From Wiley
Study explores atmospheric impact of declining Arctic sea ice
There is growing recognition that reductions in Arctic sea ice levels will influence patterns of atmospheric circulation both within and beyond the Arctic. New research in the International Journal of Climatology explores the impact of 2007 ice conditions, the second lowest Arctic sea ice extent in the satellite era, on atmospheric circulation and surface temperatures.
Two 30-year simulations, one using the sea ice levels of 2007 and another using sea ice levels at the end of the 20th century, were used to access the impact of ice free seas. The results showed a significant response to the anomalous open water of 2007.
The results confirm that the atmospheric response to declining sea ice could have implications far beyond the Arctic such as a decrease in the pole to equator temperature gradient, given the increased temperatures associated with the increase in open water, leading to a weaker jet stream and less storminess in the mid-latitudes.
“In the context of decreasing Arctic sea ice extent, our experiments investigating the impacts of anomalous open water on the atmosphere showed increased heat transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere and warmer temperatures in areas of reduced sea ice. Comparing the model simulated circulation to the observed circulation for the summer of 2007 (the year of focus for the model experiments), we found the simulated circulation to be quite different than what was observed for spring and summer while more similar for autumn and fall,” said Elizabeth Cassano from the University of Colorado.
“This suggests the sea ice conditions in the months preceding and during the summer of 2007 were not responsible for contributing to a circulation pattern which favored the large observed sea ice loss in that year. The circulation during autumn and winter which was more similar between the model simulations and the observed circulation suggests that the reduced sea ice in 2007 was in part responsible for the observed atmospheric circulation during autumn and winter of that year.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Making it up as we go along after the event. Artic sea ice is currently bang on average.
“Two 30-year simulations, …… The results showed…”
data from simulations aren’t results.
I wonder if they factored in the effect of the currently warm phase AMO into the calculation. That is likely what is driving the greater than average ice losses north of Norway Sweeden and Western Russia. We see with the PDO now in its cool phase, a trend to greater than normal sea ice in the artic near the Bering Sea. Without considering the natural 50-70 year cycles, any model will be a joke.
Of course open water has an effect on the air above as compared to ice cover.
At least they recognise that such a situation results in faster cooling of the water and faster loss of energy to space.
In contrast, AGW theorists previously said that the open water would lead to more sunlight getting into the water for runaway warming of the polar regions.
Unfortunately they have mistaken a negative feedback response for a primary forcing agent.
What really happens is as follows:
I) An active sun pulls the cloud bands poleward (more zonal) allowing more energy into the tropical oceans.
ii) Enhanced El Ninos send warm water towards the poles.
iii) Warmer water flows into the Arctic Ocean reducing ice cover.
iv) More open water allows faster loss of warmth to space thereby offsetting the original surge of extra warmth into the tropical oceans.
Now, if the sun stayed active the system would stabilise with a faster throughput of energy leaving the Arctic ice at a low level but now we see a less active sun causing increased global cloudiness with the cloud bands more equatorward (meridional) allowing less energy into the oceans with less strong El Ninos and in due course cooler water will enter the Arctic Ocean and the ice will recover. The imminent cool phase of the AMO should do the trick.
The clincher is that for 20 years reducing Arctic ice was accompanied by increasingly poleward zonal jets so they cannot now say that decreasing Arctic ice is causing more equatorward meridional jets.
The only thing that changed when the global air circulation changed from zonal to meridional was the decline of solar activity from active cycle 23 to inactive cycle 24.
Victoria Secret and Sports Illustrated Bikini models are better models to discuss.
Even if the ice melts towards the end of the melt season the sun angle is so low it would not heat up the water under the north pole or arctic ocean.Water that is covered in ice is insulated also and is only colder near the surface allowing water that is deeper to hold heat. I think that is why the arctic re-froze so fast in the fall of 2012. Open water with the sun angle low or not even shining was allowed to cool deeper down allowing the ice to rebound/grow at the fastest pace in sat history.
One other note, volcanic ash/dust from lcelands’s volcano that shut down air travel down in 2011 to Europe mostly melted away. So the New Ice from this session should be cleaner and last longer because heat absorbing Ash and dust mostly melted sway in 2012. Only concern with dirty ice is BC from high altitude jet exhaust.
