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.

In an article that I just read elsewhere, there was mention of researchers from 60 nations working in the Arctic, and, I suspect, most of them involve ice-breakers. Has anyone given any thought to how much more quickly broken ice melts, and/or moves out into the North Atlantic?
Just a thought.
GISS is in for July at 0.51, just below last year’s 0.53. Thanks to the power of linux, “diff” and “grep -c” show 80 changes in previous values.
Walter Dnes (14:33:47) :
What GISS are you looking at?
This one shows a huge jump to 70, highest July since 2002, and second only to 1998):
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
Bill Marsh, without spending too much time, I looked at noaa1 over 7/3/08-8/11/08, 10:00 to 14:00 hours. The only temp readings were: 0.0, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 degC. These seem strangely stable, and only above freezing. For a fractional readout to only have few .5s and 80-90% .0s and no other digits seems fishy. For the same date interval and camera but 20:00-23:00 hours, I found some 2.5 degC temps. Maybe this site needs a survey!?
Basil, a good question. Is it the seasonally adjusted or just plain old regularly adjusted 😉
Basil…
When you add in the SSTA temps (water), the number goes down to .50. That’s the official number.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2008&month_last=7&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=07&year1=2008&year2=2008&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg
I commented in a recent post about what looked like an upturn in the graph for ice melt. The latest graph appears to have ‘forgotten ‘ about that, and the upturn seems never to have been and is now a downturn!
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Second hottest July this century, and the third hottest July in history!
Jim Hansen, keeping the dream alive…
The arctic ice melt is assumed to be caused by AGW according to the true believers, however the hard evidence is non-existent.
I would still like to see a detailed quantified exposition with experimental evidence that CO2 can cause oceans to gain heat. In particular, Hansen et al 2005 attributes OHC from 1993-2003 caused by increasing GHG, namely CO2. Yet, since LW IR does not penetrate liquid water beyond ~.03mm in the physical world, does AGW have special powers?
The oceans stopped gaining heat after 2003, and IPCC AR4 does not note that inconvenient fact. As it is now, OHC has waned now going on five years. If the AGW hypothesis is correct, how can oceans ever cool? The so-called “heat in the pipeline” is total nonsense.
Is it a matter of “well mixed water”? Convection? Conduction? There appears to be much arm waiving on this subject, so it would be good to hear from physicists on this.
I don’t buy it.
Off topic but the GISS figures from July are out at .51.
The melt in the Arctic proves one thing — ice melts.
As real scientists keep discovering, the climate is a lot more complicated than how much CO2 is entering the atmosphere. It’s only been about a dozen years since the formal existence of the PDO was acknowledged. Now the decadel nature of Arctic air and water circulation patterns is emerging. Last week it was more about a major storm in the Beaufort Sea moving ice, rather than melting ice. Despite all the panic attacks about the ice melt, I think it will emerge that the Arctic is much more robust than is usually acknowledged. Let’s see how ice extent grows over the next couple seasons as a cooling atmospheric/oceanic pattern emerges.
Let’s be thankful for the mitigating effects of the oceans, else our climate extremes would be truly dizzying.
[…] NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face NOTE: You may recall a story I posted some months ago titled: “NASA: It’s the wind” regarding Arctic […] […]
You can follow the adventures of a 33ft yacht tring to make it’s way through the nortwest passage at
http://awberrimilla.blogspot.com/
F Rasmin (15:47:52) :
I remember that post, and looking closely at the link to the NSIDC chart, which did appear to be starting to turn up. Now the line appears to have been “adjusted” downward.
Maybe a blink comparison of the original chart with the new and improved chart is in order.
Change in global anomaly from July 2007 to July 2008
GISS: -0.02
RSS: -0.216
UAH: -0.207
Good thing all the measurements are in perfect agreement, or there’s no telling how different they would be.
Any feedback on how that Artic circulation fits in with this NASA news report?
News: Antarctic Ice Loss Speeds Up, Nearly Matches Greenland Loss1/23/08
> Basil (14:42:31) :
> Walter Dnes (14:33:47) :
> What GISS are you looking at?
