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.
Invariant (13:34:25) “[…] oscillations of the ocean system […] Do we have an idea of the length and (most interesting!) timescales involved?”
The following should give you some ideas (for recent times):
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/CumuSumAMO.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/CumuSumPDO.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/CumuSumPDO_AltDataSource.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/CumuSumALPI.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/CumuSumGLAAM.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/CumuSumAO70.png
savethesharks (10:36:31)
Just to clarify the use of the word ‘all’.
I think that all the physical features of climate change we observe are a direct consequence of the internal variability that I have described.
However that does leave external forcings in a position to modulate those climate phenomena. I hope that covers your objection.
I dont think the external forcings are likely to produce any fresh phenomena that are not already present.
Stephen Wilde (15:04:43) “I dont think the external forcings are likely to produce any fresh phenomena that are not already present.”
This is where you are off. See Sidorenkov & Barkin for a healthy paradigm shake-up.
Independent, firmly-tenacious (but perhaps coy at times) resistance of the incessant brainwashing & derision of the convention-wielding & occasionally-humanly-blind “experts” is mandatory for anyone willing to see deeper truth.
Detection of occasional external shake-ups of internal rhythms requires the application of:
a) conditional logic, and
b) analysis methods that slice-&-dice nonstationarity.
Example:
Typically, conventional wisdom sees only 2 eras in the following plot – one of concordance and one lacking:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/JN2&Pr.1840.png
However, shaking a few assumptions loose …
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/r..2_Pr.refl.png
… & looking with this …
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/WaveletMorletPi.PNG
… reveals the following:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/PolarMotionPeriodMorlet2piPower.PNG
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/PhasePr..-r..MorletPi3a12a.PNG
[Timescales with an absence of or limited number of black vertical bands are informative.]
We’re not necessarily always looking for simple linear correlation. Complexity can be rendered dead-simple if we have infinite patience, avoid bad assumptions, and use the right tools for the job. (We may also save time if we can find sensible mentors, but in their absence it is not hopeless if we have not succumbed to the brainwashing of those who (sometimes inadvertently) lead us astray.)
“I think that all the physical features of climate change we observe are a direct consequence of the internal variability that I have described.”
There’s that word “all” again. Suddenly, too deductive for my tastes….
Thanks for your input though, I have enjoyed reading your posts.
“I dont think the external forcings are likely to produce any fresh phenomena that are not already present.”
When the earth and its mighty sun along with the protective bubble of the heliosphere is shooting through interstellar space at half a million miles per hour, occasionally passing through denser variable and interstellar clouds and through the “feeder bands” (sorry to borrow a meteo term LOL) the arms of the Galaxy, on that scale, I am reminded that we probably know next to nothing about “external forcings”….whatever they may be, or not be, as the case may be.
Regardless, far FAR too much is not known to make a blanket conclusion at this time.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Paul Vaughan (16:36:32) : “Detection of occasional external shake-ups of internal rhythms requires the application of:
a) conditional logic, and
b) analysis methods that slice-&-dice nonstationarity.”
Fascinating stuff….
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
savethesharks and Paul Vaughan
Please note that I did not deny the existence of external forcings. I merely point out that they would normally (not necessarily always) be shown up as simply affecting the scale intensity or frequency of existing climate phenomena rather than creating new phenomena of their own.
Much as, say, the Svensmark hypothesis is said to affect the level of cloudiness and not to create clouds as a new phenomenon or solar variations affect ocean energy content rather than creating something new to be observed.
In extremis I suppose an external forcing on a sufficient scale could force the occurrence of a new phenomenon never seen before but I think we can discount that for current climate analysis purposes.
RR Kampen 06:03
My child of seven sees the correlation, while playing in the bathtub. 🙂
Re: Stephen Wilde (01:19:28)
I don’t think it is any secret by this stage that we can learn something from Russian climate science, which developed insights into terrestrial-oscillation patterns we discuss here (as-if new-insight) before 1940.
I suppose one option is to completely ignore the fundamental clues of a depth sufficient to drive paradigm shift, but that is certainly not an option I find (even remotely) appealing.
Based on some of the notes you’ve dropped (particularly those regarding the hydrologic cycle & the history of ITCZ position), I think you’ll be delighted if you start reading Sidorenkov & Barkin.
Regards,
Paul.
—-
The following is a result I found with ease not long after discovering the works of Barkin:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/-LOD_aa_Pr._r.._LNC_Env_MorletPi.png
There is one discrepancy. It relates to Earth nutation. (I already have a short-list of potential conditioning factors.)
