NOTE: You may recall a story I posted some months ago titled: “NASA: It’s the wind” regarding Arctic wind circulation patterns and the way it drove sea ice further south into melt zones. Commenter Paul Marek brought this story to attention recently, and given the sea ice trend this summer, I thought it was worth bringing to light again. Then and now, “The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming. ” Given our less than predicted catastrophic sea ice loss this year, coupled with this study, it looks like Arctic ice could be on the mend. – Anthony
Click for Larger image
This shows contours of the trend in ocean bottom pressure from 2002 to 2006 as measured by GRACE along with hypothetical trends that would apply at the circles if ocean salinity reverted from 1990s values to climatological conditions over the same period.
NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face
November 13, 2007
PASADENA, Calif. – A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.
The team, led by James Morison of the University of Washington’s Polar Science Center Applied Physics Laboratory, Seattle, used data from an Earth-observing satellite and from deep-sea pressure gauges to monitor Arctic Ocean circulation from 2002 to 2006. They measured changes in the weight of columns of Arctic Ocean water, from the surface to the ocean bottom. That weight is influenced by factors such as the height of the ocean’s surface, and its salinity. A saltier ocean is heavier and circulates differently than one with less salt.
The very precise deep-sea gauges were developed with help from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; the satellite is NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace). The team of scientists found a 10-millibar decrease in water pressure at the bottom of the ocean at the North Pole between 2002 and 2006, equal to removing the weight of 10 centimeters (four inches) of water from the ocean. The distribution and size of the decrease suggest that Arctic Ocean circulation changed from the counterclockwise pattern it exhibited in the 1990s to the clockwise pattern that was dominant prior to 1990.
Reporting in Geophysical Research Letters, the authors attribute the reversal to a weakened Arctic Oscillation, a major atmospheric circulation pattern in the northern hemisphere. The weakening reduced the salinity of the upper ocean near the North Pole, decreasing its weight and changing its circulation.
“Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming,” said Morison.
“While some 1990s climate trends, such as declines in Arctic sea ice extent, have continued, these results suggest at least for the ‘wet’ part of the Arctic — the Arctic Ocean — circulation reverted to conditions like those prevalent before the 1990s,” he added.
The Arctic Oscillation was fairly stable until about 1970, but then varied on more or less decadal time scales, with signs of an underlying upward trend, until the late 1990s, when it again stabilized. During its strong counterclockwise phase in the 1990s, the Arctic environment changed markedly, with the upper Arctic Ocean undergoing major changes that persisted into this century. Many scientists viewed the changes as evidence of an ongoing climate shift, raising concerns about the effects of global warming on the Arctic.
Morison said data gathered by Grace and the bottom pressure gauges since publication of the paper earlier this year highlight how short-lived the ocean circulation changes can be. The newer data indicate the bottom pressure has increased back toward its 2002 level. “The winter of 2006-2007 was another high Arctic Oscillation year and summer sea ice extent reached a new minimum,” he said. “It is too early to say, but it looks as though the Arctic Ocean is ready to start swinging back to the counterclockwise circulation pattern of the 1990s again.”
Morison cautioned that while the recent decadal-scale changes in the circulation of the Arctic Ocean may not appear to be directly tied to global warming, most climate models predict the Arctic Oscillation will become even more strongly counterclockwise in the future. “The events of the 1990s may well be a preview of how the Arctic will respond over longer periods of time in a warming world,” he said.
Grace monitors tiny month-to-month changes in Earth’s gravity field caused primarily by the movement of water in Earth’s land, ocean, ice and atmosphere reservoirs. As such it can infer changes in the weight of columns of ocean water. In contrast, the pressure gauges installed on the sea floor in 2005-2006 directly measured water pressure at the bottom of the ocean. Gauge data were remotely recovered during the first year of the study.
“The close agreement between the North Pole pressure gauges and Grace data demonstrates Grace’s potential for tracking world ocean circulation,” said study co-author John Wahr of the University of Colorado, Boulder.
