New paper: Barents Sea Temperature correlated to the AMO as much as 4C – potential for sea ice effect

A new paper just published in the Geophysical Review Letters finds a significant correlation between the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and the water temperature of the Barents Sea.

Barents_sea_map

Barents Sea - click for larger map

This was made possible by a significant network of hydrographical stations in the Barents Sea which resulted in a 230,000 temperature profiles used in this analysis. The hint in the conclusion (which the authors stop short of defining)  is that the pattern of data, seen below, might be linked to the recent pattern of Arctic sea ice melt and some partial recovery seen in the last two years. Their figure 2 below, certainly seems to suggest a strong correlation between water temperature in the Barents Sea and the AMO index.

Monthly temperature (°C) in the Barents Sea for the 100–150 m layer, from 1900 to 2006. Years without all 12 months of data are not plotted. The red line is the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation Index.

Monthly temperature (°C) in the Barents Sea for the 100–150 m layer, from 1900 to 2006. Years without all 12 months of data are not plotted. The red line is the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation Index.

The paper is:

Levitus, S., G. Matishov, D. Seidov, and I. Smolyar (2009), Barents Sea multidecadal variability, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L19604, doi:10.1029/2009GL039847.

We present area-averaged time series of temperature for the 100–150 m depth layer of the Barents Sea from 1900 through 2006. This record is dominated by multidecadal variability on the order of 4C which is correlated with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation Index.

Introduction:

The thermohaline regime of the Arctic Ocean is determined by several key processes—the inflow of Atlantic Water (AW) through two gateways—the Fram Strait [Schauer et al., 2004; Walczowski and Piechura, 2006] and the Barents Sea (BS) [Furevik, 2001], air-sea interaction in the Arctic, river runoff [Peterson et al., 2002], and Pacific water inflow through the Bering Strait [Jones et al., 2008; Woodgate and Aagaard, 2005; Woodgate et al., 2006]. If the BS, as one of the gateways to the Arctic, is warming, there is a possibility that this warming may be amplified in the Siberian Arctic Seas due to reduced seasonal sea ice cover resulting from the ice-albedo feedback effect. Temperaturesalinity anomalies of the water comprising the boundary currents of the Arctic may propagate towards the interior of the Arctic as thermohaline intrusions [Carmack et al., 1997; McLaughlin et al., 2009]. Recent analyses emphasize strong interannual to decadal variability of the Arctic Ocean [e.g., Dmitrenko et al., 2008a, 2008b; Polyakov et al., 2008] that depend or may depend on the interplay of the above mentioned climatic elements. Alekseev et al. [2003] provide a detailed review of Arctic Ocean variability. [3] Observations and climate models suggest that certain teleconnections and feedbacks link interannual to decadal variability between the Arctic Ocean and other geographic regions. The most prominent feedbacks identified so far are the linkages between Arctic climate variability and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)/Arctic Oscillation (AO). Both the NAO and AO are characterized by vacillations of the atmospheric pressure systems of mid-latitude highs and high-latitude lows, with the ocean-atmosphere interactions in the northern North Atlantic being the lead factor in the NAO [Visbeck et al., 2001]. There is evidence of links between the NAO and the circulation patterns of the Arctic Ocean characterized by multidecadal oscillations with periods of 10 to 40–60 years [Mysak, 2001]. A discussion of the robustness of correlations between the NAO and other effects with BS climate dynamics was given by Goosse and Holland [2005]. Using the Community Climate System Model, version 2 (CCSM-2), they found a persistent correlation between the thermal history of the model BS and the history of model AW inflow. Their model runs showed that variability in air-sea exchange and heat transport in the BS dominate in forcing Arctic surface air temperature variability suggesting an important role of the BS in Arctic climate dynamics. In addition to the recent multidecadal decrease in the extent of Arctic sea ice cover there has been a dramatic drop during 2007. This sudden decrease does not appear to be directly related to the NAO or AO [Zhang et al., 2008; Overland et al., 2008]. [4]

The BS is perhaps the only Arctic sea where presently available in situ observations are sufficient for unambiguous detection and analysis of long-term ocean climate variability. Because it remains ice-free almost throughout the year, the BS is covered by a well-developed observational network of standard sections [Matishov et al., 1998] (Figure 1a) accompanied by a large number of historical and recent ocean profiles that are not part of this network (Figure 1b) that are available in the World Ocean Database (WOD) [Boyer et al., 2006] (data available at http://www.nodc.noaa.gov). The BS serves as a transit zone between the upper layer warm water masses of the Atlantic Ocean and cold waters of the Eastern and inner Arctic. Therefore ocean conditions and long-term climatic trends in the BS may be indicative of the overall climate change in the Arctic Ocean, or at least in its eastern half. Our goal is to document the long-term thermohaline history of the BS that may be important for better understanding and prediction of possible changes in the Arctic Ocean.

Discussion:

Average BS temperature trends in the 100–150 layer agree with previous findings that the Arctic has warmed during the past 30 years. These trends align closely with spectacular surface air temperature increase over the entire Arctic and with the rapid sea ice retreat [Arguez et al., 2007]) since the end of the 1990s. Since the late 1970s the temperature of the 100–150 m layer of the BS increased by
approximately 4°C as part of multidecadal variability that is correlated with the AMO Index for the past 100 years. [10] However, despite good qualitative agreement between the BS oceanic climate trends and other climate tendencies in the Arctic, we must draw attention to some caveats inherent to our work. First, there is some uncertainty in ‘‘connecting the dots’’ between a warmer BS and reduced sea ice cover in the central Arctic—the presumed link between the two observables, which is yet to be explained. One of the plausible explanations would be to link AW throughflow in the BS to a lower rate of seasonal sea ice growth in winter in the BS [Wu et al., 2004] and further downstream of the throughflow. However, AW sinks and thus may not have that much impact downstream on ice cover. Recent results suggest that the advection of warming near-surface water from the North Pacific Ocean to the Arctic Ocean through the Bering Strait may play a significant role in Arctic sea-ice retreat [Woodgate et al., 2006]. Thermohaline intrusions of relatively warm water from the Arctic boundary currents into the Arctic interior [McLaughlin et al., 2009] may play a role. Aerosols may also play a role [Shindell, 2007]. [11] Prior to about 1970, there was generally above average sea ice cover, with the maximum extent observed in the late 1960s. Since the late 1970s sea ice extent has decreased substantially [Comiso et al., 2008], whereas, simultaneously, AW has become warmer and perhaps more abundant in the BS. The warmer air and the gradual decrease of albedo of thinning ice in summer would cause melting from above. Additionally, the sea ice decrease may be due to heating from below, when the water mixing channels heat stored in subsurface layers toward the sea ice base. More and warmer AW may contribute to shortening or complete elimination of seasonal sea ice presence in some part of central and eastern Arctic. It is still not clear whether, or how much, subsurface AW has directly contributed to the substantial ice melting that has been observed during last 20 years in the central Arctic; another plausible explanation for an AW role in this process may be the BS impact on the Arctic climate via ocean-air interaction [Goosse and Holland, 2005]. (See also the comment on possible role of Bering Straight inflow above.)

Leif Svalgaard was kind enough to alert me to this paper, and he has a copy available for viewing here (PDF)

About these ads
This entry was posted in Arctic, Oceans, Science, Sea ice. Bookmark the permalink.

102 Responses to New paper: Barents Sea Temperature correlated to the AMO as much as 4C – potential for sea ice effect

  1. John J says:

    “If the BS, as one of the gateways to the Arctic, is warming, there is a possibility that this warming may be amplified in the Siberian Arctic Seas due to reduced seasonal sea ice cover resulting from the ice-albedo feedback effect.”

    LOL! I’d say the BS has been warming up for a while now. Finally, a rational explanation for ice loss! This no doubt will cause the Arctic ice to completely disappear soon, because BS never stops.

    REPLY: I knew this would happen with the abbreviations used, let’s leave these sort of jokes aside and focus on the information. – Anthony

  2. tokyoboy says:

    Could someone please teach me about the difference between the temperature on the left ordinate T(deg C) and that on the right ordinate AMO index (also in degC)?

    I have long (mistakenly?) thought that the range of seawater temperature change hardly exceeds 1 degC and generally within 0.5 degC even fora long period, as exemplified(?) by the 130-year NCDC data:

    http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabsOcean1880.html

    Thanks in advance.

  3. Manfred says:

    this is close to perfect correlation. this puzzle appears to be solved.

    judging from their latet press releases, the NSIDC though still hasn’t arrived at the state of science yet. they should, if they don’t want to be regarded incompetent or useless or even worse.

  4. John J says:

    My sincerest apologies, Anthony. I promise to behave.

    Best Regards,
    jdj

  5. par5 says:

    As long as the trees in Yamal don’t freeze to death, I’m happy…

  6. Ray says:

    It seems there was a global warming in the ’30s-’40s!!! Funny how people were more worried about fascism than AGW then. It seems that history is repeating itself. Could we almost see a correlation with the rise of socialism/fascism and temperature curves?

  7. savethesharks says:

    The Oceanics have won yet again.

    The answer is staring us in the face.

    First Place Prize goes to: The Oceans.

    Second Third, and so-on….to be decided later.

