denmark/Scandivia and Greenland mid-Nov.

I like the phrase 'beaten like a rented mule' as well.. ;-)

[Colorado Bob]

Neven et.al

Sorry for my rant the other night. I understand and enjoy the whole point of this site.
As for this :
" What really troubles me is reading such partisan attitudes from young students of science."

I'm 64 years old .

[Neven]

Sorry for my rant the other night.

No problem. In fact, you were right. The thing is that, unlike Watts, I want to try to know what I'm talking about. But to get to that point, it takes time and energy, which I don't have much of right now.

Watts' gut feeling theories have been put to bed here and here, if you're interested.

[Colorado Bob]

Neven -
Thanks , but I try and look at the entire planet , and I am well aware of Watts.

I view all this as the crash of nature , I just read your stuff because it's so clean and focused on one aspect . And like Masterson you have a great thread.

Too bad, there aren't others focused on other points like you.

As I said, I watch the whole planet :

Another month at the South Pole. Another month of record high temperatures at the bottom of the world.

The 2013 winter – the months of June, July and August – will already go down as the warmest such season at the South Pole since records began in 1957. That trend continued into September – now the warmest on record – with four new daily maximum record temperatures falling in the middle of the month.

“Saying that it has been a warm winter this year is a bit of an understatement at this point,” said Phillip Marzette, senior meteorologist at the South Pole Station External U.S. government site.
http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/contenthandler.cfm?id=2911

[Colorado Bob]

Because I try and follow the entire planet these numbers from the South Pole , which began last March , with great swings in their temps, makes perfect sense . Australia has just recorded the warmest Sept. on record. But their rise was the highest anomaly of any month in their entire record. After 13 months of record busting highs.

The great fortress of cold at the bottom of the world , is under assault.

[Rob Dekker]

About the Miller et al 2013 study, I'd like to express a word of caution regarding claims of early Holocene in the Arctic being warmer than today.

For starters, the Arctic in the early Holocene experienced an order of magnitude higher level of solar irradiance than today's climate, even as enhanced by GHG emissions and overall global warming.

But the main point of my note of caution is regarding the number of samples they base their evidence on.

It appears that from the 145 dated specimens of mosses and lichens, the vast majority (some 135) dated back to less than 5000 years ago. Only 10 samples (4 mosses and 6 lichens) were carbon dead (older than 55,000 years or so).

Now, it is of course very interesting that a couple of very old specimens were among their evidence, but I'd be very cautious in drawing such significant conclusions from so few samples. Especially since the majority of samples is much younger, and thus apparently the majority of the area was ice free less than 5000 years ago.

[Neven]

Rob, Richard Telford from the Musings on Quantitative Palaeoecology Blog explains this further in a second blog post on the paper.

[John Christensen]

@Rob,

Thanks for the notes on the Miller study, I will read it as well.

Generally, we still know very little about our past climates, and I agree to causion conclusions from the findings, especially when samples are very limited.

There is a Norwegian geologist, Atle Nesje, who has studied the Norwegian glaciers in depth, and below I have summarized his findings (http://www.bjerknes.uib.no/pages.asp?id=1543&kat=8&lang=2):

"Norwegian mountain glaciers in the past, present and future"

"Documentation of glacier changes is a key element for reconstruction of past climate variability and early detection of present and future climate change.
A group of scientists led by Atle Nesje at the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research has synthesised records of Holocene (the period after the last ice age) glacier variations in different regions of Norway, data that has taken more than 20 years to provide.

Norwegian glaciers completely melted away
During the period from approximately 8000-4000 cal. yr BP, most glaciers in Norway were completely melted away at least once due to high summer temperatures and/or reduced winter precipitation. Subsequent to ~6000 cal. yr BP the glaciers started to advance and the period with the most extensive glaciers was during the ‘Little Ice Age’ (~AD 1500-1920).

