NOTE: You may recall a story I posted some months ago titled: “NASA: It’s the wind” regarding Arctic wind circulation patterns and the way it drove sea ice further south into melt zones. Commenter Paul Marek brought this story to attention recently, and given the sea ice trend this summer, I thought it was worth bringing to light again. Then and now, “The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming. ” Given our less than predicted catastrophic sea ice loss this year, coupled with this study, it looks like Arctic ice could be on the mend. – Anthony
Click for Larger image
This shows contours of the trend in ocean bottom pressure from 2002 to 2006 as measured by GRACE along with hypothetical trends that would apply at the circles if ocean salinity reverted from 1990s values to climatological conditions over the same period.
NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face
November 13, 2007
PASADENA, Calif. – A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.
The team, led by James Morison of the University of Washington’s Polar Science Center Applied Physics Laboratory, Seattle, used data from an Earth-observing satellite and from deep-sea pressure gauges to monitor Arctic Ocean circulation from 2002 to 2006. They measured changes in the weight of columns of Arctic Ocean water, from the surface to the ocean bottom. That weight is influenced by factors such as the height of the ocean’s surface, and its salinity. A saltier ocean is heavier and circulates differently than one with less salt.
The very precise deep-sea gauges were developed with help from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; the satellite is NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace). The team of scientists found a 10-millibar decrease in water pressure at the bottom of the ocean at the North Pole between 2002 and 2006, equal to removing the weight of 10 centimeters (four inches) of water from the ocean. The distribution and size of the decrease suggest that Arctic Ocean circulation changed from the counterclockwise pattern it exhibited in the 1990s to the clockwise pattern that was dominant prior to 1990.
Reporting in Geophysical Research Letters, the authors attribute the reversal to a weakened Arctic Oscillation, a major atmospheric circulation pattern in the northern hemisphere. The weakening reduced the salinity of the upper ocean near the North Pole, decreasing its weight and changing its circulation.
“Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming,” said Morison.
“While some 1990s climate trends, such as declines in Arctic sea ice extent, have continued, these results suggest at least for the ‘wet’ part of the Arctic — the Arctic Ocean — circulation reverted to conditions like those prevalent before the 1990s,” he added.
The Arctic Oscillation was fairly stable until about 1970, but then varied on more or less decadal time scales, with signs of an underlying upward trend, until the late 1990s, when it again stabilized. During its strong counterclockwise phase in the 1990s, the Arctic environment changed markedly, with the upper Arctic Ocean undergoing major changes that persisted into this century. Many scientists viewed the changes as evidence of an ongoing climate shift, raising concerns about the effects of global warming on the Arctic.
Morison said data gathered by Grace and the bottom pressure gauges since publication of the paper earlier this year highlight how short-lived the ocean circulation changes can be. The newer data indicate the bottom pressure has increased back toward its 2002 level. “The winter of 2006-2007 was another high Arctic Oscillation year and summer sea ice extent reached a new minimum,” he said. “It is too early to say, but it looks as though the Arctic Ocean is ready to start swinging back to the counterclockwise circulation pattern of the 1990s again.”
Morison cautioned that while the recent decadal-scale changes in the circulation of the Arctic Ocean may not appear to be directly tied to global warming, most climate models predict the Arctic Oscillation will become even more strongly counterclockwise in the future. “The events of the 1990s may well be a preview of how the Arctic will respond over longer periods of time in a warming world,” he said.
Grace monitors tiny month-to-month changes in Earth’s gravity field caused primarily by the movement of water in Earth’s land, ocean, ice and atmosphere reservoirs. As such it can infer changes in the weight of columns of ocean water. In contrast, the pressure gauges installed on the sea floor in 2005-2006 directly measured water pressure at the bottom of the ocean. Gauge data were remotely recovered during the first year of the study.
“The close agreement between the North Pole pressure gauges and Grace data demonstrates Grace’s potential for tracking world ocean circulation,” said study co-author John Wahr of the University of Colorado, Boulder.
“Satellite altimeters, such as NASA’s Jason, are ideal for studying ocean circulation but can’t be used at Earth’s poles due to ice cover,” said study co-author Ron Kwok of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “Our results show Grace can be a powerful tool for tracking changes in the distribution of mass in the Arctic Ocean, as well as its circulation.”