    CO2 comes in at 99th place. Congrats to C02 for getting across the finish line.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  8. Jonas says:

    Why not try to correlate AMO index to Global mean temperatures?
    Look at the graph! AMO seems like a perfect proxy for global temps…

  9. Juraj V. says:

    Removing the AMO effect, there is not much space left for CO2.
    Funny as there are still “scientists” believing in the aerosol cooling in 50-70ties, even ocean multidecadal cycles being the reason are known almost 10 years.
    Arctic sea temperatures were higher in 40ties than in 2000s, so much to unprecedented warming.

  10. 3x2 says:

    Now that is just plain spooky – I was just reading this piece on Norwegian Cod as I refreshed the page on WUWT.

    Perhaps some kind reader could help me out with this one. Wouldn’t Arctic Ice cover in Winter (and summer?) have the effect of keeping both the circulating Atlantic and Pacific waters ‘warm’ by setting up an insulating barrier? Retaining the more of the energy gained in the NH summer than would be the case if the Arctic was open water. Does the energy retention through Ice insulation outweigh the albedo effect overall? Is Arctic Ice a non-linear mechanism for retaining energy?

  11. crucilandia says:

    Przybylak (2000) and Polaykov et al. (2003) work showed the same correlations for the Arctic basin wide temperature and surface US temperature trends.

    Polyakov, I., Walsh, D., Dmitrenko, I., Colony, R.L. and Timokhov, L.A. 2003. Arctic Ocean variability derived from historical observations. Geophysical Research Letters 30: 10.1029/2002GL016441.

    Polyakov, I., Alekseev, G.V., Timokhov, L.A., Bhatt, U.S., Colony, R.L., Simmons, H.L., Walsh, D., Walsh, J.E. and Zakharov, V.F., 2004. Variability of the Intermediate Atlantic Water of the Arctic Ocean over the Last 100 Years. Journal of Climate 17: 4485-4497

    Przybylak, R., 2000, Temporal And Spatial Variation Of Surface Air Temperature Over The Period Of Instrumental Observations In The Arctic, Intl Journal of Climatology, 20: 587–614

  12. Bob Tisdale says:

    tokyoboy: You asked, “Could someone please teach me about the difference between the temperature on the left ordinate T(deg C) and that on the right ordinate AMO index (also in degC)?”

    The difference between the two scales implies (to me, at least) that the depth-averaged temperature (not anomaly) of the Barents Sea amplifies the variations of the AMO, which is calculated by the reference (NOAA ESRL) as detrended SST anomalies of the North Atlantic.

  13. Jari says:

    Very interesting, thank you Anthony for posting this and Leif for giving access to the full article.

    So AMO has a 60 year period and it looks like it is falling again to the negative territory while at the same time arctic ice is recovering? Is it really this simple, every 60 years there is a minimum in arctic sea ice extend and the last minimum was 2007?

    It looks like AMO is another index to follow.

  14. Bob Tisdale says:

    Jonas: You wrote, “Why not try to correlate AMO index to Global mean temperatures? Look at the graph! AMO seems like a perfect proxy for global temps…”

    It’s widely accepted that the AMO plays a role in Global Temperature variations. Even RealClimate notes it:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-amo/

  15. tallbloke says:

    Thanks to Leif for hosting the full .pdf

    Here’s the takehome bit for me, very interesting.

    “A recent shift toward a warmer BS (Figure 3a) is dramatic and
    may have important climatic consequences. A sharp increase
    in temperature without an accompanying equally
    sharp increase in salinity below the mixed surface layer
    leads to a weakened seasonal pycnocline. A weaker pycnocline
    means easier downward mixing of fresher but colder
    surface water in winter and therefore a substantial release of
    heat from sea to air.”

    Hmm, warmer winters in the N.H. eh?

  16. tokyoboy says:

    The AMO index (in degC) appears to be essentially the same as in the 2005 Sutton et al Science article:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5731/115

    However, I still has not grasped what the “degC” for AMO index means, though it definitely may not be the real temperature.

    Help me again please.

  17. 3x2 says:

    tokyoboy (22:39:55) :

    Could someone please teach me about the difference between the temperature on the left ordinate T(deg C) and that on the right ordinate AMO index (also in degC)?

    I have long (mistakenly?) thought that the range of seawater temperature change hardly exceeds 1 degC and generally within 0.5 degC even fora long period, as exemplified(?) by the 130-year NCDC data:

    http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabsOcean1880.html

    Thanks in advance.

    The left is the average sea temperature at a depth of 100m or so and the right hand side is complicated but basically a measure of the changing patterns of Sea Surface Temperatures (SST’s) in the North Atlantic over time. I’m sure somebody like Bob Tisdale has a more accurate description though.

    I think the problem with your narrow band of sea temperatures is that it looks to be a monthly average derived from SST’s over 90S to 90N (the entire planet) and so doesn’t relate very well to the ‘local’ (and 3D) subject of the paper.

    (from the paper) The difference between the most recent cold
    (1978–1982) and warm periods (2002–2006) exceeds 4°C. A similar temperature difference occurs between an earlier cold period (occurring around 1925) and an earlier warm period (occurring around 1950).

    and (…)

    These trends align closely with spectacular surface air temperature increase over the entire Arctic and with the rapid sea ice retreat [Arguez et al.,2007]) since the end of the 1990s.

    Looking at long standing stations in Iceland and Norway via GISS station selector there seems nothing “spectacular” about SAT in the current part of the cycle. Does anyone have an non PPV copy of the Arguez et al.,2007 paper?

    I sure would be nice to have had Satellites and the Argo network available in 1930!

  18. Paul Vaughan says:

    Manfred (22:47:47) “this is close to perfect correlation. this puzzle appears to be solved.”

    It would be surprising if the correlation was not that good. [Let's keep in mind the definition of the AMO.] The main point of the paper must be something else… (I’ll take a look when I have a minute…)

  19. Stephen Wilde says:

    This brings us straight back to oceanic variability again as the primary climate driver.

    I’ve refined my ideas a little more and this is the latest version in a relatively smplified form:

    “I propose something slighty different and perhaps I can explain it this way:

    1) The Earth system is not a single unit. If we ignore land as relatively insignificant we are left with oceans and air. I propose that both ocean and air process solar energy at different speeds and moreover they process it independently save that the oceans drive the whole system and the air has to adjust to what the oceans do.

    2) Furthermore the processing of solar energy by both oceans and air is variable. That is the critical issue in creating a variable climate over time. If it were not so then climate would be very much more stable than it is with a virtually fixed latitudinal position for the air circulation systems and climate variation being limited only to a basic level of chaotic variability.

    3) The oceans appear to vary substantially over several time scales as regards the rate at which they release energy to the air. The evidence for that is the ENSO cycle, the observed 30 year phase shifts and I suspect a further cycle of 500 years or so.

    4) The evidence that those variations go beyond a basic level of chaotic variability is those cyclical latitudinal shifts in the air circulation systems which always follow changes in SSTs on at least the 3 time scales we have evidence for.

    5) It is important that changes in air temperatures do not seem to be able to either heat up the oceans or significantly affect the variable rates of energy release from the oceans. The evaporative process combined with the penetrative weakness of infra red longwave seems to be a big enough obstacle to such a process such that I can find no suggestion anywhere other than at Realclimate that the air can ever warm the ocean on any significant time scale.

    6) That is important because if the air cannot warm the oceans then the composition of the air cannot change the equilibrium temperature set by sun and oceans. In turn the ocean surfaces prevent the air from warming because water always dictates the temperature of the air above.

    7) That means that something else has to happen to the extra energy in the air instead. If it cannot warm the oceans and yet the radiative balance between solar energy in and radiative energy out has to be maintained then all that is left is for it to be ejected faster to space in order to maintain the radiative balance and if that happens then no change in the equilibrium temperature of the Earth can occur.

    8) So what we have here is a system that receives a certain amount of energy from the sun and radiates the same amount out to space. No significant imbalance occurs despite large changes in the rate of energy release by the oceans and significant changes in the speed of the hydrological cycle via changes in the air circulation systems.

    9) The only logical solution is that the variation in energy flow from the oceans is countered by an equal and opposite variation in energy flow through the air. Since the air cannot warm the oceans any extra energy in the air from any cause has to be dealt with by the same process. Warmer ocean surfaces cause increased evaporation and once the energy in the extra water vapour is in the air from that cause then the change in the speed of the hydro cycle deals with it routinely. It would do the same for increased evaporation caused by extra CO2 but on a far far smaller scale.

    There is much observational evidence to confirm what I say. Ongoing climate events in the real world must serve as my proof because there is no conceivable laboratory experiment that could replicate the entire system.

    Models could do it but first they must incorporate the full scale of variability of oceanic energy release with an accurate response by the air and a full scale representation of the behaviour of the air at the air/space boundary as well. At present they are limited to guesses about ENSO but have nothing adequate about any other oceanic cycles and nothing about air circulation shifts apart from seasonal changes and a simple observation that warming moves them poleward.

    They must also model the air circulation systems correctly as regulators of energy transmission at both the sea/air interface and the air/space interface. The air/space interface is currently governed by fixed equations which take no account of observations that the air circulations have a substantial energy flow regulating effect even at the thinnest upper levels

    In view of what Leif Svalgaard says about the smallness of solar variations I’m coming round to the opinion that virtually all climate change that we observe is simply internal variability induced by the oceans and countered in the air all occurring around a relatively stable equilibrium set by sun and oceans.

