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 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)

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

102 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ET
October 9, 2009 8:25 am

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!”

Ronaldo
October 9, 2009 8:29 am

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.

3x2
October 9, 2009 8:59 am
Steve M.
October 9, 2009 8:59 am

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

George E. Smith
October 9, 2009 9:03 am

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.

Michael
October 9, 2009 9:07 am

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.]

Steve M.
October 9, 2009 9:14 am

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.

George E. Smith
October 9, 2009 9:21 am

“”” 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

Kwinterkorn
October 9, 2009 9:31 am

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.

Jack Hughes
October 9, 2009 9:56 am

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

Michael
October 9, 2009 10:00 am

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

October 9, 2009 10:01 am

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

Steve Keohane
October 9, 2009 10:22 am

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

Dan
October 9, 2009 10:26 am

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).

savethesharks
October 9, 2009 10:36 am

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

Editor
October 9, 2009 10:59 am

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.

Adam from Kansas
October 9, 2009 11:32 am

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?

October 9, 2009 12:01 pm

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:
http://blog.sme.sk/blog/560/195013/arcticamo.jpg
The correlation is pretty spot on.
AMO relates well also to air temperature – Reykjavik vs AMO:
http://blog.sme.sk/blog/560/195013/amoreykjavik.jpg

Paul Vaughan
October 9, 2009 12:08 pm

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.

rbateman
October 9, 2009 12:16 pm

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.

Paul Vaughan
October 9, 2009 12:22 pm

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/

October 9, 2009 12:25 pm

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.

rbateman
October 9, 2009 12:38 pm

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.

rbateman
October 9, 2009 12:39 pm

Bob Tisdale (12:25:52) :
Spun out both way, Bob.
ex. – Global Warming causes Global Cooling (bake your cake and freeze it, too).

Invariant
October 9, 2009 1:34 pm

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?

Verified by MonsterInsights