Grace is a partnership between NASA and the German Aerospace Center (DLR). The University of Texas Center for Space Research, Austin, has overall mission responsibility. JPL developed the twin satellites. DLR provided the launch, and GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam, Germany, operates Grace. For more on Grace: http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/ .
The study was funded by the National Science Foundation.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Addition: The AMSR-E graph above shows around 0,9 mio kvm2 ice more than 2007 same time. Cryosphere and NSIDC show around 0,3-0,6. Satellite photos shows at least 1 mio kvm2 mor ice ind 2008 than 2007.
I hope this gets serious spotlight.
[…] NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face […]
Frank L
Looking at the sat photos, it certainly seems 2008 ice extent is being underestimated. Be careful though – some graphs (like NSIDC) plot ocean that’s at least 15% ice. So I’m not sure if apples are being compared to oranges here.
Interesting that the NSIDC press department appears largely disinterested in Antarctic ice, other than the occasional chunk breaking off an ice shelf on the Peninsula.
It provides some good insight into their obsession with proving global warming.
I have been monitoring this blog for about four weeks now, and one thing I have noticed over and over… Anthony Watts will insert his own headline onto a story from another source. Alternatively, he will insert some commentary that goes beyond his source information, or misquotes it. These comments or headlines are often inserted into the source material, with no attribution.
Lets look at the key quote from this story, “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. ”
This simply says that there is a cyclic pattern that can explain a portion of the changes in the Arctic climate, (most experts point to climate changes such as warming temperatures, ice pack melt, and permafrost melt), but that global warming is responsible for some of the change (most experts claim the majority of the changes). The quote say “not all” meaning some or most of the climate change is due to global warming.
But Anthony inserts this interpretation:
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
Wow, where did he get this conclusion? I see at least three mistakes in just one line. First, no large scientific organization has predicted catastrophic sea ice loss this year; Some organizations are expecting 5-10 years before the North Pole goes ice free, and the IPCC is saying 30 years, down from their original forecasts of about 100 years. The IPCC originally significantly underestimated the impact of global warming on the Arctic.
Second, this study doesn’t predict sea ice recovery to previous levels, it simply raises the hope that the dramatic sea ice declines we have seen in the last several years will slow down, due to cyclic trends.
Third, there is no data, or scientific organization, or significant recent climatology research that could lead anyone to the conclusion that “the Arctic sea ice could be on the mend”, as Anthony states… he pulled this conclusion out of thin air. The GRACE studies mentioned in his source article, has proven conclusively that ice mass is being lost on all three major ice packs, the Arctic, Greenland, and surprisingly, the Antarctic (climatologists didn’t expect the Antarctic to lose ice from AGW). There is no significant research pointing to a mend in Arctic ice pack.
So the information in the article, is changed in the interpretation, to a different conclusion… Ask yourself why?
Want the truth? Here is a much more accurate story, than the “revised version” presented on this blog:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/10/climatechange.arctic
“This point was backed by Serreze. ‘The trouble is that sea ice is now disappearing from the Arctic faster than our ability to develop new computer models and to understand what is happening there. We always knew it would be the first region on Earth to feel the impact of climate change, but not at anything like this speed. What is happening now indicates that global warming is occurring far earlier than any of us expected.’ “
Paul K: I just wanted to correct you, the proper term now is “climate change”
not “global warming”
[snip – I closed down comments on the pachuri story because they got out of hand, I’m not going to reopen the thread here. – Anthony]
“‘The trouble is that sea ice is now disappearing from the Arctic faster than our ability to develop new computer models and to understand what is happening there.”
OMG, Paul, that truly is alarming. No computer models? What ever will we do?
Your link, Paul, is pure, unadulterated AGW alarmist hogwash. But, typically, it’s what you people like to call “truth”. Pathetic.
I see the daily chart of ice melt has done an upturn again. I wonder how long it will be before this turn suddenly ‘disappears’ like the last one and is replaced by a downturn! http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Paul K,
Serreze is the same guy who forecast the North Pole to be “ice free this summer for the first time.”
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa1.jpg
He obviously has an agenda which is outside the bounds of conservative science,
Paul K (11:46:39) says:
Paul K, you should really read the comments before spouting off like that. It’s embarassing: click. As you can see, the extent of sea ice this year is well within normal parameters.
And please give a little more respect to our host. Just because you don’t agree, doesn’t mean that he pulls his conclusions out of thin air.
Paul K (11:46:39)
The quote say “not all” meaning some or most of the climate change is due to global warming.
You left out “large changes”
I believe Mr. Watts did an excellent job of tying the two studies (observed data) together.
Guardian
This may be only factual statement in the whole article.
“Satellite images show that ice caps started to disintegrate dramatically several days ago as storms over Alaska’s Beaufort Sea began sucking streams of warm air into the Arctic.”
The rest is based on opinions and “AGW-CO2 drives the climate” computer models that incorrectly model ocean currents and wind circulation. No wonder they wrong. The computer model aren’t based on observed data. They are based on speculation.
Here we go again… I don’t know why this is, but every time I post something here, people re-state into something I didn’t say, or willfully misinterpret it.
Lets start with Smokey who said: “Paul K, you should really read the comments before spouting off like that. It’s embarassing: click. As you can see, the extent of sea ice this year is well within normal parameters.
And please give a little more respect to our host. Just because you don’t agree, doesn’t mean that he pulls his conclusions out of thin air.”
I happen to agree with Tiger Wood’s dad, who said “Love is a given, but respect is earned!”, and I even go so far to give respect initially, until someone proves otherwise. Beyond that, I am afraid we get into personal attacks, and I would much rather stick with the facts. So I decline to follow up on your personal comments about me.
Regarding the information on pulling conclusions out of thin air, my comment that linked to another one of Anthony’s recent posts that misrepresented a Chicago Tribune article, but was snipped out by our host. I can’t even link to one of our host’s very own posts; so this makes it difficult to show a consistent misrepresentation in the posts on this blog.
But there are many examples of misrepresentations of scientific and news articles in these posts, so let me try again in my next post.
BTW, the link you sent me to, shows only the last seven years of ice data for the Arctic. If you look at current ice compared to the last 30 year trend line here:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20080811_Figure2.png
you will see the ice extent is much lower than long term trends, and NOT as you said: “As you can see, the extent of sea ice this year is well within normal parameters.”
REPLY: Paul K its quite simple, you want to start up a discussion that’s been closed because commenters on both sides got unruly, so I decided to close it. The decision stands. You don’t like the way the article was posted. I understand that. But I’m not going to re-open the thread discussion here because you have issues with it. You are welcome to discuss anything else currently open.
Lets look for more misrepresentations; take this post:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/30/polar-ice-check-still-a-lot-of-ice-up-there/
It begins:
” Polar Ice Check – Still a lot of ice up there
During our last check in, we had a look at northern Canada from the Arctic Circle to the North pole, and found we had quite a ways to go before we see an “ice free arctic” this year as some have speculated.”
I read this and immediately thought, who in their right mind would believe that all the ice in the Arctic Ocean would melt this year? Certainly no knowledgeable person would make such a speculation, since it would involve melting off an additional 4+ million square kilometers of ice than last year.
Basically Anthony set up a “straw man” by misquoting experts on Arctic ice. He then showed some pictures of ice in the Arctic, and easily knocked down the straw man.
Some of the comments didn’t agree… On July 30th Mike Keep pointed out the straw man:
“Err, correct me if I’m wrong but weren’t all the headlines earlier about an ice free North Pole (still quite possible as there is another 7 weeks before peak melt), not an ice free Arctic, something quite different.”
His comment was knocked by many of the subsequent posters, but on July 31, Mike Keep points out my central point of this post, and virtually every one of my comments since I arrived here:
“It dismays me. This blog has in the past had much good debate but it has become farcical and full of sensationalistic innacuracies lately (the very thing the average blogger here claims the AGW camp are guilty of). Even Anthony who has done much fine work on temperature equipment is guilty of this. I will use this thread as an example. First ice loss in the Arctic is above normal, due to an higher mean temperature anomolies.”
Then JP Rourke points out the straw man again in a response to Pieter Folkens:
“a good chance of an ice-fee North Pole” is what the ‘experts’ have been quoted saying – NOT “ice-free arctic”… if you want to persist in saying the latter, please give at least ONE cite, of ANY GW or AGW ‘expert’ saying that. Please? If you can, I will join you in roundly critiquing such statement. It is not going to happen!
In response, the posters on that thread then cited this source:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/arctic-02a.html
where it says that in the FUTURE the Arctic could go ice free. Direct quote: “Last winter the Bering Sea was effectively ice-free, which is unprecedented, and if this big melt continues, some say the formerly ice-locked Arctic will have open sea lanes as soon as 2015. By 2050, the summertime ice cap could disappear entirely.”