    I don’t see any reason why the variations from the peak of the Mediaeval Warm Period to the bottom of the Little Ice Age and all lesser variations could not be accommodated within the term ‘relatively stable’ in terms of the planet even if not in terms of human sensibilities.

    All one has to do is insert that third level of ocean cycling at 500 year intervals along wih the ENSO and PDO irregularities and that covers everything ever observed during the current interglacial.

    The validity of the suggestion of that third 500 year level of oceanic variability is provided by the observation that during the LIA the ITCZ was at the equator.

    As far as I can tell the latitudinal shift in air circulaton systems is the tell tale sign of a change in the rate of oceanic energy emission. It is the ‘fingerprint’ of an ocean cycle.

    That would seem to square the circle and remove any need for external forcing, even solar.

    All that is then left is to investigate whether I am right about the powerlessness of changes in the air alone to alter an equilibrium set by sun and oceans.

    Hence my focus on the IR downwelling versus increased evaporation issue.

    Models can be made to work with equations if they are tortured to produce the required result ex post facto.

    The main omissions in current climatology are to ignore the oceanic role in setting and maintaining AND CHANGING the Earth’s temperature and failing to recognise that the speed of the hydro cycle changes in response to those oceanic forcings.In 1988 when this all started no one acknowledged the significance of ENSO events globally or the existence of 30 year phase shifts let alone a 500 year ocean cycle. Believing that the composition of the air sets the equilibrium temperature is reasonable only until one realises that the rate of energy release from the oceans is not stable.

    Unstable oceans introduce variablity at the sea/air interface which alters the air circulation. Changes in the air circulation introduce variability at the air/space interface which help to prevent the destabilisation that would otherwise be caused by that oceanic variability. None of this is recognised by the models.

    Once one does fit those phenomena into the system it all falls into place without abusing any accepted physical laws or principles and all observed climate phenomena can be seen as inevitable by-products of internal variability.”

  20. michael says:

    hy anthony,

    have a look at this graph:

    it shows the t trend in the alpine region (only one station here shown today) for 100a. the hole warming of almost 2,0°C can be explained by changes in circulation types. ironicly the PIK (Rahmstorf & Co) have datasets of cirulation types for each day beginning in 1880 (ed. southwest=warmingaverage 3,21°C, northeast=coolingaverage -2,45°C, there are 30 different circulation forms definated). we bild an average for every day and can show, that there is a significant trend in more warming circulation forms and less cool types. the graph shows in black the messured temp. (year average) and in red the warming caused by circulation trends. we now go on to do this with 100 station in middel europe and our first results show, that we do not need any radiation forcing to explain the hole warming in the 20th. century.

    when we finish the paper, we will tell you. are you interested in?

    (sorry about my english, i´m from austria and not realy used to write in your language…)

  21. Bob Tisdale says:

    Stephen Wilde: You wrote, “The evidence for that is the ENSO cycle, the observed 30 year phase shifts and I suspect a further cycle of 500 years or so.”

    Refering to the Mann reconstruction from Jones et al (2001), the time span of the low frequency changes in NINO3 SST anomalies varies from 21 to 39 years.
    Refer to:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/low-frequency-enso-oscillations.html

    Do you have a reconstruction on which you’re basing your 500-year cycle?

  22. Douglas DC says:

    My late Father in Law was”volunteered” to help deliver a load of Sherman tanks to
    Murmansk.- 1944 in January.He commented on the ice free nature of the Barents
    Sea.So it may have been a warmish period.Later that year he had the pleasure of
    getting a little tour of Europe, courtesy of General Patton….
    It wasn’t warm then…

  23. rbateman says:

    Stephen Wilde (03:31:57) :

    This brings us straight back to oceanic variability again as the primary climate driver.

    Driver does not seem to be the best definition here. The perfect oscillator would be more fitting.
    Sun big. Earth small.

    This debate reminds me of a more heated form of cosmology.
    Only cosmology is in search of the components to arrive at it’s answer. Climatology seeks to jettison as many components as possible.

  24. John A says:

    Re: savethesharks (23:30:05) :

    The Oceanics have won yet again.

    The answer is staring us in the face.

    First Place Prize goes to: The Oceans.

    Second Third, and so-on….to be decided later.

    CO2 comes in at 99th place. Congrats to C02 for getting across the finish line.

    Unfortunately CO2 has been disqualified due to too many false starts.

  25. Invariant says:

    rbateman (04:39:36) : This brings us straight back to oceanic variability again as the primary climate driver.

    Driver does not seem to be the best definition here. The perfect oscillator would be more fitting. Sun big. Earth small.

    Sure. Even a perfectly constant (big) sun can initiate and sustain many oscillations her on (small) earth. This is for example equivalent to the reaction–diffusion systems that display a wide range of oscillatory behaviors, including the formation of traveling waves and wave-like phenomena as well as other self-organized patterns like stripes, hexagons or more intricate structure like dissipative solitons.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction–diffusion_system

    Possibly the nonlinear oscillations here on earth may be present on many time scales, from days, to years and centuries.

  26. Stephen Wilde says:

    Bob Tisdale (04:02:18)

    Just as there is variation in the 30 year cycle between 21 and 39 years there would be a similar proportionate variation in longer low frequency cycles.

    I was referring to the observed cycling from Roman Warm Period to Dark Ages to Mediaeval Warm Period to Little Ice Age to Modern Maximum with an approximate average period from peak to trough of about 500 years (1000 years for a full cycle).

    Then, we know that the air circulation systems move latitudinally in response to ENSO and PDO phase shifts so if the ITCZ was at the equator at the LIA trough and is now north of the equator in the Modern Maximum then clearly that suggests an ocean cycle at the heart of the 500/1000 year changes as well.

    The thermohaline circulation has often been implicated in SST temperature changes at ENSO and PDO phase shift periodicities so it would also be implicated in lower frequency events and it has been suggested that the complete ‘tour’ for the THC takes 1000 to 1500 years.

    All coincidence ? I think not.

  27. Bill Illis says:

    The two temperature scales are effectively the same thing; it is just that one is in anomaly and the other is the absolute temperature.

    If the AMO index had the same absolute average temperature as the Barents Sea, you could just plot the two against each other. But the AMO covers a bigger region to the south and it would be a little higher. As Bob mentioned, the AMO is also detrended (to remove any global warming signal which might exist so that it is truly a natural ocean cycle variability index.)

    Overall, it is good to see the climate scientists looking at these natural ocean cycles again. There have been quite a few papers recently using the ENSO and AMO variability. This was more common a few decades ago, before the global warming hype moved them off-track for awhile.

    Now someone can make a direct connection between sea ice and sea temperatures in the Barents Sea and thus the AMO as well. The data shows it is there.

  28. Stephen Wilde says:

    rbateman
    and
    Invariant (05:15:46)

    The oscillator term is fine by me.

    Previously in attempting to explain the reason for such oscillations I have used the analogy of a tuning fork.

    Variability in the solar input interacts with internal variable oceanic behaviour (which need not be the same in each ocean) to set up a range of oscillations at different frequencies which then make changes to the rate at which the oceans release energy to the air over time.

  29. Stephen Wilde says:

    michael (03:50:03)

    Good point and illustrative of my contention that what really matters to an individual location or region is a change in it’s position in relation to the main air circulation systems and NOT any overall change in global temperature. Change that position and the predominant wind direction changes ( more from the poles = cooling, more from the equator = warming and even the slightest changes will have significant local and regional effects).

    Every climate change ever observed either regionally or locally can be explained by such changes in relative position and need not involve any change in the global temperature at all.

    So, one could get a majority of the land based temperature sensors similarly affected by a change in the positions of the air circulation systems rather than a change in the average global temperature.

    To avoid that effect the sensors would need to have a uniform global distribution and we know that they don’t.

    That would explain the difference between land based and satellite based measures of the scale of global warming or cooling (but remember that there are plenty of calibration problems with satellites and UHI issues with land based sensors so nothing can be taken for granted).

  30. OT: Obama just got the Nobel Peace Prize. I guess if Al Gore can get it… anybody can.

  31. Stephen Wilde (05:29:36) :
    Variability in the solar input interacts with internal variable oceanic behaviour
    The Sun tickles the Earth every year with a variation of 90W/m2 and only by 1W/m2 every solar cycle. So, there is an enormous and variable change in solar radiation hitting the Earth every year. For some reason, everybody just ignores that beam and concentrates on the mote.

  32. OT: Two key White House aides were both convinced they were being punked when they heard the news, reported ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos. “It’s not April 1, is it?” one said.

  33. matt v. says:

    The paper noted below came to the same conclusions.
    The authors confirmed that the Arctic warmed during the 1970-2008 period faster than the global mean but the reasons was not entirely anthropogenic but due to the warm AMO or the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation cycle. Just as revealing is that they also found that the rate warming back in 1910 to 1940 was faster than the most recent warming of 1970 to 2008. So it clearly shows that the Arctic warming takes place due to natural causes as there was no carbon dioxide issue that far back. The AMO has been cooling the last several years and already the Arctic ice has been increasing the last two years.

    Here is what the paper authors said: in the opening paragraph of their paper.