Barkin gives a series of clues that liberate investigators of terrestrial oscillations from the oppression of misguided conventional paradigms that have rammed head-on (at full speed) into impenetrable barriers.
—-
Steve M. (08:59:54) “I’d prefer to see more regional studies.”
Indeed, that is where the money is, as Currie (1996) has cautioned us. The spatial averaging destroys relative-phase information.
–
Re: RR Kampen (06:03:23)
Do you use analysis methods that can cope with nonstationarity (for example cross-wavelet methods)?
[I’m making an effort to be fair before deciding whether your comments were deliberately-inflammatory.]
I dont see a contradiction between intrinsic oscillation and external forcing. The classic experimental model of self-generated waves and oscillation, the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction, requires a forcing oscillation but then generates new oscillations of its own.
It seems likely that forcings such as the Milankovich cycles and harmonics thereof, the various orbital and rotational precessions, plus solar output-cosmic ray-cloud fluctuations, set the oceans rocking and rolling with their own intrinsic waves. The moon should not be forgotten. Plus tectonic drift keeps on changing the geometry and thus the natural frequencies and harmonics.
Stephen Wilde – you do not mention in your discussions of ocean thermal budget oscillations, ice ages: what causes these big jumps between apparent strange attractors glacial and interglacial (during a glacial epoch)? I think you write off the effect of land too much: the pushing up of the Himalayas by India’s collision has cooled the whole earth to some extent (at leastthe northern hemishpere). Plus tectonic drift placing large land masses close to the poles seems to result in a glacial epoch.
This page shows the recurrent cycles of the Arctic and the strong correlation to AMO as well as to the AMO+PDO:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/ArcticCycles.htm
Paul Vaughan (13:33:09) :
[I’m making an effort to be fair before deciding whether your comments were deliberately-inflammatory.]
You cannot decide about my intentions.
My comments are sincere. You can believe that or not.
You have already been unfair.
Re: RR Kampen (14:40:59)
Perhaps the only information to be gained here is that in addition to your earlier comment [RR Kampen (06:03:23)] your response to my question has not included an answer.
–
Paul Vaughan (13:33:09) “Do you use analysis methods that can cope with nonstationarity (for example cross-wavelet methods)?”
–
You leave the impression that you expect sensible people to believe the Arctic has no relation to the North Atlantic. This gives solid reason to question your motives (at least temporarily, as your messaging may change to a more sensible course moving forward — I encourage you to review the WUWT policy on flame-baiting).
Phlogiston (13:39:03) “It seems likely that forcings such as the Milankovich cycles and harmonics thereof, the various orbital and rotational precessions, plus solar output-cosmic ray-cloud fluctuations, set the oceans rocking and rolling with their own intrinsic waves. The moon should not be forgotten. Plus tectonic drift keeps on changing the geometry and thus the natural frequencies and harmonics.”
Here is a function of terrestrial polar motion, solar system dynamics, & the lunar nodal cycle:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/TPM_SSD_LNC_3_1850.png
Suggested: Open in a separate tab & blink to the following:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/CumuSumAMO.png
Note how the spike splits the PDO:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/CumuSumPDO.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/CumuSumPDO_AltDataSource.png
The spike stems from the Chandler wobble phase reversal:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/PolarMotionPeriodMorlet2piPower.PNG
I have been able to link the preceding to the hydrologic cycle, but there are factors I have not yet managed to incorporate (some of which you have mentioned). I am working with contrasts of interannual & annual aa index (which may be indicative of something else with which they are confounded). At times the contrasts track:
a) regional precipitation,
b) SOI,
c) both (a) & (b).
d) (a) &/or (b) but in perfect anti-phase.
e) none of the above.
The incidences of (e) are limited to decadal-timescale local-temporal-minima of aa index &/or times of strong volcanic activity. Certainly this is an interesting puzzle. It appears solvable.
Upon extending the investigation to other climate indices, I have developed some intuition regarding how the episodes of anti-phase are (I suspect) related to spatial distributions (of land barriers, flows, etc.) [Seasons also play a role, which is not news, but it is worth noting that this complicates analyses by an extra layer because winter threshold-exceedances produce relationship-slope-reversals — a simple paradox (but not necessarily one that investigators detect).]
