More Reasons for Arctic Sea Ice Decline
Posted by jennifer, January 11th, 2012 - under Information.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
Decline in the extent of Arctic sea ice may have more to do with changes in circulation patterns of fresh water entering the Arctic Ocean from rivers in Russia than changes in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide according to a new article in Nature:
“FRESHENING in the Canada basin of the Arctic Ocean began in the 1990s and continued to at least the end of 2008. By then, the Arctic Ocean might have gained four times as much fresh water as comprised the Great Salinity Anomaly of the 1970s, raising the spectre of slowing global ocean circulation. Freshening has been attributed to increased sea ice melting and contributions from runoff, but a leading explanation has been a strengthening of the Beaufort High — a characteristic peak in sea level atmospheric pressure, which tends to accelerate an anticyclonic (clockwise) wind pattern causing convergence of fresh surface water. Limited observations have made this explanation difficult to verify, and observations of increasing freshwater content under a weakened Beaufort High suggest that other factors must be affecting freshwater content.
Here we use observations to show that during a time of record reductions in ice extent from 2005 to 2008, the dominant freshwater content changes were an increase in the Canada basin balanced by a decrease in the Eurasian basin.
Observations are drawn from satellite data (sea surface height and ocean-bottom pressure) and in situ data. The freshwater changes were due to a cyclonic (anticlockwise) shift in the ocean pathway of Eurasian runoff forced by strengthening of the west-to-east Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation characterized by an increased Arctic Oscillation index. Our results confirm that runoff is an important influence on the Arctic Ocean and establish that the spatial and temporal manifestations of the runoff pathways are modulated by the Arctic Oscillation, rather than the strength of the wind-driven Beaufort Gyre circulation.
*****
From: Changing Arctic Ocean freshwater pathways
By: James Morison, Ron Kwok, Cecilia Peralta-Ferriz, Matt Alkire, Ignatius Rigor, Roger Andersen & Mike Steele
In: Nature 481, 66–70 (05 January 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10705
Link: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7379/full/nature10705.html
The stuff seems to be everywhere in huge quantities.
A greenies nightmare:
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/84367840/
Wikipedia and a lot of sceptic websites incl WUWT have blacked out in protest against SOPA and PIPA acts in the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Debs – try googling “wiki grand challenge science” when the lights come back on. Or http://www.sciencemag.org/content/314/5806/1696.full
Spangled – more stupidity – it’s the longer term view that’s the issue. You’re just on the old sceptic meme of “they said it will never rain again” – cite the paper pls !
Next drought is always out there – SEACI has unravelled what’s new. It’s beyond your grade level to think about.
You an’ Tim, you’re rain denialists. The glass never makes it beyond 10% full but you still go to water.
You’d be hopeless working for anyone but the govt. Just listen to yourself, “Next drought is always out there” — It’s always bloody well been out there and always will. And guess what? In spite of all that the world has never been in a better state food-wise.
You blokes need a big shot of courage and starch just so’s you can smell the roses.
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/rain_denied/
Luke,
Enough already!
I have absolutely nothing against science of all fields and what they have achieved.
My objection has never changed.
It is the current polical agenda that has completely hijacked climate science that is the issue.
I suspect SD is correct. You are so cocooned in your protected world that you seriously can’t see the forest for the trees.
The political agenda is asking us to ignore the facts, including the historical facts, in favour of some failed modelling.
C02 is looking less likely to be the driver of climate. It’s probably a combination of many things and no one has cracked it yet.
Despite all your blustering, you have no more idea than I do. I do not pretend otherwise.
Guess what Debbie Juliar and her cohorts don’t believe that co2 causes CC either and it’s so easy to prove.
If they believed their nonsense about “tackling CC or taking action on CC” the first thing they would do is ban all coal exports overseas and gas etc.
That would reduce our contribution to world co2 emissions by 75% at least and give the leftwing luvvies that warm inner glow and of course bankrupt Australia in the process.
The whole thing is an unbelievable con and fraud because Juliar is doing exactly the opposite and is trying her best to increase coal exports year on year.
A recent example of more “bogosity” (or is it bogusness) on the part of “climate scientists” when it comes to “adjusting” the past to make it conform more to their hypothetical view:
http://www.real-science.com/smoking-gun-hansens-arctic-data
So now Hansen has turned up into down and down into up and supposedly this is an “improvement”?
And sadly, George B, this revisionist agenda is accelerating more, the less it warms.
http://en.vedur.is/climatology/clim/nr/1213
With a moronic MSM we now have HadCRUT as well.
Ah! The travesty of non AGW!
A couple of good links, spangles, and you are correct about Luke not having the answer.