    Understanding Arctic temperature variability is essential
    for assessing possible future melting of the Greenland ice
    sheet, Arctic sea ice and Arctic permafrost. Temperature trend
    reversals in 1940 and 1970 separate two Arctic warming
    periods (1910-1940 and 1970-2008) by a significant 1940-
    1970 cooling period. Analyzing temperature records of the
    Arctic meteorological stations we find that (a) the Arctic
    amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends)
    is not a constant but varies in time on a multi-decadal time
    scale, (b) the Arctic warming from 1910-1940 proceeded
    at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970-2008
    warming, and (c) the Arctic temperature changes are highly
    correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation
    (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline
    circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on
    a multi-decadal time scale.

    http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf

  34. Bob Tisdale says:

    Stephen Wilde: You replied, “I was referring to the observed cycling from Roman Warm Period to Dark Ages to Mediaeval Warm Period to Little Ice Age to Modern Maximum with an approximate average period from peak to trough of about 500 years (1000 years for a full cycle).”

    But your original comment was about a 500-year cycle in ENSO. Where’s the tie-in?

    You continued, “Then, we know that the air circulation systems move latitudinally in response to ENSO and PDO phase shifts so if the ITCZ was at the equator at the LIA trough and is now north of the equator in the Modern Maximum then clearly that suggests an ocean cycle at the heart of the 500/1000 year changes as well.”

    What’s the name of the study that suggests the ITCZ was at the equator at the LIA trough? Do you have a link?

    You continued, “The thermohaline circulation has often been implicated in SST temperature changes at ENSO and PDO phase shift periodicities…”

    Link to the study, please.

  35. Ric Werme says:

    You can guess right, but I looked it up:

    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/484518/pycnocline

    in geology, boundary separating two liquid layers of different densities. In oceans a large density difference between surface waters (or upper 100 metres [330 feet]) and deep ocean water effectively prevents vertical currents; the one exception is in polar regions where pycnocline is absent. Formation of pycnocline may result from changes in salinity or temperature. Because the pycnocline zone is extremely stable, it acts as a barrier for surface processes. Thus changes in salinity or temperature are very small below pycnocline, but are seasonal in surface waters.

    Hmm, the Firefox spell checker doesn’t have pycnocline. Ya get what ya pay for. :-)

  36. RR Kampen says:

    I miss some analysis of correlation. To me the graph barely shows it. It would appear the AMO does exist as an oscillation but the temperature does not show the same periodicity, if it shows periodicity at all.
    There seems to be no correlation at all until at least 1930.
    1933 is vastly out of sync, so is are the entire 1960’s and 70’s as well as 1993-97.

    The only way to prove/disprove correlation would of course be to measure it. The authors haven’t done this; I wonder if someone has? I’ll bet there is no significance.

    This article is otherwise very interesting though.

  37. Stephen Skinner says:

    What is happening with the temp profile @ http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php?
    Is this the ocean dumping heat into the atmosphere as it cools? I cannot see a similar profile in previous years, although putting it another way I cannot see two similar profiles anyway, other than it’s all roughly average. This temp profile does stand out though.

  38. Kath says:

    Off topic: President Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091009/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_nobel_analysis_1

    though giving the prize to the president seems to have caught many by surprise: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6867711.ece

  39. Kath says:

    Forgot to add that he also got the Nobel Peace Prize for:
    “strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change”

  40. MikeW says:

    Some time back, WUWT used a photo of submarines on the surface at the North Pole in semi-open water. Does anyone recall the date of that photo? I seem to recall that it was very early 50s(?) which would put it right at the end of the prior warm period.

    In other words, it’s a helpful indicator that nothing so far is outside of natural, periodic variations.

    Mike

  41. william says:

    Stephen Wilde
    You said: “This brings us straight back to oceanic variability again as the primary climate driver”

    Something drives ocean variability. It’s probably the amount of energy received and retained from the sun. CO2 impacts that energy retention so it’s not ruled out as a “driver” or the “driver” when coupled with feedbacks.

    Also, let’s be careful when discussing “oscillations”. Climate is a chaotic system not some electronic signal that repeats itself. These “oscillations” may be subsets of climate changes or larger variations that we have not even begun to understand. Don’t assume that we are going back into some cooler phase of a 30 year oscillation. We’ve changed the planet considerably beyond pumping CO2 into the atmo and that is probably pushing us out of whatever the previous climate comfort zone had been to something new.
    Shiny
    William

  42. timetochooseagain says:

    Bob Tisdale (01:11:47) : They also believe that it is not natural:

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/09/07/a-knights-tale/

    “If I may summarize and oversimplify some very deep conclusions, it would be as this: A lot of what is being called the AMO is really just global warming by another name. –raypierre”

  43. Claude Harvey says:

    Re: Stephen Wilde (03:31:57) :

    “That means that something else has to happen to the extra energy in the air instead. If it cannot warm the oceans and yet the radiative balance between solar energy in and radiative energy out has to be maintained then all that is left is for it to be ejected faster to space in order to maintain the radiative balance and if that happens then no change in the equilibrium temperature of the Earth can occur.”

    I think the following observation may relate to your point. Take a look at the AMSU-A record of satellite temperature readings at various elevations:

    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

    At near-surface (14,000 feet) the average global temperature rises annually approximately 3.4 deg F. in concert with the summer season in the northern hemisphere. Temperature at that same elevation minimizes during summer in the southern hemisphere. The explanation I’m given is that it does so because most of the earth’s land mass is in the northern hemisphere and land heats and cools faster than water.

    Then look what happens simultaneously at 102,000 feet. Temperature falls approximately 4.0 deg. F. during the summer season in the northern hemisphere. The rise and fall of average global temperature in the upper atmosphere is 180 degrees out of phase with the rises and falls at earth’s surface. While the lower atmosphere is picking up heat, the upper atmosphere is shedding heat like a house afire.

    Finally, if you look for seasonal changes half way in between at 56,000 feet, you will see almost no variation at all; steady as a rock!

  44. william says:

    From Pielke Sr’s website:
    “Although it has become conventional to refer to these atmospheric circulation as oscillations, in reality they are part of a chaotic system (the climate) which often have periods of time when a signal appears quasi-periodic, when this behavior actually is just part of its nonlinear character (e.g. see). While we will not be able to change their names (they are so entrenched in the climate jargon), it should be recognized that the PDO, ENSO, and other such features do not “repeat….in a regular cycle” nor vary around “about a central value”. ”
    Shiny
    William

  45. michael says:

    pdo and amo oszillations are the most importand climate drivers.

    connections to el nino, la nina events and the variations in solar inputs to the ozeans. that makes climate.

    following graph shows the 100a warmin trend in the austrian alps. almost 2°C. all this warming can be shown by variations in atmospheric circulation changes. in 1900 we had about 30% more cold circulation types ( dt per Day medium >-2°C) and now 2000 we have 25% more warm circulation forms, like southwest, south….
    the hole warming is shown here, and all the warming is definitely caused by natural cycles!:

  46. Ronaldo says:

    Stephen Wilde at 03:31:57

    I am no oceanographer, but as an interested reader, your arguments strike me as being very plausible. I suspect that the summer melting and winter refreezing of polar ice acts as a negative feedback system, enabling “excess” heat from the tropics to be lost via the poles, in addition to the water vapour feedback effects you describe.
    The heat capacity of the oceans, compared with that of the atmosphere, is also, IMHO, an important indicator of the oceans’ dominance in global temperature stabilisation.

  47. Phlogiston says:

    Tokyoboy:

    “I have long (mistakenly?) thought that the range of seawater temperature change hardly exceeds 1 degC and generally within 0.5 degC even fora long period”

    The part of the ocean where the temp is always close to 4C is the deepest layer >2-3 km down where pressure forces the temperature to stay at that with the maximum density (minimum volume). However your point is reasonable, 4C does seem rather large as an ocean temperature fluctuation.

    The BS is at the tail end of the North atlantic drift/current, so perhaps the large 100-150m temp fluctuation in the BS is due to cyclical variation in the strength or volume of this current and its supply of warmer water to the BS?

    That leads on to the subject of osscillations and non-equilibrium pattern formation, a favourite of mine, and comments here by Stephen Wilde, rbateman and Invariant about internal variability and analagous pattern formation and waves – such as of the classic Belousov-Zhabotinsky type. The emerging picture that (a) the oceans have the lions share of the climate’s energy and (b) osscillations of the ocean system – intrinsic and non-linear-chaotic in nature – drive climatic variation, seems quite compelling.

  48. ET says:

    Imagined hallway whisperings…

    “Quick, we better come up with some new proxies to overwrite the oceanic oscillation record! Hey, maybe we could use tree rings!”

  49. Ronaldo says:

    MikeW 06;32:47

    http://www.icue.com/portal/site/iCue/flatview/?cuecard=41751

    Shows details of a newsreel of the submarine Skate(SSN – 578) at the N pole in 1958 and the US Navy archive has a photo taken on 17 March 1959, also showing the Skate surfaced at the N Pole.

  50. Steve M. says:

    RR Kampen (06:03:23) :

    The only way to prove/disprove correlation would of course be to measure it. The authors haven’t done this; I wonder if someone has? I’ll bet there is no significance.

    I have a feeling (only a feeling mind you) that we’re not seeing the trees for the forest. I think that global temperature is a folly. While there are some events that do affect global temperatures…Mt Pinatubo (sp?), El Nino, etc. …smaller events contribute to local variations and aren’t global in nature. The BS has warmed from ~1980 until now, and Arctic ice has declined from 1980 until now. It seems there may be some correlation there. So I’ll make a hypothesis: Arctic ice extent grows and shrinks based on temperatures from the Barent Sea. Now I just need a few million dollars to study this for the next 10 years.