The patterns are so very clearly non-random – and yet traditional methods of analysis (e.g. linear correlation) yield only the very most subtle hints of their possible existence. Among the tell-tale signs of nonrandomness are the matrices of best-lags from time-integrated cross-correlation analyses. [It is easy to see where past investigators may have gone wrong because there are 2 close harmonic bases that appear to match (but upon scrupulous inspection they do not actually match).]
We certainly need a different tool-set for exploring complex phenomena. At present I am relying heavily on visual methods, supplementing them with wavelet methods (including harmonic cross-wavelet methods).
I can imagine a time in the future when routine analysis methods will be better-suited for yielding more rapid insight into complex phenomena.
In the meantime, the only potentially-real obstacles I see to solving complex problems:
1) human lifetime.
2) human patience.
3) lack of human freedom.
Stephen Wilde: “If we ignore land as relatively insignificant we are left with oceans and air.”
This is a bothersome statement. Land is NOT insignificant. Check out the current temperature at Vostok, Antarctica right now, even though they have started into their austral “spring”.
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=vostok,%20antarctica&wuSelect=WEATHER
And this quote from Phlogiston….is on point:
“Stephen Wilde – you do not mention in your discussions of ocean thermal budget oscillations, ice ages: what causes these big jumps between apparent strange attractors glacial and interglacial (during a glacial epoch)? I think you write off the effect of land too much: the pushing up of the Himalayas by India’s collision has cooled the whole earth to some extent (at leastthe northern hemishpere). Plus tectonic drift placing large land masses close to the poles seems to result in a glacial epoch.”
Again…too soon to jump to conclusions, Stephen. Have really enjoyed the logic of your posts (the recent few withstanding, however).
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
“In the meantime, the only potentially-real obstacles I see to solving complex problems:
1) human lifetime.
2) human patience.
3) lack of human freedom.”
Paul….I would add a number 4:
4) Human Cognitive Dissonance and/or Self-Deception
BTW….Mind-blowing thoughts as of late. I can’t follow you on everything…but I generally “get” where you are going…and agree.
Thanks.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Phlogiston (13:39:03) : “It seems likely that forcings such as the Milankovich cycles and harmonics thereof, the various orbital and rotational precessions, plus solar output-cosmic ray-cloud fluctuations, set the oceans rocking and rolling with their own intrinsic waves. The moon should not be forgotten. Plus tectonic drift keeps on changing the geometry and thus the natural frequencies and harmonics.”
Profoundly stated. Thanks.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Paul Vaughan (15:16:41) :
–
You leave the impression that you expect sensible people to believe the Arctic has no relation to the North Atlantic. This gives solid reason to question your motives (at least temporarily, as your messaging may change to a more sensible course moving forward — I encourage you to review the WUWT policy on flame-baiting).
—
I had no intention to leave such in impression. Actually, I couldn’t, simply because any child in a bathtub (thank you, Carlo, but please let him post here, then) could see the logic. It must be there.
So I’ve been analysing that rather surprising graph to see how much of this can and cannot be seen in it.
Meantime I have some answer: there is a marginally significant correlation. There is a bit of a problem with the length of the record: we have about 2 cycles of the long oscillation and would love to have say 10 cycles, spanning about 600 years.
Now I wonder what other factors could be at work here.
As an off topic: you talk again about ‘flame-baiting’ and stuff like that. Given the fact that I have no intention to flame or sabotage any discussion here, I hope you can imagine my frustration being accused of that. I also hope you can imagine I can’t answer well to it, because such answers could be interpreted as flaming again. Whereas I think such accusations cannot be left unanswered (or unpunished, maybe), I would prefer some mutual trust as to our interest in the subject matter and concentrate on the subject, then, instead of analysing or speculating on what can be seen on this forum of each others personality and motives.
I also hope speaking out one’s conviction of (A)GW would not be considered ‘flaming’ just because of that conviction.
Actually I went the other way round as Anthony. Until the autumn of 2004 I believed it had to be the sun and since found reason to believe it ain’t.
Well, I suppose this is on topic as the Bahrends sea is part of the plot next door
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm .
One can see that the sea ice extent is now following the 2008 line. As I look at the difference between 2007 and 2008 I can see some hundred thousands square miles of first year for 2008 ice. Now I see as much in second year ice. Am I wrong?
Remember when the goal posts were moved to second year ice?
anna v (08:25:56) :
One can see that the sea ice extent is now following the 2008 line.
More like crossing that line than following it.
Given the expected blocked circulation pattern the line may cross some more coming couple of weeks.
Ice volume should increase though, the ice that’s there is getting thicker, particularly on the Canadian side where conditions are rather cold.