There were no scientists speculating about an “ice free Arctic” this year, as Anthony said in his post. This site has a big credibility problem, and it is getting bigger.
REPLY: The issue is one of labels. Yes the original stories said “ice free north pole in 2008”. However, by what mechanism would you propose that the ice at the north pole and environs would melt, leaving a ring of ice around the north pole? As far as I know, such a thing has never happened, nor could I see a mechanism for it to happen. But if you know of one, please explain how such a ring of ice with open water in it could occur and why specifically it would occur this year? The closest I’ve ever seen to an “ice free north pole” was that picture of the 3 submarines with some leads around them, but the pole certainly wasn’t ice free then. If you have a photo or graphic that illustrates the pole being ice free with ice surrounding it, please post it. I’ll be happy to highlight it.
In my view, since ice tends to melt at the southern latitudes first, with the total extent gradually shrinking from the edges towards the pole (in general, though there are regional exceptions) the phrase “ice free north pole in 2008” strongly implies that there would not be a ring of ice with a hole at the north pole, where only that area has melted, but a generally ice free area. Thus to me saying that the “north pole would be ice free” also says the edges at lower latitudes up to the pole would be ice free as well. The point of the satellite images was to show that at that time, this had not happened.
I look forward to seeing real world examples of how an ice free north pole with a ring of ice around it might have happened in the past or would have happenened this year. In my view, simple leads (which happen and disappear) don’t count. This has to be a sustained event.
As for credibility problem, well I’ll leave that up to site data, which says visits are on the rise. I suppose if my broad credibility were shrinking, so would those numbers, but so far, its been up every month.
I think the bigger credibility problem is with news agencies that made the big story from this scientist’s errant quote in the first place.
We need Paul K here as he is setting himself up !
I certainly didn’t expect this response from you, Anthony. I thought that if I pointed out where you have missed the target, or misstated the target in your recent posts, you might calibrate your future posts. But your response is a complete shock! You argue that there isn’t any difference between a forecast possibility of the North Pole going ice free, and a forecast stating the entire Arctic Ocean will go ice free! I am not an expert on Arctic ice, but even I can read the analyses.
The scientists talking about an ice free North Pole, based those predictions on several factors:
First, there was relatively thin first year ice at the Pole at the beginning of the season, with multiyear ice in the Greenland sea, Beaufort Sea and other areas were the melt rates would particularly high, and with the best expanse of multiyear ice along the northern coast of the Canadian islands and Greenland. Look at the graphic in this link, and see the hole (of thin first year ice):
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-no-ice-at-the-north-pole-855406.html
Further, the scientists said wind patterns and ocean current patterns could help melt the ice at the Pole this year. Here is a link to a recent post dated August 11 at NSIDC discussing this (check out the conditions for a strong southerly wind over the pole):
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
At this point in time, it doesn’t appear that the Pole will go ice free this year, the melt rate in July wasn’t strong enough. But the forecasts weren’t predicting with certainly the Pole would melt out; only that some forecasters assigned a probability that it might, given the specifics above.
Contrary to your assertions, no one said the entire Arctic Ocean would go ice free! That is simply a straw man, set up to easily knock down.
The problem here is that your post misstated what the scientists predicted and forecast… the post was grossly inaccurate, irrespective of what happens next.
REPLY: I understand the point you are trying to make, but I’ll point out that you made the same misstep you accuse me of.
I have to call BS on this statement: “Look at the graphic in this link, and see the hole (of thin first year ice):” Sir, “thin first year ice” is NOT a hole. A hole is open ice free water, or water and ice mixed. Please don’t insult me by trying to convince me a hole exists where solid ice is. I’m “shocked” that you would equate a frozen ice surface to a “hole”, thin or not. Your assertion is flat wrong.
The point is the whole “ice free” forecast and media blitz on it was flawed from the start. And as you rightly point out, whether probability or just bone headed public PR forecasting for effect, its not likely to happen.
Again unless somebody shows me an actual significant and sustained hole in the sea ice at the north pole, its just arguing semantics. Ice Free North Pole or Ice Free Arctic, (or your new phrase “Ice Free Artic Ocean”)none of these is happening.