    I’d prefer to see more regional studies. I want to know why there was a huge 5c+ anomaly in Canada last month, not why the UAH temperature jumped to .426c

  51. George E. Smith says:

    Maybe it’s my weird eyes; but it appears to me that they have the two Y-scales misaligned. My eyes suggest that the red graph needs to be lowered to better match the black.

    I have only quick scanned the full article yet, but perhaps someone can enlighten us; did they in fact adjust these scales to maximize the correlation coefficient. Just seems to me that the data fits better than is apparent from the way they plotted the graphs.

    Well that is just my impression; I may be wrong on that.

    Also both of these data sets seem to have a period that is three times the 22 year solar magnetic cycle. I seem to recall that that strange cyclic period fell out of somebody’s clever filtering process sometime last year; Maybe it was Bob Tisdale or somebody found a 66 or thereabouts periodicity and we all had some discussions as to what could cause a three solar magnetic cycle periodicity.

    It would be nice to plot the sunspot peaks, or Leif’s recent magnetic data on this same graph just as a timing locator.

    If this cycle stays on schedule, we might be looking for that deep freeze that we have been wondering about. I’m not predicting; just saying if it happens it could match this AMO-BS pattern. Time to order a coupla more tonnes of that nice anthracite rock stuff.

    As a side note; the DMI +80+ temperature graph is playing Pong with us. When the final crash comes; that is if it comes, it is going to make for one weird arctic temperature graph.
    Too bad that DMI doesn’t plot the same data for each year back to 1979 or at least the same as the JAXA ice coverage; which looks as if 2009 might now drop below 2008 again. I have just a gut feel that these two are related; but I’m not sure which I think is the cause, and which is the effect.

  52. Michael says:

    OT Changing the Dialectic, please post.

    We Can’t Risk Success In Afghanistan at the Expense of Losing Our Entire Empire!

    We must acknowledge we have built an empire to maintain, with over 700 military bases in 130 countries. We have an embassy in Iraq the size of Vatican City, Iraq being our latest conquest.

    The Soviet Union lost its empire and was brought down after its 8 years in Afghanistan. Afghanistan bankrupted the Soviet Union and the US now is also on the brink of bankruptcy. Afghanistan is the country other countries go to die.

    The question now is; How much of our Empire do we wish to preserve and how much of it are we willing to give up? Bankruptcy is inevitable. We now need to start thinking about keeping some of it if any, if we can.

    [This should have been posted in a more appropriate thread. If one can't be found, Tips 'n' Notes is available for O/T posts. ~dbs, mod.]

  53. Steve M. says:

    George E. Smith (09:03:11) :

    Maybe it’s my weird eyes; but it appears to me that they have the two Y-scales misaligned. My eyes suggest that the red graph needs to be lowered to better match the black.

    I have only quick scanned the full article yet, but perhaps someone can enlighten us; did they in fact adjust these scales to maximize the correlation coefficient. Just seems to me that the data fits better than is apparent from the way they plotted the graphs

    Just looking at the graph, I see that the AMO index appears to be the anomalies for the AMO, and BS appears to be actual temperatures. Looking at the left and right sides…the 0’s don’t even align, so there’s an offset and a scaling factor of some amount that I’d just have to guess at.

  54. George E. Smith says:

    “”” Kath (06:22:57) :

    Off topic: President Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091009/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_nobel_analysis_1

    though giving the prize to the president seems to have caught many by surprise: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6867711.ece

    9

    10

    2009
    Kath (06:28:41) :

    Forgot to add that he also got the Nobel Peace Prize for:
    “strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change” “””

    Now Kath; what would you say if anyone (not me of course) were to have the temerity to suggest, that the teleprompter reader in chief has been deliberately dragging his feet; and in the process getting American and Nato Troops killed in Afghanistan; and avoiding the Military experts request for more troops to combat new Taliban offensives; until those dummies in Europe made up their mind who was going to be the next AlGore/YessirArafat/JimmahCarter pen pal.

    If the AlGore award didn’t make a laughing stock of the whole Nobel Prize business, then this totally political and unwarranted award certainly should. And no I do NOT distinguish between a Nobel “peace” prize, and a Nobel “physics” prize. So long as it carries the same name it is in a single category as far as I am concerned.

    In that Alfred Nobel was apaprently interested in abating the effects of his development of dynamite; it almost seems that the “peace” prize ought to bear his name; not those others.

    In any case; those “prizes” are now reduced to the level of a cracker jack box trinket.

    George

  55. Kwinterkorn says:

    Stephen Wilde, et al

    As a quasi-scientist (I’m an MD) looking from the outside in, Wilde’s model of climate based on ocean current oscillations resonates with my sense of how the universe works.

    Thinking of tuning forks, a fork gets rapped, sound follows for a period of time, gradually disappating. The pattern of disappation as well as the sound’s frequency gives clues about the tuning fork and the system it is in. Just knowing the perturbing event and the sounds created, one can write equations describing the tuning fork’s size, shape, and materials as well as whether the the fork is dampened by anything touching it.

    So what things rap the earth’s air/ocean system enough to set up “sounds” that we might detect, analyze, and thereby write equations describing the system:

    1. First candidate: a large volcano, eg Pinatubo, with aerosol-induced decreased heat going into the oceans. How did the pertubation of the system by Pinatubo’s eruption work through the system over time?

    2. Another candidate: cosmic ray minima (a la Svensmark): Are there measurable changes in ocean and air temps, and how do they distribute over locations and time in relation to cosmic ray flux?

    3. Another candidate: Anthropogenic CO2 forcing (try to keep a straight face—I know we are talking about the tuning forked maybe being perturbed by the sound of a sneeze by a little guy in a closed room down the hall—but there are people with PHD’s claiming that this tiny perturbation is amplified by some Hansen-Gore feedback into something large enough to create a sound in our tuning fork).

    4. Anthropogenic Aerosols: Some speculate that all the smoke spewing out of power plants and car exhausts changed the climate, and that our now cleaner air (Is it?) has reversed this effect. Once one has a decent air/ocean model based on Wilde’s approach, one could test for “sounds” coming from this pertubation.

    5. Speculative multi-millennial scale candidates (the ice ages were real, cyclical, and need explaining, too): Sun/Earth orbit changes, changes in the interplanetary dust density as Sol moves along its galactic orbit, changes in internal Solar dynamics producing changes in Sol’s EM spectrum, etc.

    The point of all this exercise is actually to show how tiny the anthropogenic perturbations are compared with the massiveness of the Air/Ocean systemic oscillations we live within and must cope with.

    Wilde’s analysis seems powerful to me, although I note that by leaving clouds out of his discussion, he ignores a mechanism via which changes in the atmosphere (ie percent cloud cover changing albedo and EM energy transmission into the oceans) could cause changes in the ocean energy content over time. Yet the generality is true that the smallest number of terms in a equation necessary to explain ones data is the right number of terms. So it is an empirical question whether one must consider cloud cover.

    Climate models get disparaged a lot here at WUWT, with reason,but the point needs to be made once in a while that all good scientific theories are models—-what makes them “good” is that they are based on good data, and checked as predicters of new data. Empirical Data and Theory need to be in an endless dance, each improving the other. Stphen Wilde’s approach seems a good start on this.

  56. Jack Hughes says:

    UK govt runs TV scare ads

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6867046.ece

    “Climate change sceptics are to be targeted in a hard-hitting government advertising campaign that will be the first to state unequivocally that Man is causing global warming and endangering life on Earth.

    The £6 million campaign, which begins tonight in the prime ITV1 slot during Coronation Street, is a direct response to government research showing that more than half the population think that climate change will have no effect on them.

    Ministers sanctioned the campaign because of concern that scepticism about climate change was making it harder to introduce carbon-reducing policies such as higher energy bills. ”

    REPLY:Thanks Jack, but this is what the Tips and Notes page is for – readers PLEASE don’t clutter up threads with bits of tips, put them in the tip thread, link under the masthead. – Anthony

  57. Michael says:

    The AP Nobel prize article devotes 2 paragraphs to global warming and climate change. We know what they want.

  58. Times keep interesting: Seas keep on cooling.
    The PDO´s horseshoe reappeared:

    http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html

    Look, also, the advance of the cold Humboldt´s current along the west coast of SA., it has reached the equator line.
    And SOI is positive:

    http://www.eldersweather.com.au/climimage.jsp?i=soi

  59. Steve Keohane says:

    MikeW (06:32:47) Here’s the Atule at the pole in 1946, in apparently ice-free water. http://i38.tinypic.com/2ignm7s.jpg

  60. Dan says:

    George E. Smith (09:21:12)
    ‘If the AlGore award didn’t make a laughing stock of the whole Nobel Prize business, then this totally political and unwarranted award certainly should. .”

    It does appear to be polititically motivated-and is most probably due to the vast relief much of the rest of the world feels in the replacement of the the cowboy in chief and his ilk with an intelligent and thoughtful person. It is appropriate to take it as a slap in the face to the uber conservative movement (you know the one that cannot seem to distinguish social programs from socialism and even totalitarianism).

  61. savethesharks says:

    Stephen Wilde (03:31:57) : “Once one does fit those phenomena into the system it all falls into place without abusing any accepted physical laws or principles and all observed climate phenomena can be seen as inevitable by-products of internal variability.”

