NASA finally admits it Arctic cyclone in August ‘broke up’ and ‘wreaked havoc’ on sea ice — Reuters reports Arctic storm played ‘key role’ in this season’s sea ice reduction.
‘The cyclone remained stalled over the arctic for several days…pushing [sea ice] south to warmer waters where it melted’
Monday, September 24, 2012 – By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
In a September 18 video posted by NASA on its website, they admit that the Arctic cyclone, which began on August 1, “wreaked havoc on the Arctic sea ice cover” by “breaking up sea ice.” (NASA story here)
Global warming activists have been giddy in their hyping of the satellite era record low Arctic sea ice extent while ignoring the satellite record sea ice expansion in the Antarctic.
Many climate activists have sought to downplay the significance that the Arctic cyclone played on this year’s summer sea ice in the Arctic. But this new inconvenient video report from NASA now makes the warmists’ attempt to deny the cyclones role in 2012’s Arctic sea ice conditions — impossible.
The September 18 NASA video notes: “A powerful storm wreaked havoc on the Arctic sea ice cover in August 2012. This visualization shows the strength and direction of the winds and their impact on the ice: the red vectors represent the fastest winds, while blue vectors stand for slower winds.”
Reuters news service filed a September 21 report based on NASA’s video admission titled: “NASA says Arctic cyclone played ‘key role’ in record ice melt.” The news segment details how the Arctic sea ice was reduced due to “a powerful cyclone that scientists say ‘wreaked havoc’ on ice cover during the month of August.” (Reuters on “Arctic Cyclone” — 0:47 second long segment — Rob Muir reporting.)
Reuters – Sept. 21 – “NASA says a powerful cyclone formed off the coast of Alaska in early August and moved toward the center of the Arctic ocean, weakening the already thin sea ice as it went.
A large section North of the Chukchi Sea was cut off by the churning storm and pushed south to warmer waters where it melted.
The cyclone remained stalled over the arctic for several days…Scientists say a similar storm decades ago would have had much less impact on the sea ice because they say the ice was not as vulnerable then as it is now.”
#
End Reuters news segment.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
John Brookes says:
September 24, 2012 at 6:15 pm
Why even have this post?
To inflame your leftist academic myopia.
I’m going to see if you had the cobbles to respond to my post to you on the other thread.
John Brookes says:
September 24, 2012 at 6:15 pm
Nope.
The magnetic pole continues it very rapid march towards the geographic north pole.
Fascinating video. The storm is a one-off that may have increased the breakup of sea ice. But Arctic is warming and Arctic sea ice has been diminishing at the rate of ten percent per decade since satellite have been recording it. That is because of warm Gulf Stream water that Atlantic currents are carrying into the Arctic Ocean [E&E 22(8):1069-1083 (2011)]. The warming started suddenly at the turn of the twentieth century, paused for thirty years at mid-century, then resumed, and is still going strong. Prior to that there was nothing but two thousand years of slow cooling in the Arctic. There was no parallel increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide at the start of the warming and this eliminates the greenhouse effect because it would violate the radiation laws of physics. The warming started most likely as a result of a rearrangement of the North Atlantic current system at the start of the century. There is no way the greenhouse effect can be turned on and off as happened in mid-century but it is easy to sea how a temporary return of the original flow pattern of currents could explain it. Arctic warming has been a poster child of global warming advocates as proof that global warming is happening. Since this can no longer be done we have to ask what other actual observations of nature are left that prove the existence of greenhouse warming. Off hand I cannot think of any. Furthermore, Ferenc Miskolci has empirically proved that the enhanced greenhouse effect that is supposed to be the cause of the greenhouse effect does not even exist. He used NOAA weather balloon database that goes back to 1948 and observed that the infrared transparency of the atmosphere stayed constant for 61 years while atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 21.6 percent during this interval. This means that the addition of all that carbon dioxide to air had no effect whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. It follows that predictions of warming by models using the greenhouse effect are simply invalid. And emission control laws passed that rely on these predictions have been passed under false pretenses.
So that’s weather and not climate? Just for the record and I know this is a one off: When does a newly established pattern (of weather or sea ice distribution) become recognised as a new climatic condition. Just asking so that we don’t end like frogs in boiling water.