In the old days we argued the toss about the dry SWWA, but Luke’s faith in AGW science was dashed by natural climate cycles. Flood follows drought in a regular way, linked to the IPO and Sol.
I’ll do some research on SAM.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-whitehouse-annan-wager.html
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha -classic “how sceptics view the same data” hahahahahahaha
What drongoism – the IPO was defined by AGW climate change guru Chris Folland. So why do you trust it. Oh I forgot – selective drongoism.
SAM appears to be a bit player in SEA – SEACI revealed critical movement in the STRi as an amplifier. El Nino and La Nina cycles not withstanding. But you’d need some sophistication about ya to appreciate the implications. So back to drongoism with yas.
Really, it is impossible to cure the the GetUp/Green Left of their belief in the Big Lever. Even The Market has become a conduit for Big Policy. The Market will love 23 dollars per ton. The Market will not love any price below 15 dollars. The Market is free to decide as Nanny has already decided.
In the modern field of bogus physical sciences, just describe some poorly understood set of phenomena as a mechanism, give the “mechanism” its own acronym or initialism – even better with a number appended – and watch ‘em go.
And when they decide to control a climate mechanism with a policy mechanism linked to a market mechanism…stand back!
Luke, SS are pathetic. Honestly, if a situation changes, does science really have to scratch its arse for 20 years to be sure?
The losing team can’t win again for two decades?
Ken U B Sodumb?
But I notice you seem to approve of them all cooking the books….
I’m sure they’ll find a way to attend to UAH and RSS in due course. There’s too much money [and ideology] at stake.
“the IPO was defined by AGW climate change guru Chris Folland. So why do you trust it.”
In its pos and neg phases seem to have more influence on our weather than anything else.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/SkepticsvRealists.gif
I just can’t stop laughing
http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/skeptical-quote-surgery-pat-michaels/
Neither can I.
Anyone pointing to the “skeptical science” as any source of reference is, to put it as generously as possible, terribly naive. That site is well known for doing such things as editing people’s comments to say things they didn’t say, reordering comments to make things look like they happened differently than they did, inserting comments after the fact, etc.
In other words, it isn’t a science site, it is an agenda site. It exists only to further an agenda, not to seriously debate anything or bring new knowledge out.
Luke, you are exposing yourself as a fool.
Limp lettuce attempt at diversion George.
Funnily enough George I normally utter your comments above about sceptic sites, their commentators – and gee George sceptic sites never have agendas do they. Pullease. Do go on !
Luke,
George is right.
You are foolishly making assumptions about people and a demkgraphic that you clearly don’t understand and who you see as some type of enemy.
You are attempting to use ‘put down’ tactics that you have obviously learnt in the closed world of academia.
People are questioning the way the science has been used.
Business owners, farmers, entrepreneurs, independent researchers etc, know that modelling is a very useful tool. Nothing more and nothing less. That would be because they use them and update them all the time
They are also perfectly capable of spotting a political agenda when they see one.
!!!! silly tablet!!!! DemOgraphic!!!!
George B,
It’s interesting that a “sceptical science” site whose raison d’etre is promoting and consolidating AGW, has a whole lot of “sceptical” adherents like Luke.
What a bunch of self-deluding fakes.
Do tell us about the agendas of true sceptics, Luke.
Poor Luke – he really believes Skeptikal Science is s “science” site. Oh dear!
sp – such extravagance – why not just “s”?
Debs – actually your fellow travellers here taught me the style. When in Rome …. I used to be a nice boy.
About time to an RC post I guess … or a Deltoid or Tamino … eeny meeny miny mo catch a denier (lying again) by the toe …. if they squeal put the boot in ….
So I trundled over to Deltoid and Tim refererred me back to http://www.skepticalscience.com/patrick-michaels-serial-deleter-of-inconvenient-data.html
Poor Debs
“…over the most recent 25-65 years, every study put the human contribution at a minimum of 98%, and most put it at well above 100%”.
“The average of the five models put the human contribution at 86% of the observed warming, and greenhouse gases at 138%, with a very small natural contribution.”
Skeptical Science rules! They are 237% right about about that Michaels guy.
You fascinate me Luke, how you warmers can get so indignant about Michaels but the Climategates are just fine.
At least with Michaels there is no need to rig fake enquiries or make you suffer years of FOIA denial.
But like the wicked sins of Wedgman, I’m sure you’ll be able to beat it up into something absolutely outrageous.
Poor Debs????
Read the link and can’t see the connection.
What was your point?
Mine was that the people you are accusing are laughing at you
You clearly don’t understand the demographic.