> This one shows a huge jump to 70, highest July since 2002,
> and second only to 1998):
You seem to be looking at the land-temperatures-only version. Have a look at the legend at the top of that text file; it says…
> sources: GHCN 1880-07/2008 (meteorological stations only)
> using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment
The last part of your URL is “GLB.Ts.txt”. Change that to “GLB.Ts+dSST.txt”, as in http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt and the legend at the top of that file will include…
> sources: GHCN 1880-07/2008 + SST: 1880-11/1981 HadISST1
> 12/1981-07/2008 Reynolds v2
> using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment
That was it. Thanks!
Bill Marsh (07:33:58) :
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.
The air temperature over the ice rarely gets above 0ºC (latent heat), the sensor on the weather station might sometimes go above if the sun is shining on it. I don’t see your ‘anecdotal’ increase in the ice, in fact over the last month the thickness of the ice at that station has decreased from 2.0m to 1.4m and is thinning at the fastest rate of the summer at the moment.
Mark (07:04:48) :
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:
Well Mark I guess you weren’t listening when it was published last fall when it got plenty of coverage!
By the way the change postulated in that paper from counter-clockwise to clockwise hasn’t happened yet according to the buoy measurements during this summer, the Beaufort gyre did mostly disappear this summer though.
That yacht mentioned above should have nice weather for the rest of the week (sunny ~10ºC), there were thunderstorms at their destination tonight though!
[…] Watts Up With That? For the first time in the entire history of mankind the world has a common ballot box. The World Wide Web, the Internet, can take your voice from the meanest hamlet in the most inhospital corner of the globe and project it onto the world stage. It is the miracle of our time. Use it wisely; use it well; and use it often. […]
Concerning the ABC poll. If some large majority, some say 85%, get all their information about the world from their TV, then polls are just a report on the job the TV people are doing. The low and falling percentages of AGW believers is not the sort of thing spinmeisters would like on their resumes. Yesss.
Note that our northern state of Queensland is where all we Australians who like the tropics wish to live.
Or did…
Even Queensland can’t escape from the cold
Brett Dutschke, Tuesday August 12, 2008 – 14:35 EST
It’s a case of icy cold one day, icy cold the next in Queensland as Coolangatta breaks an August record for the fourth time in five days, according to weatherzone.com.au.
The temperature in Coolangatta plummeted to just one degree early this morning, 10 below the August average. This is the fifth day running that the temperature has dropped lower than 3.6 degrees, the previous record August low in more than 20 years of records.
Weatherzone
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/even-queensland-cant-escape-from-the-cold/9698
The NSIDC Arctic ice extent graph appears to be incorrect.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
It shows the increase in extent vs. this date last year as less than 15%, yet the actual increase is greater than 30%. Here is a video which shows this qualitatively. Note that almost the entire periphery has expanded.
Also, note that the NSIDC claim of the Northwest Passage opening does not appear accurate.
About Cryosphere, I look at data curve and views of sea ice areas 08/11/2007 and 08/11/2008.
Data curve set 7,5% more sea ice area today than last year (4,2 Mkm² versus 3,9Mkm²).
Views suggest about 30% or more.
Have you an explanation ?
Thanks for your answers.
Artic ice extend:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
Anthony and others:
Why is it that Cryosphere gives a picture that the ice melt of 2008 is close to 2007, when its not?
And more: if you measure pxel for pixel directly on satellite photos, you will see that the ice extend right now appears even bigger:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=08&fd=11&fy=2008&sm=08&sd=11&sy=2008
For this, use Greenlands size = 2,15 mio kvm to get abs size.
Am i the only one who sees a problem in the difference how the iceextend is presented? This is the most “hot” subject right now, and before the warmies get away with it, I would wish that this was investigated and exposed to the world. People should not think that the ice extend now is much smaller than it is.
In cryosphere, for example also compare with 1995, where it seems that the ice extend where smaller than 2008.