The Arctic is prone to suffer from three kinds of warming. Firstly, the Arctic is hit particularly hard by emissions, as discussed in earlier posts such as this one and this one.

Secondly, warming in the Arctic is accelerating due to feedbacks, as discussed on the feedbacks page. Many such feedbacks are related to decline of the snow and ice cover in the Arctic, which is in turn made worse by emissions such as soot.

Thirdly, the most dangerous feedback is release of methane from the Arctic Ocean seafloor, due to hydrates getting destabilized as heat reaches sediments.

Last year, Arctic sea ice reached its maximum extent on February 25, 2015. This year, there was a lot less sea ice in the Arctic on February 25 than there was last year, as illustrated by above image. The difference is about 300,000 square km, more than the size of the United Kingdom.

The image below shows that global sea ice on February 22, 2016, was only 14.22086 million square km in area. It hasn't been that low since satellite records started to measure the sea ice.

A number of feedbacks are associated with the decline of sea ice, such as more sunlight being absorbed by the water, instead of being reflected back into space as it was previously. Furthermore, there are three kinds of warming active in the Arctic, as described above and as depicted by the image below.

Sea ice can reflect as much as 90% of the sunlight back into space. Once the ice has melted away, however, the water of the ocean reflects only 6% of the incoming solar radiation and absorbs the rest. This is depicted in above image as feedback #1.

As Professor Peter Wadhams once calculated, warming due to Arctic snow and ice loss could more than double the net warming now caused by all emissions by all people of the world.

Professor Peter Wadhams on albedo changes in the Arctic, image from Edge of Extinction

As the sea ice melts, sea surface temperatures will remain at around zero degree Celsius (32°F) for as long as there is ice in the water, since rising ocean heat will first go into melting the ice. Only after the ice has melted will ocean heat start raising the temperature of the water. Sea ice thus acts as a buffer that absorbs heat, preventing water temperatures from rising. As long as sea ice is melting, each gram of ice will take 334 Joule of heat to change into water, while the temperature remains at 0° Celsius or 32° Fahrenheit.

Once all ice has turned into water, all further heat goes into heating up the water. To raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius then takes only 4.18 Joule of heat. In other words, melting of the ice absorbs 8 times as much heat as it takes to warm up the same mass of water from zero to 10°C. This is depicted in the image on the right as feedback #14.

Above video, created by Stuart Trupp, shows how added heat at first (A) goes mainly into warming up water that contains ice cubes. From about 38 seconds into the movie, all heat starts going into the transformation of the ice cubes into water, while the temperature of the water doesn't rise (B). More than a minute later, as the ice cubes have melted (C), the temperature of the water starts rising rapidly again.

Methane is a further feedback, depicted as feedback #2 on the image further above. As the water of the Arctic Ocean keeps getting warmer, the danger increases that heat will reach the seafloor where it can trigger release of huge amounts of methane, in an additional feedback loop that will make warming in the Arctic accelerate and escalate into runaway warming.

Sediments underneath the Arctic Ocean hold vast amounts of methane. Just one part of the Arctic Ocean alone, the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS, see map below), holds up to 1700 Gt of methane. A sudden release of less than 3% of this amount could add 50 Gt of methane to the atmosphere, and experts have warned for many years that they consider such an amount to be ready for release at any time.

Above image gives a simplified picture of the threat, showing that of a total methane burden in the atmosphere of 5 Gt (it is meanwhile higher), 3 Gt that has been added since the 1750s, and this addition is responsible for almost half of all antropogenic global warming. The amount of carbon stored in hydrates globally was in 1992 estimated to be 10,000 Gt (USGS), while a more recent estimate gives a figure of 63,400 Gt (Klauda & Sandler, 2005). Once more, the scary conclusion is that the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) alone holds up to 1700 Gt of methane in the form of methane hydrates and free gas contained in sediments, of which 50 Gt is ready for abrupt release at any time.