Many of us use modelling all the time and they’re trying to show you that they are merely a useful tool AND that if you want to, if you torture them for long enough, they will admit to just about anything.
That link just proved the point.
For some reason you are completely missing that.
Ok, so in about 150 years we have had about 0.8 degrees of temperature rise. About half of that occurred in the first 75 years and about half in the second 75. There has been no significant warming in the past 13 years. The trend since 2006 has been fairly rapid cooling. An interesting play by numbers that you could say that the annual global temperature average was higher in 2010, but the peak temperature in 2010 did not reach the peak temperatures of 1998. We had a broader El Nino but it didn’t peak as hot that year. 2011 didn’t even make it into the top 10 warmest years, it was 11th.
It just isn’t happening. Sea level rise isn’t accelerating. Sea temperatures are not rising. Surface atmospheric temperatures are flat. Sorry, just isn’t happening.
George – you just hang onto that, squeeze those little hands tight, and keep saying it. This is a long game. And it is just physics.
Cool IPO 1890 – 1924, 1947 – 1976 and 2005 – 2034.
The AGW signal will be back soon, stay tuned.
What Luke is saying is that Pat Michaels needs to be more upright and forthright like Michael Mann:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/19/mann-of-the-people/#more-55034
Latest ocean heat content update. Heat content of the top 700 meters of the oceans fell. The rise on ocean heat content has virtually stopped since about 2003 or so.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/sl_therm_55-07.png
Sorry, that last graph was sea level anomaly. This is the heat content, they’re nearly identical, though, since sea level rise is mainly due to thermal expansion:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png
How amazing – George sees “stopped”
Thanks for those links George B.
I wonder if that 15 mm SLR was actually measured or just “interpolated”.
Do you know how much data is actually avaliable to calculate sea temperatures at 700 meters prior to 2003 since when Argo has provided the data?
Or are these data extrapolated from the old SSTs of that era?
“Do you know how much data is actually avaliable to calculate sea temperatures at 700 meters prior to 2003 since when Argo has provided the data?”
I don’t know how it was obtained. I am sure it wasn’t at the same resolution as they have now with ARGO but they did have other floats and buoys before ARGO, just not as many of them. Military records might be one source of data. I’m sure submarines kept track of the water temperatures and some of those records might be declassified over the years if they still exist.
But no, I don’t know the source of the pre-2003 data but they would probably answer you if you asked nicely.
One thing that has started to worry me, though, is this solar cycle. It isn’t looking good. If history is any indication of the future, we might be looking at anywhere from a 3 to 5 degree C cooling over the next 20 years or so. If that happens, temperatures could rival the coldest of the Little Ice Age temperatures rather soon. Keep in mind that according to HADCRUT3 we are currently only 0.8C above annual global temperatures of the 1850′s. You have to keep reminding yourself that all of this arm waiving has been over less than 1 degree of global temperature change in the past 160 years.
If we were to get only 3 degrees of cooling in the next 10-20 years, we would be back to about where we were in 1695. Now keep in mind that when global temperatures cool, the ocean cools very quickly. When surface temperatures warm, the ocean warms much more slowly. In other words, if you are trying to change the temperature of a body of water by adjusting the temperature of the air above it, the entire body responds much more quickly to cooling than it does to warming. This is because cooling works WITH convection and warming works against it. If you heat surface water, it just stays on the surface. If you chill it, it sinks and displaces warmer water to the surface. Cold surface temperatures result in convective overturning that cools the water down to the thermocline very quickly. Warm surface temperatures act much more slowly because it must rely only on conductive transfer of heat.
3 degrees of cooling would be a disaster for many farmers in places like Canada, Iceland, and New Zealand.
This is the scariest graphic I have seen in years:
http://i43.tinypic.com/iyk2mq.gif
That is a graph of the global annual temperature anomaly plotted against the inverted value of the sunspot cycle length. By inverted I mean that a longer sunspot cycle is lower on the graph. You can see extremely good correlation going back to 1860. What might be coming our way is very scary, indeed, and it isn’t warming. It is cooling, and cooling is much more dangerous than warming. Cooling means people starve to death, but they don’t usually do that until they’ve had a good fight for what food is available first.
Also note that the graphic above was based on a 13.5 year cycle. Indication are now that we might be looking at a 16 year cycle. If that is so, temperatures might get even colder still and something close to 5 degrees cooling might be possible. 5 degrees cooling would devastate Canadian agriculture and eliminate what there is in places like Alaska and Iceland.
Thanks for that George B. Ocean warming prior to Argo seems to have a degree of uncertainty.
Yes and historically it seems natural to think cooling is much more likely to be in the pipeline even without these cycles.
The world is warming? We should be so lucky.