“Satellite altimeters, such as NASA’s Jason, are ideal for studying ocean circulation but can’t be used at Earth’s poles due to ice cover,” said study co-author Ron Kwok of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “Our results show Grace can be a powerful tool for tracking changes in the distribution of mass in the Arctic Ocean, as well as its circulation.”
Grace is a partnership between NASA and the German Aerospace Center (DLR). The University of Texas Center for Space Research, Austin, has overall mission responsibility. JPL developed the twin satellites. DLR provided the launch, and GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam, Germany, operates Grace. For more on Grace: http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/ .
The study was funded by the National Science Foundation.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

So NASA is clarifying its earlier statements about the Arctic Ocean circulation being responsible for the low ice of 2007. But this time they are stating that its not necessarily natural? Perhaps they were given a talking to by their colleagues at GISS.
I never heard anything about the findings reported in this NASA article and I suspect it has to do with this one comment in that article:
“Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming.”
Doesn’t matter. We’re all gonna DIE!!!
I’ve noticed a distinct cooling trend on the NOAA camera site — http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa1.jpg
Over the last week or more the temp has not risen above freezing and ice appears to be increasing.
Purely anecdotal, but interesting since this is supposed to be the warmest period in the Arctic year.
Nice, the truth cannot be ignored forever.
Very little Arctic ice is ever more than about three or four years old. This is because it traverses the Arctic from west to east, and then melts in the north Atlantic.
Last year the ice traversed unusually quickly, so the average age of the ice decreased.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/gifs/DriftMap-sml.gif
While many people are focussed on air temperatures, the real focus has to be put on the oceans, where 1000s of times more energy is stored.
If the oceans get a sniffle, then the atmosphere catches a major cold.
OT, h/t IceCap:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/08/new-poll-shows-co2-hysteria-fading-in.html
This ought to give politicians pause before they think about ramming more senseless, feel-good energy taxes and regulation down our CO2 emitting throats.
Keep making the facts known to the public. AGW hysteria is getting old.
It’s those darn satellites again disproving AGW.
Should I list off alarmist excuses over the next 10 years.
1. This a short term trend, ignore it.
2. Grace measures changes in GRAVITY not ocean levels it’s better to use a few hand selected tidal gauges in sparse locations around the world that have been selectively “adjusted” for accuracy.
3. The models predicted this all along, we always said the arctic was suppose to get more snow.
Did I miss any?
4. Global warming is not really about the globe warming, it is about the weather getting more extreme. Actually the new slogan is “Climate Change”, ACC if you will. In other words, the AGW chicken littles have already protected their religion with a new equation
10 IF |Climate Change| > 0.1% THEN AGW = true, ELSE WAIT 1 month GOTO 10
5. It will take awhile to see if these numbers are accurate, need to build a 30 year history first. Some numbers are more equal than others.
From the interesting link provided by Pierre Gosselin, here’s the polling data: [click]
This poll is from a very pro-AGW perspective. Even though the commentary tries to spin the results, it’s clear that the alarmist side is running out of gas.
Morrison nicely covered his arse with:
while the recent decadal-scale changes in the circulation of the Arctic Ocean may not appear to be directly tied to global warming, most climate models predict the Arctic Oscillation will become even more strongly counterclockwise in the future. “The events of the 1990s may well be a preview of how the Arctic will respond over longer periods of time in a warming world,”
That should be “Morrison and the press officer”.
Today’s update from the National Snow and Ice Data Center:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
“The pace of sea ice loss sharply quickened in the past ten days, triggered by a series of strong storms that broke up thin ice in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Amundsen’s historic Northwest Passage is opening up; the wider and deeper route through Parry Channel is currently still clogged with ice.”
Also, it appears that the same sort of conditions that brought warmer air into the Arctic in July 2007 has occurred this year, just a little later:
“Subsequently, a pattern has developed with high pressure over the Beaufort Sea and low pressure over the Laptev and East Siberian Seas (Figure 3). In accord with Buys Ballot’s Law, this pattern has brought southerly winds to the region, enhancing melt, breaking up ice, and pushing the ice edge northward.”
Will these conditions be reported as “weather” or “climate change”? How can one tell the difference, aside from following one’s bias regarding “AGW”?