‘The Little Ice Age’
Lichenometrically and historically dated moraines at Jostedalsbreen, in Jotunheimen, at Hardangerjøkulen, and at Folgefonna were used to extend records of glacier-length variations back to their maximum position during the ‘Little Ice Age’. The timing of the maximum ‘Little Ice Age’ glacial advance in different parts of southern Norway varied considerably, ranging from the early 18th century to the late 19th century. Cumulative glacier length variations of glaciers in southern Norway show an overall retreat from ~AD 1750 to the 1930s-40s. Thereafter, most Norwegian glaciers retreated significantly. Short maritime outlet glaciers with a short response time (<10-15 years) started to advance in the mid 1950s, whereas long outlet glaciers with longer frontal time lag (>15-20 years) continued their retreat to the 1980s.

Recent glaciers advance and retreat
In the 1990s, several of the maritime glaciers started to advance as a response to higher winter accumulation during the first part of the 1990s. Since 2000 most of the observed glaciers have retreated remarkably fast (annual frontal retreat >100 m) mainly due to high summer temperatures. The last glacier inventory in Norway published in 1988 shows that there were 1627 glaciers covering a total area of 2609 km2.

Norwegian glaciers in a future climate
Modern climate-glacier relationships from mass-balance data in Scandinavia have been used to present possible effects on the Norwegian glaciers of climate scenarios between 1961-1990 and 2070-2100 presented by the ‘RegClim’ project. This long-term weather ’forecast’ for western Norway indicates a rise in the summer temperature of 2.3oC and an increase in the winter precipitation of 16% by the end of the 21st century. This climate scenario may, if it occurs, cause the equilibrium-line altitude (ELA) to raise 260 ± 50 m. As a result, about 98% of the Norwegian glaciers are likely to disappear and the glacier area may be reduced ~34% by AD 2100."

What is very interesting are these findings:
- Main Norwegian glaciers have been completely gone within the last 10,000 years.
- The maximum glacier volume in the past 10,000 years occured quite recently
- He is not at all dismissing AGW and expects significant glacier volume reduction in this century

The conclusion of this would be that it is not a discussion of natural variability vs. AGW, as the position seems to be that either one it itself can have significant impact on our climate - which really should be no surprise..

Question: If a glacier melts, which has only existed for 3,500 hundred years, then what does this prove?

Answer: It proves nothing at all, but just shows that natural variability caused conditions to favor a glazier to appear in a place 3,500 hundred years ago, and now AGW is causing this glazier to disappear again.

Only if it would be possible to demonstrate that natural variability is causing significant changes to the key factors (temperature and precipitation), then it could be argued that the glacier is disappearing for natural reasons, and A. Nesje agrees with overall consensus that the expected future warming is caused by AGW.

[Pjie2]

For starters, the Arctic in the early Holocene experienced an order of magnitude higher level of solar irradiance than today's climate

I do not think "order of magnitude" means what you think it means. To increase solar irradiance by an order of magnitude, you have to travel to Mercury.

[Rob Dekker]

You are right Pjie2. That did not quite come out the way I wanted.

What I meant to say is that the increased summer solar irradiance in the early Holocene (some 20-40 W/m^2 more than present) is an order of magnitude more than the modern IR forcing caused by GHG emissions and influx from heat from lower latitudes on a warmer planet.

Now, lots of adjustments (albedo differences, length of seasons, winter temps and precipitation etc) would have to be made for a fair comparison, but that first order assessment suggests that the Arctic summer sun of the early Holocene was much stronger than influence of our GHG emissions today.

[Rob Dekker]

Thanks Neven !
I took my comments to Richard Telford's post.

[Boa05att]

Influence of Arctic sea ice on European summer precipitation.

The results suggest a causal link between observed sea ice anomalies, large-scale atmospheric circulation and increased summer rainfall over northern Europe. Thus, diminished Arctic sea ice may have been a contributing driver of recent wet summers.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/044015

[Boa05att]

Prof. Jenifer Francis

"I think the case has strengthened. I’ve done a bit more research into the linkage with the very warm Arctic following the record 2012 ice loss, and it appears that the heat released from the Arctic Ocean in the fall created a substantial positive anomaly in the upper-level atmospheric heights in the North Atlantic. This likely contributed to the strong ridge and blocking high that existed when Sandy came along, and that ultimately not only steered Sandy westward but also set up the strong pressure gradient between Sandy and the blocking high that caused the enormous expanse of tropical-storm-force winds from Delaware to Nova Scotia."

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/28/2843871/superstorm-sandy-climate-change/

[Jim Hunt]

The view from Exeter on James Screen's latest paper:

http://econnexus.org/does-the-arctic-sea-ice-influence-weather-in-the-south-west/

The video certainly makes things slightly less "dry" than usual. Don't forget another part of his conclusion, which is that:

The simulated NEP response is relatively small compared to simulated year-to-year variability. This means that whilst low sea ice coverage increases the risk of wet summers, other factors can easily negate this influence and lead to dry summers during depleted ice conditions, or wet summers during extensive ice conditions.

We had a very nice summer this year, but that's all changed now!

[Colorado Bob]

Thawing permafrost: The speed of coastal erosion in Eastern Siberia has nearly doubled

The high cliffs of Eastern Siberia – which mainly consist of permafrost – continue to erode at an ever quickening pace. This is the conclusion which scientists of the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research have reached after their evaluation of data and aerial photographs of the coastal regions for the last 40 years. According to the researchers, the reasons for this increasing erosion are rising summer temperatures in the Russian permafrost regions as well the retreat of the Arctic sea ice. This coastal protection recedes more and more on an annual basis. As a result, waves undermine the shores. At the same time, the land surface begins to sink. The small island of Muostakh east of the Lena Delta is especially affected by these changes. Experts fear that it might even disappear altogether should the loss of land continue.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-10-permafrost-coastal-erosion-eastern-siberia.html#jCp

[Jim Hunt]

The Indy's moderator now approves!

[idunno]

NASA Giss reports September 2013 as the equal warmest September since records began...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Curiouser and curiouser. Perhaps the heat not used to melt ice in 2013 is elsewhere, warming the oceans and the atmosphere...

[John Christensen]

@idunno,

Yes, agreed that the heat this year must have gone elsewhere, as 2013 will be the first year since 2004 and next 2000, where the CT SIA negative worldwide anomaly does not pass 1 Mkm^2, unless we see some significant events during the final months of this year:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

[idunno]

The refreeze currently seemsto be progressing much faster on the Eurasian side than along the Canadian/US coast.

The most striking regional graph is the East Siberian:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.9.html

Very unusual to see a positive anomaly. I also see there was an apparent refreeze in June this year. What went on there?

Ice has been growing rapidly in the Greenland Sea:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.5.html

Not sure if this is due to export from the Central Basin resuming, or whether it's opne water freezing over.

As the refreeze is slow everywhere on the N American side, from Chukchi thru Beaufort thru CA to the Baffin, it will be interesting to see how long that lasts.

[Jim Hunt]

idunno - The rapid growth in the Greenland Sea is being discussed on the ASI Forum:

"Drift, Deformation and Fracture of Sea Ice"

Export resuming seems to be the consensus at the moment.

[Boa05att]

Thawing Permafrost: The Speed of Coastal Erosion in Eastern Siberia Has Nearly Doubled

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131029133807.htm#.UnNsPqUriNQ.twitter

[Colorado Bob]

Stinky Bluffs

http://www.weather.com/tv/tvshows/tipping-points/video/stinky-bluffs-38735

45,000 Year Old Ice

http://www.weather.com/tv/tvshows/tipping-points/video/45000-year-old-ice-38736?collid=/tv/tvshows/tipping-points

[John Christensen]

PIOMAS is back..!

Never thought I should notice that, before Neven has a post out - looking forward to it.

[philiponfire]

for anyone still thinking that a low level of atlantic hurricanes means anything at all... cyclones in the Pacific have not had a low season.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/super-typhoon-haiyan-a-serious/19561621
this one is quite big!

[wili]

Yep.

In fact it is the strongest ever to hit land!

[TenneyNaumer]

Have you all taken notice of the extremely high Arctic Oscillation Index (nearly +4.5)? It appears to be so high that the forecasting models predict a very steep nose dive (never seen that before):

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao_index_ensm.shtml

And, this is accompanied by a lack of ice growing in the Kara and Barents Seas, which may or may not be related.