    Stephen for all of your eloquent inductive reasoning that I have been following with great interest on all your posts, you lost me on this one.

    I agree that the Oceans are king…however the Universe is a very VERY big place.

    Until Svensmark and others are proven wrong without a shadow of a doubt, the use of the word “all” in your quote above, is a bit much.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  62. Ric Werme says:

    REPLY:Thanks Jack, but this is what the Tips and Notes page is for – readers PLEASE don’t clutter up threads with bits of tips, put them in the tip thread, link under the masthead. – Anthony

    My whole WUWT focus starts with Tips and Notes lately. I refresh the page, see what’s new there, go up to the top, see what new posts are there – I don’t need the home page unless I’ve been away for a couple days.

    I don’t bother following tips that are posted outside of there because that’s where my tip-following mindset lives.

  63. Adam from Kansas says:

    Adolfo: The PDO horseshoe isn’t completely there yet but it looks like it could get there.

    Also, Tallbloke, our renowned expert on SST/Solar relations predicts El Nino strengthening before it disappears, according to those here this could just mean the oceans giving up more heat and result in the waters being even cooler. (as SST’s on Unisys seemed to have been dropping since the months after this ENSO event started).

    I also note the SST’s being shown as noticably warmer on the NOAA maps than Unisys (even after trying to mentally adjust for color choice), are they trying to get it ready for Copenhagen?

  64. Juraj V. says:

    AMO index for September is 0.11, considerable fall from 0.282 at July. Inspired by Bill Illis, I created my own graph with AMO vs arctic ice:

    The correlation is pretty spot on.
    AMO relates well also to air temperature – Reykjavik vs AMO:

  65. Paul Vaughan says:

    Stephen Wilde (03:31:57) “That would seem to square the circle and remove any need for external forcing [...]“

    I strongly recommend that you read the works of Yu.V. Barkin & N.S. Sidorenkov. It is important to differentiate between irradiance & insolation. Cumulative pressure contrasts affect circulation and the integration of spatial insolation patterns. It is not as simple as SSTs following solar cycles (as some argue around here in bold defiance of the pre-1930 empirical record). As Barkin argues & Sidorenkov demonstrates, fundamental assumptions need a major overhaul. Barkin has clearly identified one of the long-missing links — and there is a lot of work to do since the math gets thick as soon as one starts tearing down failed, overly-simplistic (but mathematically-convenient) assumptions.

  66. rbateman says:

    Leif Svalgaard (05:53:18) :

    Amazing, isn’t it? Gore get the prize for telling the world that it will be roasted alive, and Obama gets it for telling the world to chill out.

    Two sides of a medal.
    Here’s how you get a Nobel Prize, Leif:
    I’ll cook up data to show the Sun is about to dim out by 2017, and you come along after everyone has gone bonkers and tell them not to panic, just visit research at Leif dot org to find out it’s only temporary.

  67. Paul Vaughan says:

    Some of the comments suggest a need to clarify what AMO is:

    “The timeseries are calculated from the Kaplan SST dataset which is updated monthly. It is basically an index of the N Atlantic temperatures.”

    http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/data/timeseries/AMO/

  68. Bob Tisdale says:

    timetochooseagain: You noted about the team from realclimate, “They also believe that it is not natural.”

    It shows that there is either disagreement among the Team or that they can spin a topic two ways.

  69. rbateman says:

    Stephen Wilde (05:29:36) :

    I was only referencing the oceans as oscillators. They are at neither the beginning nor the end of a chain of transport. The crust of the Earth dictates where they reside in both depth and height. An Ice Cap is formed from them, and returns to them when it melts. Without the Sun’s heating, there would be no great precipitation to place Ice Caps or wear down the mountains.
    Sun big, Earth small.

  70. rbateman says:

    Bob Tisdale (12:25:52) :

    Spun out both way, Bob.
    ex. – Global Warming causes Global Cooling (bake your cake and freeze it, too).

  71. Invariant says:

    Phlogiston (08:20:57) : The emerging picture that (a) the oceans have the lions share of the climate’s energy and (b) oscillations of the ocean system – intrinsic and non-linear-chaotic in nature – drive climatic variation, seems quite compelling.

    Seems reasonable – yes! Thanks for interesting comments. Honestly I am a beginner in this field and I truly know very little about the climate. Therefore I would like to ask you a question. If the oscillations of the ocean system are non-linear-chaotic in nature, what about the power law scale invariance that is usually present in such systems? Do we have an idea of the length and (most interesting!) timescales involved?

  72. Paul Vaughan says:

    Invariant (13:34:25) “[...] oscillations of the ocean system [...] Do we have an idea of the length and (most interesting!) timescales involved?”

    The following should give you some ideas (for recent times):

  73. Stephen Wilde says:

    savethesharks (10:36:31)

    Just to clarify the use of the word ‘all’.

    I think that all the physical features of climate change we observe are a direct consequence of the internal variability that I have described.

    However that does leave external forcings in a position to modulate those climate phenomena. I hope that covers your objection.

    I dont think the external forcings are likely to produce any fresh phenomena that are not already present.

  74. Paul Vaughan says:

    Stephen Wilde (15:04:43) “I dont think the external forcings are likely to produce any fresh phenomena that are not already present.”

    This is where you are off. See Sidorenkov & Barkin for a healthy paradigm shake-up.

    Independent, firmly-tenacious (but perhaps coy at times) resistance of the incessant brainwashing & derision of the convention-wielding & occasionally-humanly-blind “experts” is mandatory for anyone willing to see deeper truth.

    Detection of occasional external shake-ups of internal rhythms requires the application of:
    a) conditional logic, and
    b) analysis methods that slice-&-dice nonstationarity.

    Example:
    Typically, conventional wisdom sees only 2 eras in the following plot – one of concordance and one lacking:

    However, shaking a few assumptions loose …

    … & looking with this …

    … reveals the following:

    [Timescales with an absence of or limited number of black vertical bands are informative.]

    We’re not necessarily always looking for simple linear correlation. Complexity can be rendered dead-simple if we have infinite patience, avoid bad assumptions, and use the right tools for the job. (We may also save time if we can find sensible mentors, but in their absence it is not hopeless if we have not succumbed to the brainwashing of those who (sometimes inadvertently) lead us astray.)

  75. savethesharks says:

    “I think that all the physical features of climate change we observe are a direct consequence of the internal variability that I have described.”

    There’s that word “all” again. Suddenly, too deductive for my tastes….

    Thanks for your input though, I have enjoyed reading your posts.

    “I dont think the external forcings are likely to produce any fresh phenomena that are not already present.”

    When the earth and its mighty sun along with the protective bubble of the heliosphere is shooting through interstellar space at half a million miles per hour, occasionally passing through denser variable and interstellar clouds and through the “feeder bands” (sorry to borrow a meteo term LOL) the arms of the Galaxy, on that scale, I am reminded that we probably know next to nothing about “external forcings”….whatever they may be, or not be, as the case may be.

    Regardless, far FAR too much is not known to make a blanket conclusion at this time.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  76. savethesharks says:

    Paul Vaughan (16:36:32) : “Detection of occasional external shake-ups of internal rhythms requires the application of:
    a) conditional logic, and
    b) analysis methods that slice-&-dice nonstationarity.”

    Fascinating stuff….

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  77. Stephen Wilde says:

    savethesharks and Paul Vaughan

    Please note that I did not deny the existence of external forcings. I merely point out that they would normally (not necessarily always) be shown up as simply affecting the scale intensity or frequency of existing climate phenomena rather than creating new phenomena of their own.

    Much as, say, the Svensmark hypothesis is said to affect the level of cloudiness and not to create clouds as a new phenomenon or solar variations affect ocean energy content rather than creating something new to be observed.

    In extremis I suppose an external forcing on a sufficient scale could force the occurrence of a new phenomenon never seen before but I think we can discount that for current climate analysis purposes.

  78. Carlo says:

    RR Kampen 06:03

    My child of seven sees the correlation, while playing in the bathtub. :)

  79. Paul Vaughan says:

    Re: Stephen Wilde (01:19:28)

    I don’t think it is any secret by this stage that we can learn something from Russian climate science, which developed insights into terrestrial-oscillation patterns we discuss here (as-if new-insight) before 1940.

    I suppose one option is to completely ignore the fundamental clues of a depth sufficient to drive paradigm shift, but that is certainly not an option I find (even remotely) appealing.

    Based on some of the notes you’ve dropped (particularly those regarding the hydrologic cycle & the history of ITCZ position), I think you’ll be delighted if you start reading Sidorenkov & Barkin.

    Regards,
    Paul.

    —-
    The following is a result I found with ease not long after discovering the works of Barkin:

    There is one discrepancy. It relates to Earth nutation. (I already have a short-list of potential conditioning factors.)

    Barkin gives a series of clues that liberate investigators of terrestrial oscillations from the oppression of misguided conventional paradigms that have rammed head-on (at full speed) into impenetrable barriers.
    —-

  80. Paul Vaughan says:

    Steve M. (08:59:54) “I’d prefer to see more regional studies.”

    Indeed, that is where the money is, as Currie (1996) has cautioned us. The spatial averaging destroys relative-phase information.


    Re: RR Kampen (06:03:23)

    Do you use analysis methods that can cope with nonstationarity (for example cross-wavelet methods)?

    [I'm making an effort to be fair before deciding whether your comments were deliberately-inflammatory.]