It seems I recall some fears expressed regarding shifts in the Arctic currents would be part of the catastrophic trigger leading to shutdown of the Gulf Stream.
The ultimate causes of these changes in oceanic currents was melting ice, feeding more fresh water into the currents. As the densities of the fresh waters were different than the prevailing salt waters, their presence would serve to shut down the conveyor belts of Atlantic currents.
Now we see shifts in Arctic currents are fairly common over decadal periods of time. Another example of drawing hasty conclusions with short term (less than ten years) patterns in nature.
Come back in ten years with better data models based on better data and an honest appraisal of the information at hand. Meanwhile, I am going to continue to watch FuelTV and am going to convert from heating oil to coal.
6. The instruments must have produced bad readings, because they don’t match our models!
7. GW is taking a break, but it’ll be back with a vengeance in 15 or 20 years.
8. We’ve fine-tuned our models; now they’re even more reliable!
9. We’ve adjusted the historical data, now our models are correct.
10. The sun has been constant for the last 150 years.
Smokey,
Here’s the statistic that’s really stunning:
!! “52 percent of Republicans support cap-and-trade” !!
Either this polling data is terribly slanted, or today’s GOP has a lot of spineless weenies in it.
I put hardly any confidence in that ABC poll because it does not state how many people were polled. Even if it was hundreds of thousands, what is that to 300 million American citizens(unless someone can tell me how many there were)?
In this May 07 Nature report, like above,
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7143/edsumm/e070524-05.html
Dr. Visbek seems to be claiming that climate change is driving the oceans, and not vice versa. I didn’t find the entire Nature article.
That would mean climate is perhaps driving the El Ninos and La Ninas, and not the other way around? That to me this would seem absurd. Has anyone read the above, or have a copy of it?
I guess it fits in with their bizarre hypothesis that global warming causes “cooling”.
1. We emit CO2
2. CO2 warms the earth
3. The warming changes the ocean dynamics
4. and this somehow produces a La Nina
5. which then cools the earth
The whole notion that the atmosphere is driving the oceans sounds awfully far fetched indeed. What do our ocean-expert readers say here?
So much is still not understood…
(via ScienceDaily):
http://www.young-germany.de/news-verwaltung/news-singleview/article/cf1e49c910/climate-change-clues-found-in-volcanic-lake-in-germany.html?no_cache=1
And is backed up nicely by this report (sorry only in German):
http://www.awi.de/de/aktuelles_und_presse/pressemitteilungen/detail/item/abrupt_climate_changes_during_the_last_ice_age_a_phenomenon_of_extreme_winters/?cHash=85c29c2e97
Which has the sub-headline: Huge differences between seasons during the climate’s history pose great challenges for modellers.
If someone said “pretty please with sugar on top”, I would translate this report.
Pierre Gosselin,
Nope; your logic doesn’t make sense. Here, I’ll fix it for you:
1. We emit CO2
2. CO2 warms the earth
3. The warming changes the ocean dynamics
4. ???
5. The Earth cools
6. Thus proving global warming
There we go; makes perfect sense now.
Pierre Gosselin (11:57:38) :
> 7. GW is taking a break
It’s not takin’ a break! ‘It’s passed on! This global warming is no
more! It has ceased to be! It’s expired and gone to meet its maker! It’s
a stiff! Bereft of life, It rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed it to the hockey stick it’d be pushing up the daisies! Its meteorological processes are now history! ‘It’s off the twig! It’s kicked the bucket, It’s shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-GLOBAL-WARMING!!
This Der Spiegel article is written by complete fools, but illustrates what Germany has become. A weak spineless nation that has embraced the Greens with such fervour that its people will never be anything other than grist to the Russian mill from now on. So sad, but so predictable.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,565363,00.html
I anticipated that the EU would eventually disintegrate because it has nailed its flag to the AGW flagpole. Now I think that it will collapse in the face of Russian armour. The UN is crap and NATO is undecided. How’s your Russian comrade? Remember the joke? Visit Russia before Russia visits you! Not so funny now?