Just to put the alarming fears to rest, I am posting this again.
http://drtimball.com/2012/2012-arctic-ice-melt-claims-distorted-and-inaccurate-its-the-wind-stupid/
davidmhoffer says:
September 24, 2012 at 5:51 pm
Steven Mosher;
moreover more open water will lead to more storms like this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why?
>>>>>>>>
C’mon Mosher. Why?
Or was that yet another drive by snark that you can’t be bothered to substantiate? Or just can’t?
There would have been a record low even if the storm had not occurred. Storms of this magnitude are not unusual either, 8 / 34 years apparently. You can’t blame a single storm for reducing the Arctic sea ice extent by 6 times the normal standard deviation. Changes of the magnitude are frankly very scary. A massive positive feedback mechanism been activated and it is probably related to albedo.
Another drive-by posting from Mosher……
Simon;
Changes of the magnitude are frankly very scary. A massive positive feedback mechanism been activated and it is probably related to albedo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. Ice loss at the angle of incidence of the sun at this time of year ensures that LESS energy will be absorbed by the water than the ice if it was present. Is this a positive feedback? Or negative?
2. The exposed water will radiate considerably more energy to space than the ice would have if it was present. Is this a positive feedback? Or negative?
3. Open water that is very cold sucks CO2 out of the atmosphere like crazy. Is this a positive feedback? Or negative?
4. What, exactly, is such a bad thing about ice melting? Can you grow food on ice? Can ocean plants thrive with no sunshine? Can fish survive in water that is never exposed to the air in order to replenish oxygen? Can sea mammals surface and breath with the ice there? What, exactly, is good about an ocean of ice?
prjindigo says; “I doubt the veracity of the whole Skate article for a simple reason. Top Gear drove to the ACTUAL north pole in July 2007”
No, they drove to the 1996 location of the Magnetic North Pole.
prjindigo says; “I doubt the veracity of the whole Skate article for a simple reason. Top Gear drove to the ACTUAL north pole in July 2007″
Is it because they cannot tell the whole story, or is it because they don’t know the whole story.
Naturally, in the next few years, when the arctic minimum is reached and it’s not as low as this year, the warmists will write off this year as an anomaly, due to the effect of the storm. This year that’s not convenient. Next year it will be.
David Ball says:
September 24, 2012 at 5:17 pm
Frederick Michael says:
September 24, 2012 at 4:24 pm
You do not know much about the Arctic and how floating ice behaves, do you.
If you want to play ad hom, try a less scientific website.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/27/august-arcus-forecast-poll-what-will-the-september-nsidc-arctic-minimum-extent-be/#comment-707222
The oldest ice is melting the fastest. Only one mechanism can cause this differential melting of older ice, the effect of solar insolation on embedded black carbon in the ice which accumulates at the surface as solar insolation melts the ice, decreasing its albedo.
Note in the animation at the link below that the bulk of the decline starts in 1998, the year of the Russian financial crisis, which resulted in the bulk of the polluting Soviet era industry being shut down. Note also, almost all the decrease in multi-year ice is on the Russian side of the Arctic ocean.
The increased insolation is caused by decreased aerosol and particulate seeded clouds (from the industries shut down).
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/thick-melt.html
It is pretty clear to me that CO2 is not impacting Arctic sea ice because if it were it would be far more obvious during the winter than during the summer. This is because during the winter direct heating from the sun is extremely low and air temperatures are entirely due to heat being trapped in the atmosphere due to the greenhouse effect. Thus increasing CO2 should have proportionately more imapct during the Arctic winter. However, satellite data shows that Winter arctic sea ice extent hasn’t changed much.
Looking at the summer arctic sea ice extent you can see that it varies considerably from one year to another. Obviously there is something impacting sea ice extent that has nothing to do with the continuous upward trend in CO2. This yearly variation in sea ice level can be considered “noise” in the signal you are looking for – but how big is the amplitude of this noise signal compared to the CO2 signal we are interested in? Nobody so far has explained.
It is clear that arctic ice was much lower this year than last year due to something other than CO2. There may be a CO2 related trend involved as well, but while climatologists are refusing point-blank to look more carefully at what the data is obviously telling them they won’t spot what it is. The data is crying out for real analysis, and someone could make themselves quite a name from it.
It seems that climate in the Arctic is changing, but it is equally obvious that changes in Arctic sea ice extent has little to do with the gradual industrialisation of humanity. Something else is impacting Arctic sea ice greatly and it would be very interesting to know what it is.