RR Kampen (02:39:02) “[…] interest in the subject matter and concentrate on the subject […]” / “[…] we have about 2 cycles of the long oscillation and would love to have say 10 cycles, spanning about 600 years.”
Agreed.
– – –
–
After taking a more thorough look at Levitus et al. (2009), it became evident that they (probably) did not write the paper from the perspective of (full) awareness of the following excellent (& recent) paper:
Wang, J.; Zhang, J.; Watanabe, E.; Ikeda, M.; Mizobata, K.; Walsh, J.E.; Bai, X.; & Wu, B. (2009). Is the Dipole Anomaly a major driver to record lows in Arctic summer sea ice extent? Geophysical Research Letters 36, L05706. doi:10.1029/2008GL036706.
ftp://ftp.glerl.noaa.gov/wang/Related_Papers/Wang_paper63_2009_GRL.pdf
Some highlights:
1) “Recent record lows of Arctic summer sea ice extent are found to be triggered by the Arctic atmospheric Dipole Anomaly (DA) pattern. This local, second-leading mode of sea-level pressure (SLP) anomaly in the Arctic produced a strong meridional wind anomaly that drove more sea ice out of the Arctic Ocean from the western to the eastern Arctic into the northern Atlantic during the summers of 1995, 1999, 2002, 2005, and 2007. In the 2007 summer, the DA also enhanced anomalous oceanic heat flux into the Arctic Ocean via Bering Strait, which accelerated bottom and lateral melting of sea ice and amplified the ice-albedo feedback.”
2) “Based on our previous studies [Wu et al., 2006; Watanabe et al., 2006], in this paper, we argue and conclude that the DA, which was defined the second EOF (Empirical Orthogonal Function) mode of SLP north of 70N, is the major driver of the sea ice record lows, not only valid for 2007, but also generally for the previous record lows. Note that DA, an Arctic regional mode, differs from the PNA (Pacific-North America) pattern and their correlation is only 0.12.”
3) “The Arctic Dipole Anomaly (DA) pattern is an important driver of the Arctic sea ice transport from the western Pacific Arctic to the northern Atlantic based on data analysis for the period 1962-2002 [Wu et al., 2006] […] The DA (Figures 2b and 2d) differs from the AO (Figures 2a and 2c) in both winter and summer because the anomalous SLP has two action centers in the Arctic, while AO has one annular (circled) center covering the entire Arctic. The resulting wind anomaly for the DA is meridional, while the AO-derived wind anomaly is either cyclonic during its positive phase or anticyclonc during its negative phase [Wu et al., 2006]. During a positive phase of the DA (i.e., the SLP has a positive anomaly in the Canadian Archipelago and negative one in the Barents Sea), the anomalous meridional wind blows from the western to the eastern Arctic, favorable to the Trans-polar Drift Stream (TDS) that flushes sea ice out of the Arctic into the Barents and Greenland seas [Wu et al., 2006; Watanabe et al., 2006]. During the negative phase of the DA, the opposite scenario occurs, i.e., more sea ice remains in the western Arctic [Watanabe et al., 2006]. During the positive/negative AO (i.e., Arctic SLP has a negative/positive anomaly), a cyclonic/anticyclonic wind anomaly occurs, indicating a sea ice divergence/convergence. The divergence (anomalous cyclonic circulation) of sea ice leads to anomalous ice export, while the convergence results in retention of sea ice inside the Arctic Ocean [Wu et al., 2006].”
4) “Figure 2. […] The black arrows in Figures 2a and 2c indicate the cyclonic (anticlockwise, divergent) wind anomaly during the +AO phase (which promotes advection of sea ice out of Arctic via Fram Strait) and anticyclonic (clockwise, convergent) wind anomaly during the -AO phase. In Figures 2b and 2d the black arrows indicate that the wind anomaly blows from the western to the eastern Arctic during the +DA phase that accelerates the TDS (in red-dashed arrows), and vice versa during the -DA phase that slows down the TDS.”
