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.
typo: “One storm broke up the ice on August 1st”, changed to : “One storm broke up the ice on August 10th”.
@David Ball – And what causes changes in the Polar Front? You’ve just stepped back one step in the causal chain, but you haven’t explained anything thereby. Eventually, you are going to bump up against the fact that there is more heat in the atmosphere caused by energy capture by GHGs put there by human beings.
@Ron C. You write:
“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.”
Yeah, we did that experiment in 2007 when there was another big step change to a record low. Result of experiment: ice extent bumped along near the same low levels, then dropped to a new low 5 years later.
“Also, we shall see how the weather is impacted by more open water this year.”
Snowmaggedon? Snowpocalypse? Snowzilla? Every winter since the 2007 low, and this past year the killer cold in Central Europe. The Warm Arctic, Cold Continents theory in action.
@Philip Bradley, John – I agree that black carbon is a clear cause, but black carbon increases are also clearly anthropogenic, and perhaps more controllable than CO2 emissions.
The further we are from glacial period conditions, the better.
If we look at the daily ice extent data and filter it to remove 6m and 12m variations we get this:
http://i50.tinypic.com/24enw2c.png
All the wailing about the new minimum carefully avoids looking at ALL the data. The winter recoveries in recent years have been just as spectacular, reaching the 30y average this April.
The plunging melting ended in 2007. Someone just forgot to tell us.
P. Solar says:
September 24, 2012 at 12:35 pm
How do you decide when melting stops/starts?
The freezing at the pole begins whilst the perifery of the ice is still melting.
July 31st
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2012/WEBCAM2/ARCHIVE/npeo_cam2_20120728123741.jpg
Aug 2nd
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2012/WEBCAM2/ARCHIVE/npeo_cam2_20120802003826.jpg
David Ball says:
September 25, 2012 at 6:31 am
Frederick Michael says:
September 24, 2012 at 11:30 pm
How is pointing out a lack of understanding an ad hom?
David, you need to think about this a minute. You said I don’t understand some things. You don’t know me, and so I sent you a link to a previous comment that shows that I do understand the very things you said I don’t understand. Your response makes me doubt you took the 10 seconds to follow the link. You didn’t “point out” anything. You didn’t make any logical points at all; you just made a false claim about what I understand.
You have been insulting a bunch of regular contributors here, some much more qualified than I. You are doing to this to people who are, I assume, on your side in the larger issues. This brings you perilously close to qualifying as a troll. What’s up with that?
I’m way too busy for this now and won’t be back to this thread. So, if you reply, don’t expect me to see it.
Just think.
@dvunkannon
Actually, there was a recovery in ice 2008-2010 almost back to 2006 minimum levels, and the 2012 maximum exceeded 2006. Then down again last year and this. For how long?
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/products/ice_extent_graphs/arctic_daily_ice_extent.html
Brendan says: September 25, 2012 at 6:55 am
Looks like the cyclone isn’t the only spin on the record low ice cover in the arctic. 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!
———————————————-
If Global Warming was responsible, then why is Antarctic sea ice at record high levels?
You cannot have this both ways, you know – warming causes ice-melt and ice-buildup. What you have not grasped yet is that Climate Chande is not all about warming (for there has been no warming since 1997). Climate Change is also about changing atmospheric circulations and jetstream paths. These can greatly effect tropospheric weather patterns (and regional temperatures) without any global heat gain or loss.
.
Arno Arrak says:
“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’s it! There is a 100% correlation between longer satellite studies and reduction in ice in the Arctic. Time to demand a reduction in satellite studies.
@Ron C. – My point was that in a larger perspective, post-2007 extent didn’t “recover” in any significant sense, such as getting back within a standard deviation of the average. It stayed low and has now gone lower. So if your suggestion that experience will tell us is correct, experience has spoken already
@dvunkannon
Fair enough. I stay away from averages, because they are dependent on the period selected. You are probably referring to the usual 1979-2000 average, but this followed a significant Arctic cooling period and ice build-up from 1940-1970, which was preceded by warming 1910 to 1940. Which should be the larger perspective?
“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.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038777.shtml
David Ball says:
September 24, 2012 at 4:43 pm
Phil. says:
September 24, 2012 at 3:14 pm
“a routine event these days.”
If you do not provide evidence for this (without icebreakers), I am calling you a liar.
Really, it would be more polite to have evidence before you make such a charge. The policy of this blog is for civility and courtesy not rudeness and insults!
To educate you about a subject on which you clearly have no knowledge.
St Roche II commemorated the trips of the St Roche in the 40s in crossing the NW passage taking about 3 weeks in 2000.
Cloud 9 sailed the passage in 2007 in 73 days, they repeated the journey in 2009.
From that time interest increased in sailing the passage and since then half a dozen or more yachts sail it every year. I followed a number of yachts making their attempts in 2009: Silent Sound, Norwegian Blue, Fiona, Fleur Australe, Ocean Watch, Bagan, Baloum Gwen, one notable event was four of those yachts anchoring together in Cambridge Bay, two heading east and two heading west, they all completed the trip, Baloum Gwen had completed the trip west the year before and was on the return trip. The RX2 tried to make the trip through both the NE Passage and the NW Passage in the same summer but having completed the NE Passage were detained by Russian officials for bureaucratic reasons so had to complete the trip through the NW Passage the next year (2009). In 2010 two yachts did complete both passages in one summer, Northern Passage and Peter I. Several other yachts made the NWP that year: Sarema and Solanus for example. As I recall about 16 boats attempted the passage in 2011, but it’s not as noteworthy anymore. This year Polar Bound and Belzebub II completed the journey through the McClure strait. So yes, such crossings are routine these days, if such crossings couldn’t be made in a summer it would be noteworthy.
dvunkannon says:
September 25, 2012 at 7:12 am
“You’ve just stepped back one step in the causal chain, but you haven’t explained anything thereby.”
