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.

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.

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 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)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/8510/nhse72anomamo.png
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.
Thanks, Leif.
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).
OT: Obama just got the Nobel Peace Prize. I guess if Al Gore can get it… anybody can.
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.
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.
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
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.
You can guess right, but I looked it up:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/484518/pycnocline
Hmm, the Firefox spell checker doesn’t have pycnocline. Ya get what ya pay for. 🙂
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.
What is happening with the temp profile @ur momisugly 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.
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
Forgot to add that he also got the Nobel Peace Prize for:
“strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change”
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
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
This agrees well with:
http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf
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”
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!
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
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!:
http://i37.tinypic.com/24wvyth.png
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.
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.
MikeW, this one?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/