Exploring the Formation of Arctic Ice: Summary & Evaluation

This essay provides a summary and evaluation of the factors contributing to ice formation in the Arctic, addressing the historical puzzle of why Antarctica glaciated much earlier than the Arctic. It discusses the interplay between oceans, continents, and the atmosphere, highlighting the roles of Gondwana's breakup, the Drake Passage, and the Isthmus of Panama. The essay explains the ocean conveyor system and how differences in salinity between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans influenced heat distribution, ultimately leading to ice formation in the north. It references Peter Weyl's hypothesis and subsequent research confirming the Gulf Stream's intensification as a key factor. The paper also evaluates the presented information, asserting its clarity and logical chronology, making it suitable for individuals interested in geography and natural phenomena. The essay concludes by emphasizing the impact of geological changes on seawater distribution, nutrients, and energy, which, combined with atmospheric changes, resulted in a changing climate.

Running Head: SUMMARY AND EVALUATION OF ICE IN THE ARCTIC
1
1
1
1
Summary and Evaluation on Ice in the Arctic
Name
Professor
Course
Date

SUMMARY AND EVALUATION OF ICE IN THE ARCTIC
2
Summary
It has always been a question and an aspect of disbelief among many scientists from the
fact that Antarctica was completely covered by ice 34 million years ago but the Arctic Ocean got
its ice 3 million years ago. It is seen that the response to the above actually exists in the interplay
among oceans, continents and the atmosphere. It is clear that Gondwana broke and separated into
pieces of land that later became India, Africa, Australia, South America and Antarctica.
Antarctica was later surrounded by the Southern ocean when it cut itself from top create the
Drake Passage. This resulted in the isolation of Antarctica from the ocean warmth thus leading
to massive cooling (Polyak et al, 2010).
There exists evidence that suggests that the Isthmus of Panama separated the Atlantic and
the Pacific thus drastically changing the world ocean circulation (Granskog et al, 2016). In the
present day climate system, there exists a circulation pattern in the form of an ocean conveyor
that is responsible for the redistribution of heat and moisture throughout the continent. It is
important to note that the Ocean Conveyor works under the principle of the fact that there exists
a difference in salt content between the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans (Yang et al, 2016).
Approximately 5 million years ago evaporation in the Caribbean and the Atlantic left
behind ocean waters which was much saltier and water vapor that was fresh was found all over

SUMMARY AND EVALUATION OF ICE IN THE ARCTIC
3
the atmosphere. Winds carried this water vapor across the Isthmus of Panama fresh water was
deposited as rainfall in the Pacific. This resulted in the Pacific becoming even much fresher
compared to the Atlantic. More warmth and salty water were transported to the northern latitudes
and got cooled making them dense enough to sink an ocean floor (Wang &Overland, 2012).
This played a crucial role in bringing about ice in the north. Peter Weyl came up with a
hypothesis that the intensification of the Gulph stream among other factors is indeed responsible
for the ice sheet growth in the Northern Hemisphere. After a milestone of proposals and theories
from various people including Lloyd Keigwin, In 1998 Gerald Haug and Ralf Tiedemann
confirmed Keigwins work (Cavalieri & Parkinson, 2012).
It’s also seen that the shutting down of the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period and the glaciation
of the Northern Hemisphere approximately the same time but basically 2 million years after the
formation of the Isthmus of Panama was as a result of short-circuiting the conveyor (Funder et
al, 2011).
Weyl’s original theory brought various concerns like how could the Gulf Stream that
transports moisture and heat result to the cooling and ice formation in the Nothern hemisphere. It
was from this raised concern that Neal Driscoll and Gerald Haug came in and proposed a
possible solution (Wang & Overland, 2012). They suggested that the moisture was transported
by the prevailing winds to Eurasia and it fell as snow and rain thus depositing much more fresh
water into the Arctic Ocean. This was however done directly or indirectly via the Siberian rives.
It is this additional fresh water that was believed to have facilitated the formation of sea ice,
which acted as a barrier preventing the heat from the ocean from escaping into the atmosphere.
These two phenomenon were believed to be the cause of the cool in the higher altitudes. In

SUMMARY AND EVALUATION OF ICE IN THE ARCTIC
4
addition to that, the Arctic waters flowing back into the Atlantic would get less cold and salty at
times thus short-circuiting the actual efficiency of the ocean conveyor belt (Funder et al, 2011).
The moisture and the Arctic nucleus for cooling are two conditions that would significantly make
the system favorable for ice sheet growth. It is also important to note that lessons learnt from
these geological and geographical changes which involved the opening and closing of the crucial
seaways had a great impact on the distribution of not only sea water but also nutrients and energy
in the form of the global ocean. A combination of the changing sea waters and the constantly
changing atmosphere resulted in a changing climate (Polyak et al, 2010).
Evaluation of the Paper
From the paper Ice in the Arctic, we see a clear explanation of how events unfold as they
try to explain the reasons and the possible causes for the existence of ice in the Arctic. The paper
makes sense as the explanation is clear and vivid and the chronology of events as they unfold is
clear too. This was anyway done specifically or in a roundabout way by means of the Siberian
rives. It is this extra new water that was accepted to have encouraged the development of ocean
ice, which went about as a hindrance keeping the warmth from the sea from getting away into the
environment. The targeted individuals for this article are the persons interested in geography and
understanding of natural phenomenons and why they actually exist (Funder et al, 2011).

SUMMARY AND EVALUATION OF ICE IN THE ARCTIC
5
References
Polyak, L., Alley, R. B., Andrews, J. T., Brigham-Grette, J., Cronin, T. M., Darby, D. A., ... &
Jennings, A. E. (2010). History of sea ice in the Arctic. Quaternary Science Reviews, 29(15-16),
1757-1778.
Yang, X. Y., Yuan, X., & Ting, M. (2016). Dynamical link between the Barents–Kara sea ice
and the Arctic Oscillation. Journal of Climate, 29(14), 5103-5122.
Wang, M., & Overland, J. E. (2012). A sea ice free summer Arctic within 30 years: An update
from CMIP5 models. Geophysical Research Letters, 39(18).
Funder, S., Goosse, H., Jepsen, H., Kaas, E., Kjær, K. H., Korsgaard, N. J., ... & Olsen, J. (2011).
A 10,000-year record of Arctic Ocean sea-ice variability—view from the
beach. Science, 333(6043), 747-750.
Cavalieri, D. J., & Parkinson, C. L. (2012). Arctic sea ice variability and trends, 1979-2010. The
Cryosphere, 6(4), 881.
Granskog, M. A., Assmy, P., Gerland, S., Spreen, G., Steen, H., & Smedsrud, L. H. (2016).
Arctic research on thin ice: Consequences of Arctic sea ice loss. Eos Trans. AGU, 97(5), 22-26.

SUMMARY AND EVALUATION OF ICE IN THE ARCTIC
6