Undersea volcanic activity anyone?
What? Admit? No they did not “admit”, they told you outright, from the very beginning.
The warmists sites also discussed the role of the storm and it’s importance from the very beginning.
Nobody seems to have discussed the fact that winter Arctic temperatures were much warmer than usual last year. Thus the Arctic seas may have been a bit warmer than normal – aiding in the melt.
However, does this warmer winter mean warming or cooling? We have had very cold winters in the N.H. the last three years, caused by the jetstreams moving further south (as I pointed out a couple of years ago). But if we are having colder winters, then the energy (heat) must go somewhere. The heat sink for the N.H. is the Arctic, where 24 hr cloudless darkness can allow gazillions of watts to radiate away.
Is this not the cause of the wamer winter temperatures in the Arctic? Is this not a contributory factor, in the summer melt? (the fact that the N.H. is losing more energy than normal.)
P.S. I find Piers Cobyn’s explanation that the satellites cannot easily pick up broken ice, and are therefore underestimating the ice-loss interesting. Anything to back this up? I suppose the proof will be Corbyn’s assertion that these drifting floes will re-ice very quickly, and so there will be a more rapid freeze than normal.
.
Comments above by dmhoffer and ryan show why we are talking about the Arctic. Warmists and skeptics look at the world through very different lenses. Warmists see positive feedbacks and tipping points everywhere, and the Arctic is one of their big ones. Skeptics see negative feedbacks characteristic of a climate system oscillating between stable states.
This year’s melt is exciting because maybe, just maybe, Nature is conducting an experiment in the Arctic from which we can learn. A step-change of 8% reduction of ice extent from the previous 2007 low presents an opportunity to test over the coming years how the climate responds: either accelerating the melting, or recovering the ice. Also, we shall see how the weather is impacted by more open water this year.
Kasuha
Clear water at the pole in 1958 – why do you insist on using inaccurate wiki info? – seems pretty much the same as clear water at the pole in 2004. It’s nothing new.
I’m taking the same view toward this story, and toward Arctic sea ice decline, as I do to all the climate change issues: whatever conclusion I come to will be based upon reality as best I can tell it, not on models.
I am skeptical about land based temperature records because the satellite records, and analyses by Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels among others (not to mention the work of Anthony Watts), suggest the land based record is too high. I am skeptical about sea level rise scares because sea level is currently rising at 3.1 mm annually, less than a foot a century, and about the same as last century.
And I am skeptical that it is mainly storminess that causes Arctic sea ice decline, since sea ice has been declining for as long as we have been able to measure it (about 1979). Better questions would be:
1. What are the relative roles of black carbon vs. warming gases such as CO2 and methane? There are a number of papers suggesting that substantial amounts of warming in the Arctic are due to black carbon falling on the ice, making it darker, hence it absorbs warmth and makes ice melt more quickly. There must have been much less black carbon back in the day, before the advent of diesels and other sources of these emissions.
2. What are the long term effects of less Arctic sea ice in the summer than before?
As always, when new facts come along, I am quite willing to adjust my thinking.
Frederick Michael says:
September 24, 2012 at 11:30 pm
How is pointing out a lack of understanding an ad hom?
Frederick Michael says:
September 24, 2012 at 11:30 pm
And welcome back to the MOST scientific website. People get to ask the HARD questions here, from either point of view.
John says:
September 25, 2012 at 5:59 am
1. What are the relative roles of black carbon vs. warming gases such as CO2 and methane? There are a number of papers suggesting that substantial amounts of warming in the Arctic are due to black carbon falling on the ice, making it darker, hence it absorbs warmth and makes ice melt more quickly. There must have been much less black carbon back in the day, before the advent of diesels and other sources of these emissions.
The reality is that there are multiple factors affecting sea ice. All are variable as well. Attribution becomes difficult.
Looks like the cyclone isn’t the only spin on the record low ice cover in the arctic. One storm broke up the ice on August 1st with more than a month left in the melt season in the arctic and now global warming doesn’t exist because of that? I didn’t realize that global warming meant that only solar driven melting of sea ice counts as data. I don’t care how the ice melted, the fact is that it *did* melt and indeed at a record level, so pull your heads out of the sand and admit that the climate is a changin’. Sheesh!