You need to explain this statement. Where have I “stepped back”? Which post are you referring to?
Phil. says:
September 25, 2012 at 4:17 pm
Really Phil? A handfull (only 57 vessels have actually transited the NW passage) of small yachts is routine ? You gave the distinct impression that it is clear sailing with no distinction between commercial and private vessels. Clearly it is NOT routine, and I don’t care if your feelings are hurt. I stand by my assertion.
http://northwestpassage2012.blogspot.ca/2012/07/ice-thwarts-northwest-passage-sailing.html
http://www.greygooseadventures.com/nwp/index.html
Looks like a real challenge. This fellow understands what he is up against.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/11/nw-passage-not-so-busy-after-all/
I know Phil. does not consider WUWT? a reliable source, but here you go.
I also posit that these transits are increasing in recent times NOT due to less ice, but technological advances in vessel capability, AND an increase in the number of people attempting the journey.
Phil. wants you to believe it is due to agw.
fretslider says:
September 24, 2012 at 2:14 pm
“USS Skate (SSN-578) made submarine history on 11 August 1958 when it became the first submarine to surface at the North Pole.”
That makes sense as there was a strong negative NAO that summer:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/norm.nao.monthly.b5001.current.ascii.table
Actually, if you look at the graphs there wasn’t anything particularly unusual about 2012 sea ice extent until late August. So if the storm on 1st August pushed the ice south and it took a while to melt as the scientists at NASA have suggested, that would entirely explain 2012 record low sea ice extent. So, global warming in September but not in July. Hmm, that don’t add up. What it does suggest is that sea ice extent is indeed highly impacted by wind speed and direction not just for days but for months and this is a major, unquantifiable noise factor when looking for any underlying and clearly much smaller CO2 signals, before we look into the impact of varying ocean currents. So the wind is pushing the ice towards any possible dangerous tipping points – but we don’t seem too concerned about that. Maybe we think the variable wind has been around for millenia so we don’t need to worry about it – but if that is so, what is the real variation in wind driven ice melt over millenia rather than over a decade?
There is, I notice, a tendency to show charts comparing sea ice extent 1979 – 2000 with 2000 to 2012. This suggests the last decade warmer in the summer than the previous two decades – but does that mean this decade is unusual, or the previous two decades were unusual? Not possible to say because the sample size is too small. In any case, we know that the Northern Hemisphere hasn’t got appreciably warmer over the last 12 years even by Team AGW standards so it isn’t the best decade to go blaming melting ice on global warming!
Ryuan wrote:
Or over the last year, or over the last week, or since last Tuesday. Therefore, there is no global warming. /sarc
The “black” soot and particulate hypothesis seems to have some issues for me. Rain and snow both need a “nucleus” to form. In the Arctic it would most likely be snow that forms around the particulate considering temperatures at the pole. Snow increases albedo. “Black” soot seems like a non sequitor, but perhaps someone could show me where I am mistaken in my assumptions.
Ryan wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/24/nasa-on-arctic-sea-ice-record-low-storm-wreaked-havoc-on-the-arctic-sea-ice-cover/#comment-1088247
So your reasoning is that under conditions, when less energy is available to melt ice compared to summer, when there is a negative net downward flux of energy from the atmosphere to the sea ice, i.e., when the Arctic water/ice actually loses energy to the atmospheric layers above and to space, and when the temperature at the surface is way below the freezing point, then the water should freeze to a smaller area extend? And the effect should be larger in magnitude than the effect in summer, when you have more energy available to melt the ice? How so?
When the energy balance at the surface becomes negative and the water temperature drops to the freezing point, the water will freeze everywhere where those conditions are fulfilled. And when the temperature in winter is 250 K instead of 245 K due to greenhouse gas warming, the ice still remains frozen. It’s not starting to melt. The effect in winter is, even though the area that gets covered with sea ice hasn’t changed much, that the average maximum thickness of the sea ice that is reached decreases with time, since the area where the ice fully melts during the ice melting season increases with time.
@David Ball – On the subject of a causal chain, I was referring to your repost of a link to Dr Tim Ball’s page. That page made the claim that changes in Arctic sea ice could be attributed to winds, such as the Polar Front associated winds.
The point I was trying to make was that there is a difference between saying “winds drive ice” and saying “winds drive changes in ice”. The first statement might be a valid generalisation of the system, but the second is not. “Changes in winds drive changes in ice” is also a fine statement and there might well be a study that attributes some percent the change in ice to variations in winds. But the underlying trend in ice – is there a matching underlying trend in winds? Are they getting stronger, moving closer to the pole?
Again, we might find that there is indeed a trend in Arctic related winds, though I don’t have a citation at hand. But that is not an explanation. We’ve just shifted the question from “What is causing the trend in sea ice” to “What is causing the trend in Arctic winds?” That is what I meant by stepping back along the causal chain.
Not that I want to get all philosophical about this, but it is a good example of the difference between proximate and ultimate causes. Polar winds makes a good proximate cause, but the ultimate cause is anthropogenic GHGs heating the atmosphere globally, with the effect of shifting circulation belts poleward.
@DavidMHoffer – A partial response to Steve Mosher’s claim that
More open water will have two effects that will create more “storms like this”
– more heat to draw out of the water to power the storm
– longer fetch for the winds over open water, creating larger waves. These waves will be able to break more ice, and thicker ice, than smaller waves.
I’m not sure that movement to warmer waters will be necessary. There was plenty of in situ melting this year.