  81. Phlogiston says:

    I dont see a contradiction between intrinsic oscillation and external forcing. The classic experimental model of self-generated waves and oscillation, the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction, requires a forcing oscillation but then generates new oscillations of its own.

    It seems likely that forcings such as the Milankovich cycles and harmonics thereof, the various orbital and rotational precessions, plus solar output-cosmic ray-cloud fluctuations, set the oceans rocking and rolling with their own intrinsic waves. The moon should not be forgotten. Plus tectonic drift keeps on changing the geometry and thus the natural frequencies and harmonics.

    Stephen Wilde – you do not mention in your discussions of ocean thermal budget oscillations, ice ages: what causes these big jumps between apparent strange attractors glacial and interglacial (during a glacial epoch)? I think you write off the effect of land too much: the pushing up of the Himalayas by India’s collision has cooled the whole earth to some extent (at leastthe northern hemishpere). Plus tectonic drift placing large land masses close to the poles seems to result in a glacial epoch.

  82. This page shows the recurrent cycles of the Arctic and the strong correlation to AMO as well as to the AMO+PDO:
    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/ArcticCycles.htm

  83. RR Kampen says:

    Paul Vaughan (13:33:09) :

    [I'm making an effort to be fair before deciding whether your comments were deliberately-inflammatory.]

    You cannot decide about my intentions.
    My comments are sincere. You can believe that or not.
    You have already been unfair.

  84. Paul Vaughan says:

    Re: RR Kampen (14:40:59)

    Perhaps the only information to be gained here is that in addition to your earlier comment [RR Kampen (06:03:23)] your response to my question has not included an answer.

    Paul Vaughan (13:33:09) “Do you use analysis methods that can cope with nonstationarity (for example cross-wavelet methods)?”

    You leave the impression that you expect sensible people to believe the Arctic has no relation to the North Atlantic. This gives solid reason to question your motives (at least temporarily, as your messaging may change to a more sensible course moving forward — I encourage you to review the WUWT policy on flame-baiting).

  85. Paul Vaughan says:

    Phlogiston (13:39:03) “It seems likely that forcings such as the Milankovich cycles and harmonics thereof, the various orbital and rotational precessions, plus solar output-cosmic ray-cloud fluctuations, set the oceans rocking and rolling with their own intrinsic waves. The moon should not be forgotten. Plus tectonic drift keeps on changing the geometry and thus the natural frequencies and harmonics.”

    Here is a function of terrestrial polar motion, solar system dynamics, & the lunar nodal cycle:

    Suggested: Open in a separate tab & blink to the following:

    Note how the spike splits the PDO:

    The spike stems from the Chandler wobble phase reversal:

    I have been able to link the preceding to the hydrologic cycle, but there are factors I have not yet managed to incorporate (some of which you have mentioned). I am working with contrasts of interannual & annual aa index (which may be indicative of something else with which they are confounded). At times the contrasts track:
    a) regional precipitation,
    b) SOI,
    c) both (a) & (b).
    d) (a) &/or (b) but in perfect anti-phase.
    e) none of the above.
    The incidences of (e) are limited to decadal-timescale local-temporal-minima of aa index &/or times of strong volcanic activity. Certainly this is an interesting puzzle. It appears solvable.

    Upon extending the investigation to other climate indices, I have developed some intuition regarding how the episodes of anti-phase are (I suspect) related to spatial distributions (of land barriers, flows, etc.) [Seasons also play a role, which is not news, but it is worth noting that this complicates analyses by an extra layer because winter threshold-exceedances produce relationship-slope-reversals -- a simple paradox (but not necessarily one that investigators detect).]

    The patterns are so very clearly non-random – and yet traditional methods of analysis (e.g. linear correlation) yield only the very most subtle hints of their possible existence. Among the tell-tale signs of nonrandomness are the matrices of best-lags from time-integrated cross-correlation analyses. [It is easy to see where past investigators may have gone wrong because there are 2 close harmonic bases that appear to match (but upon scrupulous inspection they do not actually match).]

    We certainly need a different tool-set for exploring complex phenomena. At present I am relying heavily on visual methods, supplementing them with wavelet methods (including harmonic cross-wavelet methods).

    I can imagine a time in the future when routine analysis methods will be better-suited for yielding more rapid insight into complex phenomena.

    In the meantime, the only potentially-real obstacles I see to solving complex problems:
    1) human lifetime.
    2) human patience.
    3) lack of human freedom.

  86. savethesharks says:

    Stephen Wilde: “If we ignore land as relatively insignificant we are left with oceans and air.”

    This is a bothersome statement. Land is NOT insignificant. Check out the current temperature at Vostok, Antarctica right now, even though they have started into their austral “spring”.

    http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=vostok,%20antarctica&wuSelect=WEATHER

    And this quote from Phlogiston….is on point:

    “Stephen Wilde – you do not mention in your discussions of ocean thermal budget oscillations, ice ages: what causes these big jumps between apparent strange attractors glacial and interglacial (during a glacial epoch)? I think you write off the effect of land too much: the pushing up of the Himalayas by India’s collision has cooled the whole earth to some extent (at leastthe northern hemishpere). Plus tectonic drift placing large land masses close to the poles seems to result in a glacial epoch.”

    Again…too soon to jump to conclusions, Stephen. Have really enjoyed the logic of your posts (the recent few withstanding, however).

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  87. savethesharks says:

    “In the meantime, the only potentially-real obstacles I see to solving complex problems:
    1) human lifetime.
    2) human patience.
    3) lack of human freedom.”

    Paul….I would add a number 4:

    4) Human Cognitive Dissonance and/or Self-Deception

    BTW….Mind-blowing thoughts as of late. I can’t follow you on everything…but I generally “get” where you are going…and agree.

    Thanks.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  88. savethesharks says:

    Phlogiston (13:39:03) : “It seems likely that forcings such as the Milankovich cycles and harmonics thereof, the various orbital and rotational precessions, plus solar output-cosmic ray-cloud fluctuations, set the oceans rocking and rolling with their own intrinsic waves. The moon should not be forgotten. Plus tectonic drift keeps on changing the geometry and thus the natural frequencies and harmonics.”

    Profoundly stated. Thanks.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  89. RR Kampen says:

    Paul Vaughan (15:16:41) :

    You leave the impression that you expect sensible people to believe the Arctic has no relation to the North Atlantic. This gives solid reason to question your motives (at least temporarily, as your messaging may change to a more sensible course moving forward — I encourage you to review the WUWT policy on flame-baiting).

    I had no intention to leave such in impression. Actually, I couldn’t, simply because any child in a bathtub (thank you, Carlo, but please let him post here, then) could see the logic. It must be there.
    So I’ve been analysing that rather surprising graph to see how much of this can and cannot be seen in it.
    Meantime I have some answer: there is a marginally significant correlation. There is a bit of a problem with the length of the record: we have about 2 cycles of the long oscillation and would love to have say 10 cycles, spanning about 600 years.
    Now I wonder what other factors could be at work here.

    As an off topic: you talk again about ‘flame-baiting’ and stuff like that. Given the fact that I have no intention to flame or sabotage any discussion here, I hope you can imagine my frustration being accused of that. I also hope you can imagine I can’t answer well to it, because such answers could be interpreted as flaming again. Whereas I think such accusations cannot be left unanswered (or unpunished, maybe), I would prefer some mutual trust as to our interest in the subject matter and concentrate on the subject, then, instead of analysing or speculating on what can be seen on this forum of each others personality and motives.
    I also hope speaking out one’s conviction of (A)GW would not be considered ‘flaming’ just because of that conviction.
    Actually I went the other way round as Anthony. Until the autumn of 2004 I believed it had to be the sun and since found reason to believe it ain’t.

  90. anna v says:

    Well, I suppose this is on topic as the Bahrends sea is part of the plot next door
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm .

    One can see that the sea ice extent is now following the 2008 line. As I look at the difference between 2007 and 2008 I can see some hundred thousands square miles of first year for 2008 ice. Now I see as much in second year ice. Am I wrong?

    Remember when the goal posts were moved to second year ice?

  91. RR Kampen says:

    anna v (08:25:56) :

    One can see that the sea ice extent is now following the 2008 line.

    More like crossing that line than following it.
    Given the expected blocked circulation pattern the line may cross some more coming couple of weeks.
    Ice volume should increase though, the ice that’s there is getting thicker, particularly on the Canadian side where conditions are rather cold.

  92. Paul Vaughan says:

    RR Kampen (02:39:02) “[...] interest in the subject matter and concentrate on the subject [...]” / “[...] we have about 2 cycles of the long oscillation and would love to have say 10 cycles, spanning about 600 years.”

    Agreed.

    – – –

    After taking a more thorough look at Levitus et al. (2009), it became evident that they (probably) did not write the paper from the perspective of (full) awareness of the following excellent (& recent) paper:

    Wang, J.; Zhang, J.; Watanabe, E.; Ikeda, M.; Mizobata, K.; Walsh, J.E.; Bai, X.; & Wu, B. (2009). Is the Dipole Anomaly a major driver to record lows in Arctic summer sea ice extent? Geophysical Research Letters 36, L05706. doi:10.1029/2008GL036706.
    ftp://ftp.glerl.noaa.gov/wang/Related_Papers/Wang_paper63_2009_GRL.pdf

    Some highlights:

    1) “Recent record lows of Arctic summer sea ice extent are found to be triggered by the Arctic atmospheric Dipole Anomaly (DA) pattern. This local, second-leading mode of sea-level pressure (SLP) anomaly in the Arctic produced a strong meridional wind anomaly that drove more sea ice out of the Arctic Ocean from the western to the eastern Arctic into the northern Atlantic during the summers of 1995, 1999, 2002, 2005, and 2007. In the 2007 summer, the DA also enhanced anomalous oceanic heat flux into the Arctic Ocean via Bering Strait, which accelerated bottom and lateral melting of sea ice and amplified the ice-albedo feedback.”