“I thought that if I pointed out where you have missed the target, or misstated the target in your recent posts, you might calibrate your future posts.” Yes indeed, I’ll be more careful in choosing descriptive words so I don’t have to waste time in semantic arguments like this over the use of the words.
However, by what mechanism would you propose that the ice at the north pole and environs would melt, leaving a ring of ice around the north pole? As far as I know, such a thing has never happened, nor could I see a mechanism for it to happen.
So yes you did pull it out of thin air, you invented a fantasy scenario and then proceeded to ridicule it! However, if the N Pole were to become ice free this year (the estimate was a 50/50 chance) it would most likely be an extension of last year’s situation when ice-free water was encroaching from one side (Siberia), see link.
http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/images/20071001_extent.png
This would of course not form your imaginary ring, especially since the multi-year ice accumulates on the N American coastline.
Frank L/ Denmark (01:36:19) :
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?
Because it is! You are comparing two different parameters and appear to think that they’re the same, they are not.
Sea Ice Extent is the sum of the area enclosing ice concentration of greater than 15%, Sea Ice Area (as reported by CT) is the sum of the area x concentration, and therefore is a better measure of the amount of ice.
As an illustration you could have the same area of ice distributed in two ways, average concentration of 25% and 75%, in the first case the extent would be 4x the area whereas in the second it would be 1.33x the area.
As shown by CT the area is fairly close to the ’07 value (~0.3Mm^2 behind on 08/12).
It doenst matter what kind of method you use, area or area*concentration, the point is the same:
The ice extend in 2008 is back to 2005 level:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=08&fd=12&fy=2005&sm=08&sd=12&sy=2008
This was recently by alarmist said to be 100% impossible. But non the less.
So the ice extend is NOT decreasing this year and so the so called “scientists” should not say so in ANY way. Should not manipulate readers to think so. it stinks!
This detail about the geographical point, the north pole:
Should it happend that this point by freak coincidence should be ice free it is of no relevanse: The important thing is that EVEN THOUGH THE ICE WAS THIN, ICE EXTEND IS BIGGER IN 2008 than. This does certainly not indicate a warmer artic, and any article who makes the impression of artic warmer in 2008 than 2007 is FALSE! And thanks to Anthony these misleading articles are pinpointed.
Anthony. I return to your site every now and then and find that there are more and more posts from people who advocate global warming! Why are they so concerned with the material here? Why are their numbers increasing ? Could it be doubt? Could it be that this site represents some sort of danger?.Soon you might have to open up another site because this one has been hijacked!
Thanks for posting this graph, Phil. It clearly shows us that current sea ice is well within the range referred to as “normal.”
That’s what I like about graphs. We can immediately see if we need to panic. This isn’t one of those times.
Oh, and F Rasmin, don’t worry about the true believers. We can handle them [and it’s known that at least six of them are the same individual, masquerading as a group].
The glaring difference between sites like this one and alarmist sites is that most alarmist sites do not allow uncomfortable or inconvenient truths to be posted. RealClimate is a case in point, along with Rabett, Tamino and others. They don’t understand that the truth emerges through discussion, not through censorship. Maybe that’s the reason they censor, no?
Those who has the arguments needs no censoring nor consensus etcetc
They just argument.
Frank L/Denmark (00:03:17) :
It doenst matter what kind of method you use, area or area*concentration, the point is the same:
Actually it does, I suggest you read up on the subject before pontificating further.
Smokey (17:52:01) :
Thanks for posting this graph, Phil. It clearly shows us that current sea ice is well within the range referred to as “normal.”
Actually I didn’t but I guess you know that.
shows that this year’s ice is already as low as the minimum area recorded in the last 29 years except for last year, and is still dropping at ~0.1Mm^2/day. Not within the normal range. Unless melting stops within the next few days this year will see the largest ice melt in the satellite era!
Why, Phil, you old cherry picker you! You only showed the top half of the planet. Did you think we wouldn’t notice?
Well, if you can cherry pick Northern Hemisphere sea ice, then I guess I can cherry pick Southern Hemisphere sea ice: click
Oh, and the North Pole still has enough ice cover to make Santa go out and polish his sleigh: click
See? There’s plenty of ice. That kayaker is gonna have himself a tough time paddling across the North Pole.
So no need to panic, Phil. Just try to relax, and try to think happy thoughts. The AGW boogeyman only scares those who are prone to fright.