5) “The +DA not only drove sea ice from the western to the eastern Arctic, but also strengthened inflow of the warm Pacific water since the 2000s [Woodgate et al., 2006] that injected above-average heat flux from the Pacific, accelerating the drastic thinning of sea ice [Steele et al., 2004; Shimada et al., 2006]. To confirm that the Pacific water heat flux increased in the 2000s, in particular in summer 2007, we updated the calculation of the heat flux through the eastern Bering Strait from 2000 to 2007 during the June-October ice free seasons. Table 3 shows that since 2004, heat flux via the eastern Bering Strait has an annual average of 5.4 TW (1 TW = 1012 Watts), compared to the annual average of 3.4 TW during 2000-2003, representing a 45% increase. The heat flux in 2007 (5.96 TW) had a 35% increase compared to the average of 4.4 TW from 2000 to 2007. Therefore, the heat flux from the Pacific Ocean has two important impacts, direct and indirect, on sea ice in the western Arctic. The direct impact includes the bottom and lateral melting of sea ice when the warm Pacific enters the Chukchi Sea. The indirect impact involves a time-lag effect: the oceanic heat flux entering in the previous summer can survive winter [Shimada et al., 2006] at the subsurface, which enhances the melting in the following spring and summer, amplifying the ice/ocean albedo process.”
[The reference Wang et al. (2009) make in quote (5): Woodgate, R.A.; Aagaard, K.; & Weingartner, T.J. (2006). Interannual changes in the Bering Strait fluxes of volume, heat and freshwater between 1991 and 2004. Geophysical Research Letters 33, L15609. doi:10.1029/2006GL026931.]
savethesharks (22:31:21) “BTW….Mind-blowing thoughts as of late.”
My funding & employment were cut 15 days after announcing one of my findings about natural climate variations. Right now my survival depends on clutch-performance and I do not intend to yield to oppressors who require that I speak mistruth exclusively.
Best Regards,
Paul.
phlogiston and savethesharks.
I’m concentrating on the past few thousand years in relation to which the variable sun/sea interaction seems enough to explain the observed climate cycling.
Land is not unimportant on long geological time scales as you point out.
However my climate description relies on a previously unappreciated level of internal (to the Earth system) climate variability provoked by constant changes in air and ocean circulations.
On the time scales concerned with that the land is not really relevant because of it’s immobility. Even though the land does first produce temperature extremes any such extremes are a consequence of variability of air and oceans and not changes in the land.
On geological timescales all the other influences you mention would come into play and would themselves interact with and be modulated by the sea and air circulations. Even solar and possibly other external forcings could become relevant on the appropriate time scales.
If I can get my shorter term climate description more generally accepted there would certainly be a place for the other stuff mentioned by you two to be worked into the scenario on longer time scales.
My current priority is to account for the failure of the current models and create an overview that complies with observations and basic physics.
If that damages AGW theory in the process then so be it. Also it might unsettle few sceptical viewpoints. All I seek is a truth that can be seen to work in the real world and I think I am pretty close to that if not already there.
A variable energy flow at the sea/air interface and a variable energy flow at the air/space interface both cancelling one another out and being modulated in the sea by the thermohaline circulation and in the air by the speed of the hydrological cycle makes sense in relaion to a lot of observed climate phenomena and thus has a considerable advantage over the existing climate models.
What is pushing the temperatures.
Comparing AMO with Hadcrut3V and Hadcrut3NH there is a wonderful correlation:
http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/1236/amocethdcrutfulldate.jpg
Apart from the incresea trend caused by???? All the slow humps and dips appear in the right places and even the rapid changes appear aligned (to the eye!)
So if we zoom in and look at the signals through a much longer moving average the dips again align.
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/9210/amocethdcrutshortdatelo.jpg
The dips in HADCRUT seem to occur a few months ahead of AMO and the peaks are a bit off. Not sure wht CET has little correlation but hey, there must be a connection.
If Air Temp is driving AMO then one would expect the air temp changes to occur before AMO
and
Vice Versa.
So now lets look at the same date range through shorter moving averages.
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/6983/amocethdcrutshortdatesh.jpg
Now it becomes interesting. sometimes the air temp leads amo and sometimes amo leads air temp.
If amo drives temp then there is no way that amo can lag air temperature.
and
vice versa
To me this says that there is a external driver, or the data is faulty.
CET is just weird!
Stephen Wilde (13:52:42) : “I’m concentrating on the past few thousand years in relation to which the variable sun/sea interaction seems enough to explain the observed climate cycling.”
Thanks for clarifying that, Stephen. From your posts, did not know that you were focusing JUST on the past few thousand years.
As I am sure you will agree, as the great communicator with words that you are, being careful in the use of the word “all”, and/or qualifying major blanket statements, from time to time, is not a bad thing.
You are on to something very profound with your posts here.
Please be careful to not shut the inductive door, however, as some of even the best tend to do!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA