No mention of missing “M’s” here in this press release from University of Melbourne
Melting sea ice has been shown to be a major cause of warming in the Arctic according to a University of Melbourne study.
Findings published in Nature today reveal the rapid melting of sea ice has dramatically increased the levels of warming in the region in the last two decades.
Lead author Dr James Screen of the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne says the increased Arctic warming was due to a positive feedback between sea ice melting and atmospheric warming.
“The sea ice acts like a shiny lid on the Arctic Ocean. When it is heated, it reflects most of the incoming sunlight back into space. When the sea ice melts, more heat is absorbed by the water. The warmer water then heats the atmosphere above it.”
“What we found is this feedback system has warmed the atmosphere at a faster rate than it would otherwise,” he says.
Using the latest observational data from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting, Dr Screen was able to uncover a distinctive pattern of warming, highly consistent with the loss of sea ice.
“In the study, we investigated at what level in the atmosphere the warming was occurring. What stood out was how highly concentrated the warming was in the lower atmosphere than anywhere else. I was then able to make the link between the warming pattern and the melting of the sea ice.”
The findings question previous thought that warmer air transported from lower latitudes toward the pole, or changes in cloud cover, are the primary causes of enhanced Arctic warming.
Dr Screen says prior to this latest data set being available there was a lot of contrasting information and inconclusive data.
“This current data has provided a fuller picture of what is happening in the region,” he says.
Over the past 20 years the Arctic has experienced the fastest warming of any region on the planet. Researchers around the globe have been trying to find out why.
Researchers say warming has been partly caused by increasing human greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, the Arctic sea ice has been declining dramatically. In summer 2007 the Arctic had the lowest sea ice cover on record. Since then levels have recovered a little but the long-term trend is still one of decreasing ice.
Professor Ian Simmonds, of the University’s School of Earth Sciences and coauthor on the paper says the findings are significant.
“It was previously thought that loss of sea ice could cause further warming. Now we have confirmation this is already happening.”
I’ve noticed that many recent alarmist ice studies prefer using old data… data ending in 2007. The same thing happened with global temperature studies after the 1998 El Nino… the studies after that for at least five years preferred to end on that point or extend the averaging to show a continuous upward trend. Apparently any cooling trends are inconvenient blips that must be hidden, not just by CRU, but by many researchers who want more of that lovely global warming grant money. If a study shows that AGW doesn’t amount to much, are the authors likely to get more grants to study what isn’t worth worrying about?
“…the rapid melting of sea ice has dramatically increased the levels of warming in the region…”
…the melting sea ice has increased warming in the region…
…melting sea ice has warmed the region…
So many wasted words. I’ve given up on truth, I just want clarity.
Icarus says:
April 30, 2010 at 7:13 am
My understanding is that the warming of the first few decades of the 20th Century was associated with increased solar irradiance. At that time the anthropogenic greenhouse effect was too small to be distinguishable from natural forcings – it only rose out of the ‘noise’ in the last few decades.
I wouldn’t call that an “understanding”; it’s more of a belief system.
stevengoddard says:
April 30, 2010 at 5:20 am
“The albedo claim is more controversial than you recognize. ”
Thanks, Steven, this helps. When I first read this report, I couldn’t understand its significance as it just seemed to support the albedo effect that I naively thought was well established. Makes more sense now rereading it in that context.
Thanks for all your posts. When I’m in a hurry and skimming, I always look for your contributions.
If less ice causes more warming because of positive feedback doesn’t it follow that more ice [like we have experienced in 2008, 2009, and so far 2010] will cause more cooling ?
So 2010 should have more ice than 2009.
Positive feedback doesn’t just operate one way.
There are studies which show that wind patterns have a strong effect on ice buildup.
Then there is the fact that our records begin in 1976 and don’t mean much yet.
I have a few theories that might surprise many with their originality.
The Pope is a catholic and that bears s**t in the woods and that it gets dark at night.
I feel my theories are just as original and groundbreaking as the work by the university of Melbourne.
The only difference is that I took 10 secs to think up mine and I offer them freely whereas the U of M costs probably ran into the tens of thousands of dollars. I wonder what these boffins are going to do when the easy free money tap is turned off, they are going to have a really hard time actually doing some real research.
So . . . . melting arctic sea ice is both the cause AND result of global warming . . . . ? . . . . ?? . . . . .???
Well, at least in that respect they’re consistent with what we collectively know about CO2; it is both caused by and causes global warming.
(Follow me here)
Therefor, logically, CO2 IS Arctic Sea Ice and therefor . . . . (wait for it) . . . A WITCH . . . A WITCH, BURN HER, BURN HER . . .
(Witch); This is not my sea ice, it’s false sea ice, and they dressed me up like this.
(Local Magistrate); Did you dress her up like this?
(Peasant); Well, we did do the nose
(LM); The nose?
(P); And the sea ice, but she is a witch.
(Crowd): Burn her, Burn her anyway.
But I digress.
What are the qualifications to be a scientist again? Did they stumble onto this by accident, or sheer will of investigative, deductive and epistemic might?
I think we need to put these guys onto the whole chicken vs. egg controversy, they just may be qualified to give us an answer.
Back to our story;
This new learning fascinates me, tell me again how sheep’s bladder’s may be employed to prevent earth quakes?
More proof that we need to look once again at the freezing temperature of water. The atmospheric CO2 increase has almost certainly increased the freezing temperature of water because ice continues to build and there is celarly alot of hot air in the arctic. Either that or there’s some really bad data in this analysis somewhere.
OK, the soot from last year’s melt is in the ocean. New ice starts off with no soot, so soot primarily melts older ice.
If this is a POSITIVE feedback that can overpower the creation of new ice, why did the ice form faster in the fall of 2007 than any other year listed?
Looks like a NEGATIVE feedback to me. Probably why Arctic Ice doesn’t dissapear every 3 years.
It’s so close to average I can taste it…
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
If CO2 is a problem, it is a problem with a 38/100000 probability of occurance.
In other words, the chances of a CO2 atom taking part in warming, above and beyond other atoms in the atmospere, are astronomically poor.
This article by Screen and Simmonds is total bullshit. I looked up their supplementary on-line information and it turns out the data they used was not their own. It was taken from the European ECMWF site. It goes back only as far as 1979 and is labeled as “reanalysis.” I guess the Screen and Simmonds papers should then be labeled as “reanalysis of a reanalysis.” They have no idea that arctic warming is more than a century old, having started at the turn of the twentieth century. Its cause was rearrangement of the North Atlantic current system that put the warm water of the Gulf Stream on its present northerly course. The melting has been uneven, with a break in mid-century, but it has nothing to do with global warming, the greenhouse effect, or the imaginary “arctic acceleration” their paper babbles about.
In summer 2007 the Arctic had the lowest sea ice cover on record. Since then levels have recovered a little but the long-term trend is still one of decreasing ice.
And just how far back does the record go??
Seems like this guy ought to be on the Caitlin team. Incidentally, are they still out there?
I just thank God for the extended solar minimum to prove the AGW movement to be a complete fraud.
Increased sea ice major cause of cooling in Arctic
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Scientists have dicovered that the…………
Increased sea ice major cause of cooling in Arctic
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Researchers have dicovered that the…………
Why you almost have the basis of some kind of planetary temperature regulation there with water and its many and various strange properties at the core of it all.
All one might need is some kind of thermostat at the equator controlling energy in and variable insulation at the poles controlling energy out. You could add a deep slow conveyor (liquid lets say) and a bit of rapid airborne transit (a gas or something would probably do) between the two and there you have it – some kind of weird optimised self regulating system. Crazy idea I know but it could just work.
In circumstances where water is all frozen up and unavailable you could use some other medium (some other kind of gas perhaps?) in a vein attempt to optimise use of the amount of energy available. But that is ice age talk and I won’t have it.
Failing that, there is always self-flagellation.
whack! ow! whack! ow! …
Tim Clark says:
April 30, 2010 at 6:23 am
Thanks, that’s the best link I’ve seen related to Arctic Sea Ice.
Arno Arrak says:
April 30, 2010 at 9:41 am
Arno, you seem to be missing the point. First off, reanalysis data based on 1979 to present is the most accurate data because it incorporates satellite observations. Renalaysis uses observational data in combination with modeling (to fill in missing data) to provide atmospheric information. What they are looking at is recent warming trends in the Arctic, which show a clear autumn warming signal linked to the loss of the summer ice cover. The physics work like this: earlier development of open water in spring and more extensive open water areas throughout summer allow the ocean to absorb the incoming solar radiation that would have normally been reflected back out to space by the ice cover (remember the summer Arctic sea ice trends from 1979 to today?–that conversely means more open water which conversely means the ocean is absorbing heat during summer in its mixed layer).
So, in autumn when the sun dips below the horizon again and temperatures drop, the ocean must first release the heat gained in the ocean mixed layer before the ice can once again reform. It does this by releasing the heat back to the atmosphere. Serreze et al., 2009 show this better in terms of anomalies from the last 5 years versus the long-term mean. Large heat fluxes from the ocean to the atmosphere characterize the last few years of the most extreme summer ice losses. You can see this not only in the temperature anomalies, but also in the latent and sensible heat fluxes.
For a very long time now, climate models have been predicting that arctic amplification would occur because of the ice/snow-albedo feedback affect. Today the observations are supporting what the models long ago predicted. And it makes complete physical sense. The paper is not really a new result except to update the Graverson et al. paper which made a number of mistakes. The concept of Arctic amplification has been known for a long time, observations are now showing it to be true.
Jeff says:
April 30, 2010 at 8:51 am
Jeff…they are looking at amplified warming from a surface feedback affect. That is different from a supposed GHG affect.
You can see examples of surface feedback affects all the time. Take a city for example, tends to be warmer than the surrounding countryside right?
Changes in the surface can affect the heat in that region. So if you lose sea ice in the summer and you expose the dark ocean to the sun’s energy, the ocean will absorb that heat and warm up. Some of that heat may stay in the ocean, but observations suggest most of it is released back to the atmosphere when autumn comes. That is all the study is saying.
If folks can slow down for a second and think about the physics they probably wouldn’t be so reactionary.
Dr James Screen of the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne has found NCAR scientist Kevin Tenberth’s “missing heat”. The answer is as plain as day: The missing heat is hidden in the Arctic Ice! As the ice melts, it releases the heat to the atmosphere over the Arctic. This is a positive feedback loop that will continue until the Arctic is ice free, probably in the year 2013 or even sooner.
skye says: April 30, 2010 at 10:59 am
For a very long time now, climate models have been predicting that arctic amplification would occur because of the ice/snow-albedo feedback affect. Today the observations are supporting what the models long ago predicted. And it makes complete physical sense. The paper is not really a new result except to update the Graverson et al. paper which made a number of mistakes. The concept of Arctic amplification has been known for a long time, observations are now showing it to be true.
So, I guess you didn’t read the previous comments. I hate to repeat myself, but;
The Arctic temperature records determine that temperatures were greater in the 30′s and 40′s (high point 1939) than now while human co2 emissions were 1/10 the current rate. (peer -reviewed, sources included)
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/RS_Arctic.htm
Please show the correlation between co2 and arctic temperature. Otherwise it’s just climate as usual on earth. It’s happened before, and it will happen again. And Icarus, try to get your assertion that “the sun did it” past Leif Svalgaard.
David Jones: Now that you mention 2007, that warming was not on the Gulf Stream side of the Arctic but on the Bering Strait side. The Bering Strait is another source of warm water reaching the Arctic, although a lot less than what the Gulf Stream brings to the Russian Arctic. Normally it is enough to keep the Chuckchi Sea, just north of the strait, open, but it may extend to the Beaufort Sea just north of Alaska. Apparently thanks to a pattern of winds unusual amounts of warm water entered the Arctic through the Bering Strait that year and opened up a large bubble of open water that included the Beaufort Sea while the Gulf Stream side at the same time hardly changed. It’s the vagaries of these warm currents that control Arctic warming, not carbon dioxide as you have been propagandized to believe.
jose,
Please read the next WUWT article.
“In the study, we investigated what would happen if we amputated all of a frogs legs. What stood out was after repeatedly yelling at the frog to jump the frog just sat there. I was then able to make the link that frogs with no legs were deaf.”
My conclusion is just as valid as his.