The warning signs keep getting stronger. Following a peak methane reading of 3096 ppb on February 20, 2016, a reading of 3010 ppb was recorded in the morning of February 25, 2016, at 586 mb (see image below).

Again, this very high level was likely caused by methane originating from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean, at a location on the Gakkel Ridge just outside the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS), as discussed in the earlier post. This conclusion is supported by the methane levels at various altitudes over the ESAS, as recorded by both the MetOp-1 and MetOp-2 satellites in the afternoon, as illustrated by the combination image below showing methane levels at 469 mb.

The situation is dire a calls for comprehensive and effective action as described in the Climate Plan.


Links

- Feedbacks in the Arctic
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/feedbacks.html

- Albedo changes in the Arctic
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2012/07/albedo-change-in-arctic.html

- The time has come to spread the message
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-time-has-come-to-spread-the-message.html

- Greenhouse gas levels and temperatures keep rising
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2016/01/greenhouse-gas-levels-and-temperatures-keep-rising.html

- Arctic sea ice area at record low for time of year
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2016/01/arctic-sea-ice-area-at-record-low-for-time-of-year.html

- Has maximum sea ice extent already been reached this year?
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2016/02/has-maximum-sea-ice-extent-already-been-reached-this-year.html

- Global sea ice extent record minimum - Arctic Sea Ice Blog
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2016/02/global-sea-ice-extent-minimum-record.html

- Warming of the Arctic Fueling Extreme Weather
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2014/06/warming-of-the-arctic-fueling-extreme-weather.html

- Climate Plan
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/plan.html

Last year, Arctic sea ice reached its maximum extent on February 25, 2015. This year, there's a lot less sea ice in the...
Posted by Sam Carana on Friday, February 26, 2016

The Arctic is experiencing a heatwave in winter, with temperature anomalies on February 23, 2016, averaging 7.84°C or 14.11°F higher than what was common 1979-2000.

The forecast for 6:00 UTC on February 23, 2016, shows an anomaly of 8.17°C or 14.71°F.

Temperatures in January 2016 over the Arctic Ocean were 7.3°C (13.1°F) higher than in 1951-1980, according to NASA data, as illustrated by the graph on the right, from an earlier post.

These high temperatures go hand in hand with sea ice extent that is much lower for this time of year than since records started.

As discussed in an earlier post, low sea ice extent is fueling fears that this year's maximum extent was already reached on February 9, 2016.

A much higher ocean temperature is behind both the low sea ice extent and the high temperature anomalies.

Ocean temperatures are particularly high where the Gulf Stream pushes water from Atlantic Ocean into the Arctic Ocean, as illustrated by the image below that compares sea surface temperature anomalies in the Arctic between the years 2015 and 2016 for February 22nd.

This spells bad news for the sea ice in 2016, since El Niño is still going strong and ocean temperature keeps rising, as illustrated by the NOAA global ocean temperature anomalies graph for January below.

 The situation is dire and calls for comprehensive and effective action, as described in the Climate Plan.

ARCTIC WINTER HEATWAVE The Arctic is experiencing a heatwave in winter, with temperature anomalies on February 23,...
Posted by Sam Carana on Tuesday, February 23, 2016

That sign - the one pointing in the direction of the White House - is looking ever closer to the truth.  Trump hasn't just won South Carolina, he's once again swamped his opponents.  While Jeb Bush finally acknowledges that his lame and unconvincing campaign really isn't going anywhere, Ted Cruz must also be feeling anything but glorious as he contemplates the failure of his vote to go beyond the already tied-in evangelicals.  As for Rubio, he's made it big - for the first time - by coming in second a bare few percentage points above Cruz.  Not exactly the aura of an invincible challenger to the galloping maverick in front of him.

It's still difficult to see how the Republican race might coalesce around a serious challenger to Trump, and in the meantime the Donald should start thinking about possible VP picks.  And here's a mould-busting thought.  Given that Hillary Clinton may finally have consigned her own opponent to the position of supporting act in the Democrat race, through a decent - though hardly mind-bending - victory in Nevada, there is an appealing insurgent available for other political duties. 

Bernie Sanders is as much a maverick in his way as Trump, and his political positions are more nuanced than the campaign has really let on.  Trump, meanwhile, picked up plenty of moderates and independents in the South Carolina vote.  What about the power of a doubly insurgent campaign to clear up on American voters' detestation of "politics as normal"?  With this being the year of the challenger, could a Trump-Sanders ticket be either unbelievable or beatable?

Donald Trump's presence is already clear in Washington DC.  A couple of blocks down from the White House a large placard announces that Trump is coming here in 2016.  Whether or not his company's renovation of the old Post Office building into its latest hotel (with what will be "Washington's largest ballroom" - just right for an inaugural ball) is a sign of a more serious presence in the nation's federal capital is yet to be seen, but as South Carolina's primary enters its closing phase as I write, Trump is starting to look like an unstoppable force.

If New Hampshire proclaimed Trump's ability to transcend the largely hostile coverage from the mainstream media, and his clear political potency after having been seen initially as a national joke, then South Carolina could be the primary that makes him the almost unbeatable front-runner.  Trump as president is not looking quite such a remote prospect today.

Of course, this extraordinary and unpredictable race still has many curves to navigate, but Trump as stayer and possible victor is shaping up as a clear line in the primary sands.  Cruz is his closest runner, and that is one of the reasons South Carolina is so significant.  Win there, and Trump shows that he is more than capable of winning the evangelical vote on which Cruz's run so much depends.  Cruz's appeal is narrow compared to the more iconoclastic Trump. 

As for Rubio, as one MSNBC commentator noted today, coming 3rd., 5th., and 3rd does not constitute front-runner status.  He needs to win somewhere!

If South Carolina goes for Trump today, he may not need the swanky new hotel he's building.  There's a nice residence just down Pennsylvania Avenue just waiting for the New York billionaire to move in.

An earlier post wondered whether maximum extent for this year had already been reached, i.e. on February 9, 2016, when sea ice extent was 14.214 million km².

As illustrated by the image below, extent since has been lower, including on the two most recent days on the image, i.e. on February 16 and 17, 2016, when extent was respectively 14.208 and 14.203 million km².

Last year (2015), maximum sea ice extent was reached on February 25. That's close to the most recent date on the image of February 17, so with El Nino still going strong, it may well be that the maximum in 2016 will be reached early.

On the other hand, strong winds could spread out the sea ice and speed up its drift out of the Arctic Ocean, which may result in a larger extent, but which won't do much to strengthen the sea ice.

UPDATES: On February 18, 2016 (arrow), Arctic sea ice extent was 14.186 million square km, i.e. less than it was on February 9. In fact, sea ice extent hasn't been higher on any day since February 9, 2016. So, the question is, has this year's maximum extent already passed us by (i.e. on February 9)?

The image below shows the heat is having a huge impact on the sea ice, with some areas (black) showing sea surface temperature anomalies above 8°C (or above 14.4°F).

Ominously, sea surface off the North American east coast was as much as 11.8°C or 21.3°F warmer on February 19, 2016, than it was in 1981-2011 (at the location marked by the green circle in the image below).

Temperatures over the Arctic Ocean are forecast to remain extremely high for the next five days, with anomalies in a large part of the Arctic Ocean at the top end of the scale, i.e. 20°C or 36°F.

As the image below shows, Arctic sea ice area was at a record low for the time of year on February 18, 2016.



The image below shows that Arctic sea ice extent on February 20, 2016, was only 14.166
million km² (arrow), adding to fears that this year's maximum was already reached on February 9.

The image below shows that Arctic sea ice extent on February 21, 2016, was only 14.160
million km² (arrow), further fueling fears that this year's maximum was already reached on February 9.

Meanwhile, very high methane levels, as high as 3096 parts per billion, were recorded on February 20, 2016, as shown by the image below.

Further analysis indicates that these high levels likely originated from destabilizing methane hydrates in sediments, from a location about latitude 85°North and longitude +105° (East), on the Gakkel Ridge, just outside the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, at the location of the red marker on the map below.

Below is a comparison map, from grida.no

for large-size image, go to grida.no

Below is a map with sea surface temperature anomalies on February 20, 2016. The green circle marks the likely location of sediment destabilization and subsequent methane plume, at about latitude 85°North and longitude +105° (East), on the Gakkel Ridge, just outside the East Siberian Arctic Shelf.

zoom in and out at nullschool.net

If you like, you can discuss this further at the Arctic News group or below.

On February 18, 2016 (arrow), Arctic sea ice extent was 14.186 million square km, i.e. less than it was on February 9....
Posted by Sam Carana on Friday, February 19, 2016

Embed from Getty Images

Well it's a thought anyway.  If conservative Justice Antonin Scalia's death has plunged America into a potential constitutional crisis and more crie de coeurs about whether its system of government is fit for purpose, there is still some mileage to be made by beleaguered Democrats.

In short, Scalia was a conservative Justice - rigorously conservative actually - whose replacement by anyone even marginally to his left could initiate a change in the political direction of the Court.  And make no mistake, political direction is what it is all about.  This court has long been political, whether it was as an activist liberal court under Earl Warren, or the Republican leaning Court that appointed its political fellow traveller, George W Bush, as president in Bush v Gore in 2000.

So its opinions may be beautifully worded and legally argued to the nth degree, but they have a huge political impact and the Justices all know it.

So does President Obama, the appointee to date of two Justices - each of whom replaced a retiring liberal.  In his reflections on what makes a good Justice, one of Obama's least legal but most impressive citations was that of empathy. As Slate writer Dahlia Lithwick notes in a fascinating article, Obama understood that justice is not some remote, detached concept but actually affects people's lives.  The former law professor commented that:

I want my justice to understand that part of the role of the court is to look out for the people who don’t have political power. The people who are on the outside. The people who aren’t represented. The people who don’t have a lot of money; who don’t have connections. That’s the role of the court.

Not something, as Lithwick points out, that could ever have been considered the abiding value of the late Justice Scalia.

The battle to replace Scalia is potentially undermining for America's system of government, and showcases the level of polarisation that country's politics are now delivering.  Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is quite clear that he doesn't see any need to appoint a new Justice until America has a new president.  He is way out of line constitutionally, but well in line in a party that is so rigorously partisan that it has no memory of what it was once like to legislate and govern in the national interest.  McConnell and his allies on the Hill make Richard Nixon look like a model of bi-partisan leadership.

But could the Republicans' determination to co-opt the Supreme Court into their political battles backfire?  Suppose - no mean supposition this - that the Republicans do not win back the white House and it goes to either Clinton or, more dangerously for them, Sanders?  Suppose the larger than usual number of voters who always tend to come out for presidential elections take against the Republicans enough to push the Senate back into Democratic hands?  It's not unusual for it to change hands in the presidential election years after all.

What price then Senator McConnell's bullish strategy?  A Democratic president, and a recently out of work law professor who has just served the nation as president.  Could Obama be the retaliatory nominee for the Supreme Court under a President Clinton or Sanders?  After all, former president William Howard Taft went on to serve with distinction as a Justice.  And Clinton, no matter how spontaneously, embraced the idea when a voter in Iowa suggested it.

It would be poetic justice indeed if president Obama became Justice Obama because the Republicans chose to delay appointing a Supreme Court replacement for a year after a vacancy arose.  Oh please make it happen!

For the time of year, Arctic sea ice remains at a record low since satellite records started in 1979, both for area and extent. The image below shows Arctic sea ice area up to February 12, 2016, when area was 12.49061 million square km.

The image below shows Arctic sea ice extent up to February 12, 2016, when extent was 14.186 million square km.

The reason for the record low sea ice is that there is more ocean heat than there used to be. The image below shows that on February 12, 2016, the Arctic Ocean sea surface temperature was as warm as 11.3°C (52.4°F) at a location near Svalbard marked by the green circle, a 10.4°C (18.7°F) anomaly.

The reason for this is that the water off the east coast of North America is much warmer than it used to be.

The Gulf Stream is pushing heat all the way into the Arctic Ocean.

The image below shows that on February 14, 2016, sea surface temperature anomalies (compared to 1981-2011) off the east coast of North America were was as high as 10.1°C or 18.1°F (at the location marked by the green circle).

While sea surface looks cooler (compared to 1981-2011) over a large part of the North Atlantic, an increasing amount of ocean heat appears to be traveling underneath the sea surface all the way into the Arctic Ocean, as discussed at this earlier post.

This spells bad news for the sea ice in 2016, since El Niño is still going strong. Temperatures in January 2016 over the Arctic Ocean were 7.3°C (13.1°F) higher than in 1951-1980, according to NASA data, as illustrated by the graph on the right.

See the Controversy page for discussion

A polynomial trend added to the January land temperature anomaly on the Northern Hemisphere since 1880 shows that a 10°C (18°F) rise could eventuate by the year 2044, as illustrated by the graph on the right. Over the Arctic Ocean, the rise can be expected to be even more dramatic.

As the NASA map below illustrates, the global January 2016 land-ocean temperature anomaly from 1951-1980 was 1.13°C (or over 2°F) and the heat did hit the Arctic Ocean stronger than elsewhere.

In January 2016, it was 1.92°C (3.46°F) warmer on land than in January 1890-1910. Before 1900, temperature had already risen by ~0.3°C (0.54°F), which makes it a joint 2.22°C (4°F) rise. On the Northern Hemisphere, the rise on land was the most profound, with over 10°C (18°F) warming occurring at the highest latitudes.

Meanwhile, methane levels as high as 2539 parts per billion (ppb) were recorded on February 13, 2016, as illustrated by the image below.

The danger is that, as the Arctic Ocean keeps warming, huge amounts of methane will erupt abruptly from its seafloor.

The situation is dire and calls for comprehensive and effective action as described at the Climate Plan.

Update: Arctic sea ice extent keeps falling. Last year (2015), maximum sea ice extent was reached on February 25. Could it be that maximum extent for this year was already reached on February 9, 2016? The image below illustrates this question. discussed further at the Arctic News group.

discuss this further at the Arctic News group

Arctic sea ice extent keeps falling. Last year (2015), maximum sea ice extent was reached on February 25. Could it be...
Posted by Sam Carana on Monday, February 15, 2016

In 2014, I ran my first Jed Smith. This is what I had to say about it: I don't know that I would do this race again. I am not a huge fan of the multi loop course. However, I never say never, because you can get into trouble that way! Maybe next time I will just sit at the finish line and watch everyone else run by 6 times while I drink beer in the sun.

In 2015, I ran it again. Here is what I said afterwards: So, another Jed Smith in the books. Will I run it again? I want to say no, but the answer is probably yes.

This year, as I sat on my couch in my PJs in the cold of winter and clicked the "register" button once again, I knew that I was going to regret it, but I didn't care, because I was warm and cozy and February seemed like so far away, and I had already forgotten how much I disliked running this race. 

It's hard NOT to do this race. It's the first race of the year; I know practically everyone running it; it's usually sunny and on the drive back we always stop at Pedricks for apples and wasabi peas. Who doesn't love all of that? However, every year, somewhere on the 3rd of 4th loop, I ask myself why the heck I signed up for this race yet again. 

The course is a small out and back to make up the miles and then six 4.9 mile identical loops, on the hard pavement of the American River bike path. My goal was to attempt an 8 minute mile for as long as possible, with the final goal to be under 9 minutes per mile. I also wanted my "marathon time" (through lap 5) to be under 3:45. 

Out and Back / Loop 1: 55:28 (8:07/mi) I felt pretty good on this lap. It was sunny; the wind was in my face and I ran with a new friend and it was fun getting to know each other through the miles. She stopped at the aid station at the start/finish and I pressed on. 

Loop 2: 39:06 (8:03/mi) I was still feeling good, although my feet were beginning to hurt a bit. I had worn new shoes, but had an extra pair at the start just in case. Otherwise, things were going well. I put my tunes on and kept on trucking. I was having a bit of breathing trouble, but I attributed it to the fact that I was testing out a new hydration pack. 

Loop 3: 40:24 (8:19/mi) At the beginning of the loop, I realized that I should have changed my shoes the last time I passed the start. However, I had already gotten far enough that I decided to press on instead. I lapped my first friend and got lapped by the leaders of the pack. For some reason I could NOT get a deep breath. I had to stop and walk and loosen up my pack, but it was still not really working. 

Loop 4: 44:33 (9:10/mi) I stopped to change my shoes and grab a bite to eat, as I was starting to feel a bit nauseous. I was also fiercely thirsty. I kept having to stop to drink because I couldn't breath and run and drink at the same time. I also lapped another friend and used the excuse to walk with her for a few minutes. 

Loop 5: 45:36 (9:23/mi) This lap was a lot of walking. I was really feeling crummy and I tried to eat but it was not helping. My strategy was to walk and eat and then run once I was done. I was really, really wishing that this was the last lap. About halfway through this lap, two of my friends (who are in my age group!) passed me, one of them saying that she had been trying to catch me forever. I just waved at her and tried not to vomit. I passed the "marathon mark" at 3:45:05. 

Loop 6: 45:20 (9:20/mi) Ah....the feeling that comes when you pass the start line the last time and know that this is your final loop. As I always do, I tried to calculate how long it would take me if I just walked the rest of this lap. And, as always, I decided that to get this thing over with as fast as possible, I better run. However, my legs were getting a bit tired and I was still SO THIRSTY, but I told myself I could walk through the aid stations. I did a bit of walk/run and finally was on my last two miles. By my math, I had 16 minutes to get to the finish line before the 4:30 mark. I really wanted to break 4:30, so I pushed it as hard as I could but it wasn't hard enough, because my finish time was.... 


TOTAL: 4:30:30 (8:41/mi)
Overall: 24/83
GP: 8
AP: 4/12

Overall, although I would have liked to (a) get under that 4:30 mark and (b) place higher in my age group, I am pretty happy about this time. It is a one minute PR from my fastest Jed Smith, as well as a 50k PR, which is a win in my book. In addition, I beat this girl who was my "nemesis" in my age group last year, although I think I may have three new nemesis this year! 

I guess I have some work to do before next year's race, huh? 

Are you a glutton for punishment? Do you do some things over and over even though you don't really like them that much? If so, WHY? 

Arctic Ocean hit most strongly by global warming

Over the past 12 months, global warming was felt most strongly over the Arctic Ocean, as above image illustrates. Over most parts of the Arctic Ocean, surface temperatures were above the top end of the scale, i.e. more than 2.5°C higher than in 1981-2010.

In January 2016, air temperatures close to sea level (at 925 hPa) were more than 6°C or 13°F above average across most of the Arctic Ocean, as NSIDC.org announced recenty. Moreover, daily average temperatures over many parts of the Arctic Ocean often exceed the top end of the scale, i.e. 20°C or 36°F higher than in 1979-2000, as illustrated by the Climate Reanalyzer forecast below.

So, how can temperature anomalies over the Arctic Ocean at this time of year be so much higher than elsewhere on Earth?

One factor is feedbacks such as changes to the jet stream and decline of snow and ice cover in the Arctic that makes that ever more sunlight is getting absorbed by the water of the Arctic Ocean, in turn causing further decline, as discussed in many earlier posts.

Right now, however, warming over the Arctic Ocean is very pronounced at a time of year when there is a wider temperature difference between the Arctic and the Equator, while there is little or no sunlight reaching the Arctic. So, albedo changes are less relevant, while changes to the jet stream would be expected to be less prominent now. Nonetheless, a strongly deformed jet stream can push a lot of warm air all the way up to the North Pole, while pushing a lot of cold air out of the Arctic over North America, as illustrated by the forecast on the right.

Let's look at some further factors that are at work.

High levels of greenhouse gases over the Arctic

The question was, why is warming hitting to Arctic Ocean so strongly at this time of year? Greenhouse gas levels are higher over the Arctic than elsewhere on Earth. Greenhouse gases trap heat that would otherwise be radiated out to space, and this greenhouse effect is occurring all year long.

[ click on images to enlarge them ]

Let's look more closely at carbon dioxide (CO2) levels. On February 4, 2016, CO2 level at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, was 405.83 ppm, as illustrated by the image on the right. 

The image below shows that global mean CO2 level on February 6, 2016, was 407 ppm at an altitude close to sea level (972 mb). The image also shows higher CO2 levels at higher latitudes north, with levels over 410 ppm showing up over most of the Northern Hemisphere. 

Carbon dioxide levels on Feb. 8, 2016, were as high as 416 ppm at a location over the Kara Sea (marked by the green circle at the top of the image on the right).

Nonetheless, the levels of carbon dioxide over the Arctic Ocean are not that much higher than elsewhere, i.e. not enough to explain such huge temperature anomalies.

Methane, another greenhouse gas, is also present over the Arctic Ocean at levels that are higher than the rest of the world, as illustrated by the image below, showing methane levels over 1900 ppb over most of the Arctic Ocean on February 4, 2016. 

In the case of methane, the situation is different than for carbon dioxide:

• levels at the North Pole are more than 10% higher than at the South Poles, a much larger difference than for carbon dioxide. 
• methane is reaching its highest levels over the Arctic Ocean from October onward to well into the next year. 
• methane persists longer over the Arctic due to low hydroxyl levels there. 
• methane levels over the Arctic Ocean are high, as increasingly large amounts of methane are rising up from the Arctic Ocean seafloor, making that this methane will inherently be highly concentrated over the Arctic, especially shortly after its release. 

In conclusion, it looks like methane is playing an increasingly large role in warming up the Arctic, especially given its large short-term potency as a greenhouse gas.

from: arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/methane.html

AMOC is carrying ever more heat into the Arctic Ocean

Besides methane, there is another big reason why temperature anomalies are so high over Arctic Ocean at this time of year. Huge amounts of heat are rising up from the water into the atmosphere over the Arctic Ocean, warming up the air over the water. The warmer the sea, the less ice will form. The weaker the ice, the more cracks and spots where heat gets transferred to the atmosphere.

The water of the Arctic Ocean is getting warmer, compared to previous years, as the Gulf Stream heats up. When referring to the full length from the Gulf of Mexico to the Arctic Ocean, this current is often referred to as the North Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). The direction of AMOC's flow is determined by two forces, i.e. the flow of warm water from the Equator to the north, and the the flow east due to the Coriolis force. The result is warm, salty water is carried by AMOC in the upper layers of the Atlantic toward the north-east, to Arctic Ocean. Eventually, the water sinks and flows back as colder water through the deep Atlantic. As the NOAA image below shows, the amount of heat that has been carried by AMOC toward the Arctic Ocean has been increasing over the past few years.



Overall ocean temperatures are increasing, as discussed in posts such as Ocean Heat and Temperature Rise. As a result, more heat is getting carried toward the Arctic Ocean now. The Gulf Stream off the coast of North America is warming up strongly and is pushing more heat toward the Arctic ocean, compared to previous years. The result is illustrated by the image below, showing huge sea surface temperature anomalies in the Arctic Ocean near Svalbard, despite the cold lid on the north Atlantic, indicating that the heat is continuing to travel underneath the cold freshwater lid to the Arctic Ocean.

Such high sea surface temperature anomalies are not uncommon in the Arctic Ocean these days. The image below shows that on January 24, 2016, sea surface temperature was 12.3°C or 54.2°F at a location near Svalbard marked by the green circle, a 10.4°C or 18.7°F anomaly.

from: Arctic sea ice area at record low for time of year

Water now much warmer off the North American coast

The water off the east coast of North America is much warmer than it used to be due to emissions that extend from North America over the Atlantic Ocean due to the Coriolis force. The image below, from an earlier post, shows carbon dioxide levels as high as 511 ppm over New York on November 5, 2015, and as high as 500 ppm over the water off the coast of coast of New Jersey on November 2, 2015.

from the post: 2015 warmest year on record

The image below shows carbon monoxide levels. Carbon monoxide depletes hydroxyl, making it harder for methane to be oxidized. So again methane appears to be a major factor.

from: Arctic sea ice area at record low for time of year

Such emissions heat up the Gulf Stream and make that ever warmer water is carried underneath the sea surface all the way into the Arctic Ocean. 

Cold freshwater lid on the North Atlantic

Finally, the cold freshwater lid on the North Atlantic makes that less heat transfer occurs from ocean to atmosphere. This cold freshwater lid makes that more heat is flowing toward the Arctic Ocean just below the sea surface of the North Atlantic. 

sea ice speed and drift, forecast for February 18, 2016

This cold freshwater lid is spreading over the North Atlantic for a number of reasons: 

• more melting of glaciers on Greenland, on Svalbard and in North Canada; 
• more sea ice drifting into the Atlantic Ocean due to stronger winds. Storms move up the Atlantic in a circular way, speeding up sea ice drift along the edges of Greenland, as illustrated by this video and the images on the right;
• stronger evaporation off the east coast of North America, with moisture being carried by stronger winds to the north-east, resulting in more precipitation settling on the water and thus freshwater getting added to the North Atlantic, as illustrated by the image below.

As above image also illustrates, this cold freshwater lid on the North Atlantic could also result in more heat being carried into the Arctic Ocean, due to reduced heat transfer to the atmosphere from water on its way to the Arctic Ocean.

Above image illustrates how higher temperatures over the Arctic (top panel) can go hand in hand with the cold freshwater lid over the North Atlantic (second panel), with high sea surface temperatures off the east coast of North America (third panel) and with higher precipitation over this cold freshwater lid (bottom panel).

The image below indicates that the cold freshwater lid on the North Atlantic also goes hand in hand with falling salinity levels.

Precipitation over the North Atlantic is increasing, due to stronger winds and storms there, as discussed in earlier posts such as this one and as illustrated by the images below. Stronger winds, storms with high levels of precipitation and higher waves can all make the cold freshwater lid spread further across the North Atlantic. 

Above image show that waves as high as 17.81 m or 58.4 ft were forecast for the North Atlantic on February 1, 2016, and as high as 17.31 m or 56.8 ft for February 8, 2016.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the danger is that ever more heat will arrive in the Arctic Ocean. This will result in greater melting of the sea ice, in a self-reinforcing feedback loop that makes that more sunlight gets absorbed by the Arctic Ocean (rather than being reflected back into space, as before).

On February 11, 2016, Arctic sea ice had - for this time of year - the lowest extent since satellite records started in 1979, as illustrated by the image below.

The biggest danger is that, as the Arctic Ocean continues to warm, huge amounts of methane will erupt abruptly from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean, driving up temperatures over the Arctic dramatically and triggering ever more methane eruptions, resulting in a rapid escalation into runaway warming.

The situation is dire and calls for comprehensive and effective action, as described in the Climate Plan.

Over the past 12 months, global warming was felt most strongly over the Arctic Ocean. Over most parts of the Arctic...
Posted by Sam Carana on Thursday, February 11, 2016