    2) “Based on our previous studies [Wu et al., 2006; Watanabe et al., 2006], in this paper, we argue and conclude that the DA, which was defined the second EOF (Empirical Orthogonal Function) mode of SLP north of 70N, is the major driver of the sea ice record lows, not only valid for 2007, but also generally for the previous record lows. Note that DA, an Arctic regional mode, differs from the PNA (Pacific-North America) pattern and their correlation is only 0.12.”

    3) “The Arctic Dipole Anomaly (DA) pattern is an important driver of the Arctic sea ice transport from the western Pacific Arctic to the northern Atlantic based on data analysis for the period 1962-2002 [Wu et al., 2006] [...] The DA (Figures 2b and 2d) differs from the AO (Figures 2a and 2c) in both winter and summer because the anomalous SLP has two action centers in the Arctic, while AO has one annular (circled) center covering the entire Arctic. The resulting wind anomaly for the DA is meridional, while the AO-derived wind anomaly is either cyclonic during its positive phase or anticyclonc during its negative phase [Wu et al., 2006]. During a positive phase of the DA (i.e., the SLP has a positive anomaly in the Canadian Archipelago and negative one in the Barents Sea), the anomalous meridional wind blows from the western to the eastern Arctic, favorable to the Trans-polar Drift Stream (TDS) that flushes sea ice out of the Arctic into the Barents and Greenland seas [Wu et al., 2006; Watanabe et al., 2006]. During the negative phase of the DA, the opposite scenario occurs, i.e., more sea ice remains in the western Arctic [Watanabe et al., 2006]. During the positive/negative AO (i.e., Arctic SLP has a negative/positive anomaly), a cyclonic/anticyclonic wind anomaly occurs, indicating a sea ice divergence/convergence. The divergence (anomalous cyclonic circulation) of sea ice leads to anomalous ice export, while the convergence results in retention of sea ice inside the Arctic Ocean [Wu et al., 2006].”

    4) “Figure 2. [...] The black arrows in Figures 2a and 2c indicate the cyclonic (anticlockwise, divergent) wind anomaly during the +AO phase (which promotes advection of sea ice out of Arctic via Fram Strait) and anticyclonic (clockwise, convergent) wind anomaly during the -AO phase. In Figures 2b and 2d the black arrows indicate that the wind anomaly blows from the western to the eastern Arctic during the +DA phase that accelerates the TDS (in red-dashed arrows), and vice versa during the -DA phase that slows down the TDS.”

    5) “The +DA not only drove sea ice from the western to the eastern Arctic, but also strengthened inflow of the warm Pacific water since the 2000s [Woodgate et al., 2006] that injected above-average heat flux from the Pacific, accelerating the drastic thinning of sea ice [Steele et al., 2004; Shimada et al., 2006]. To confirm that the Pacific water heat flux increased in the 2000s, in particular in summer 2007, we updated the calculation of the heat flux through the eastern Bering Strait from 2000 to 2007 during the June-October ice free seasons. Table 3 shows that since 2004, heat flux via the eastern Bering Strait has an annual average of 5.4 TW (1 TW = 1012 Watts), compared to the annual average of 3.4 TW during 2000-2003, representing a 45% increase. The heat flux in 2007 (5.96 TW) had a 35% increase compared to the average of 4.4 TW from 2000 to 2007. Therefore, the heat flux from the Pacific Ocean has two important impacts, direct and indirect, on sea ice in the western Arctic. The direct impact includes the bottom and lateral melting of sea ice when the warm Pacific enters the Chukchi Sea. The indirect impact involves a time-lag effect: the oceanic heat flux entering in the previous summer can survive winter [Shimada et al., 2006] at the subsurface, which enhances the melting in the following spring and summer, amplifying the ice/ocean albedo process.”

    [The reference Wang et al. (2009) make in quote (5): Woodgate, R.A.; Aagaard, K.; & Weingartner, T.J. (2006). Interannual changes in the Bering Strait fluxes of volume, heat and freshwater between 1991 and 2004. Geophysical Research Letters 33, L15609. doi:10.1029/2006GL026931.]

  93. Paul Vaughan says:

    savethesharks (22:31:21) “BTW….Mind-blowing thoughts as of late.”

    My funding & employment were cut 15 days after announcing one of my findings about natural climate variations. Right now my survival depends on clutch-performance and I do not intend to yield to oppressors who require that I speak mistruth exclusively.

    Best Regards,
    Paul.

  94. Stephen Wilde says:

    phlogiston and savethesharks.

    I’m concentrating on the past few thousand years in relation to which the variable sun/sea interaction seems enough to explain the observed climate cycling.

    Land is not unimportant on long geological time scales as you point out.

    However my climate description relies on a previously unappreciated level of internal (to the Earth system) climate variability provoked by constant changes in air and ocean circulations.

    On the time scales concerned with that the land is not really relevant because of it’s immobility. Even though the land does first produce temperature extremes any such extremes are a consequence of variability of air and oceans and not changes in the land.

    On geological timescales all the other influences you mention would come into play and would themselves interact with and be modulated by the sea and air circulations. Even solar and possibly other external forcings could become relevant on the appropriate time scales.

    If I can get my shorter term climate description more generally accepted there would certainly be a place for the other stuff mentioned by you two to be worked into the scenario on longer time scales.

    My current priority is to account for the failure of the current models and create an overview that complies with observations and basic physics.

    If that damages AGW theory in the process then so be it. Also it might unsettle few sceptical viewpoints. All I seek is a truth that can be seen to work in the real world and I think I am pretty close to that if not already there.

    A variable energy flow at the sea/air interface and a variable energy flow at the air/space interface both cancelling one another out and being modulated in the sea by the thermohaline circulation and in the air by the speed of the hydrological cycle makes sense in relaion to a lot of observed climate phenomena and thus has a considerable advantage over the existing climate models.

  95. bill says:

    What is pushing the temperatures.

    Comparing AMO with Hadcrut3V and Hadcrut3NH there is a wonderful correlation:

    Apart from the incresea trend caused by???? All the slow humps and dips appear in the right places and even the rapid changes appear aligned (to the eye!)

    So if we zoom in and look at the signals through a much longer moving average the dips again align.

    The dips in HADCRUT seem to occur a few months ahead of AMO and the peaks are a bit off. Not sure wht CET has little correlation but hey, there must be a connection.
    If Air Temp is driving AMO then one would expect the air temp changes to occur before AMO
    and
    Vice Versa.

    So now lets look at the same date range through shorter moving averages.

    Now it becomes interesting. sometimes the air temp leads amo and sometimes amo leads air temp.

    If amo drives temp then there is no way that amo can lag air temperature.
    and
    vice versa

    To me this says that there is a external driver, or the data is faulty.
    CET is just weird!

  96. savethesharks says:

    Stephen Wilde (13:52:42) : “I’m concentrating on the past few thousand years in relation to which the variable sun/sea interaction seems enough to explain the observed climate cycling.”

    Thanks for clarifying that, Stephen. From your posts, did not know that you were focusing JUST on the past few thousand years.

    As I am sure you will agree, as the great communicator with words that you are, being careful in the use of the word “all”, and/or qualifying major blanket statements, from time to time, is not a bad thing.

    You are on to something very profound with your posts here.

    Please be careful to not shut the inductive door, however, as some of even the best tend to do!

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  97. Phil. says:

    anna v (08:25:56) :
    Well, I suppose this is on topic as the Bahrends sea is part of the plot next door
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm .

    One can see that the sea ice extent is now following the 2008 line. As I look at the difference between 2007 and 2008 I can see some hundred thousands square miles of first year for 2008 ice. Now I see as much in second year ice. Am I wrong?

    You miss the fact that the ice which flows out of the Arctic (Fram St & Beaufort Sea) to melt elsewhere is predominantly older ice, which is one reason for the overall thinning of the sea ice from year to year. The North Pole observatory (webcam) is currently drifting out of the Fram at almost 0.5º/day, that was 2.2m thick ice in June which is being replaced by first year ice now.

  98. Mike Odin says:

    Being a cassandra helps me
    to conclude that–

    “the whole historic Arctic sea ice record seems to be somewhat suspect”

    from climate audit–

    “Jonathan Drake:
    October 10th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
    At the beginning of this year I did an analysis that appears to indicate a systematic drift between the NASA team SSM/I relative to AMSR-E IRAC JAXA. In fact the whole historic Arctic sea ice record seems to be somewhat suspect:

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jdrake/Questioning_Climate/userfiles/How_Fast_is_Arctic_Sea_Ice_Declining.pdf

    also —

    rcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=346&page=114#30005

    “States: Passive microwave underestimates sea ice concentrations by an average of 25% in summer (but the underestimate can be more than this) and 5-10% in winter. …. its mostly all in one direction.
    (Met Office, Hadley Centre)”

Comments are closed.