@John Hanson says:
May 29, 2013 at 3:50 am
“I wonder if they factored in the effect of the currently warm phase AMO into the calculation. That is likely what is driving the greater than average ice losses north of Norway Sweeden and Western Russia. We see with the PDO now in its cool phase, a trend to greater than normal sea ice in the artic near the Bering Sea. Without considering the natural 50-70 year cycles, any model will be a joke”
Let’s not forget the twenty years ofpositive NAO advecting warm air northward from the tropics
OK, great. Now, what REALLY happened? You know, in the real world, not some computer fantasy game….
Backing up what Stephen Wilde wrote above (and reading between the lines of the abstract):
The authors are saying that the CAUSE of the 2007 arctic sea ice loss was NOT related to the atmosphere “circulation” before the sea ice loss, but the sea ice loss DID affect the circulation after the 2007 mid-summer loss.
Which begs the question: are the authors treating their “circulation” proof/theory/model as “warmer air causes sea ice loss” or “open ocean affects the (previously cold) air above the ocean” or what ? That is, in their models, did they actually establish the entire Arctic temperature and pressure and humidity and cloud cover patterns that were measured BEFORE the 2007 ice loss, then see if their model duplicated the sea ice loss? Or did they create a model of “an arctic spring” .. then remove the sea ice artificially and see what happens to the “post-ice” model?
But, I thought that arctic sea ice loss was the ultimate a “proof” of global warming – which requires that the sea ice loss be CAUSED by the warmer global air. Thus, because global air temperature DID rise for 20 years between 1975 and 1995, and then global air temperatures DID stay steady the past 16 years between 1995 and 2013, CAGW => reduced sea ice levels theory is proven false.
Otherwise, CAGW would seem to require that sea ice be the decrease between 1975 and 1995, then stay steady between 1995 and 2013. Clearly, that pattern does not exist.
But, what does cause arctic sea ice loss remains unknown.
At least this group has recognized that the famed “arctic sea ice loss amplifies global warming” theme is false. Open arctic waters at the time of minimum arctic sea ice levels in mid-September lead to cooler arctic temperatures due to increased evaporation, increased convection losses to the air, and increased radiation losses to the clouds.
A computer simulation is not an “experiment”.
I carried out two exhaustive studies of arctic sea ice melt in the period prior to Satellites
This long article -with many links- examines the little known period 1815-60 when the Arctic ice melted and the Royal Society mounted an expedition to investigate the causes.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/#more-8688
This article covers the period of considerable melting during 1920-1950. It retreated to broadly similar levels we witnessed at times during the early 2000’s but not I suspect as far as it did in 2007 and 2012.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/
tonyb
Any explanation of Arctic sea ice has to explain, BOTH record minimum ice extents and record winter sea ice formation over the last 7/8 years.
Which basically means its a cloud/solar insolation/albedo effect.
Less clouds = more solar insolation enhanced by embedded black carbon in the ice = reduced albedo = increased melt. In winter reduced clouds = colder = increased ice formation.
FYI, in Bob Tisdale’s thread I explained that reduced clouds is the reason for the pronounced season SST anomalies since, surprise, surprise, the mid 1990s.
@Fred Fred. Simulations are calculations and do yield results.
@John Pickens. Simulations can have experimental characteristics.
None of this means a simulation is correct by default. In fact, they rarely are right at all.
John Pickens says:
May 29, 2013 at 4:30 am
A computer simulation is not an “experiment”.
There was a time when computers were first being introduced into businesses where it was not uncommon to be told “but it must be right this came from the computer“. This became a joke line in comedies in later years usually delivered by a less than bright character. We are now seeing precisely the same ‘but it must be right it came from our computer model‘ – from university research departments.. This time the line is being delivered by ‘climate scientists’.
Another model-based study. Doesn’t anyone know how to analyze data anymore?
“New research in the International Journal of Climatology explores the impact of 2007 ice conditions, the second lowest Arctic sea ice extent in the satellite era, on atmospheric circulation and surface temperatures.”
– Yet another opportunity to draw wild conclusions from a speck of data, and to confuse cause with effect.
John Hanson says:
May 29, 2013 at 3:50 am
———————
Thank goodness it is a cool phase…
“On 18 and 19 May, the temperatures in Lillehammer soared to 29C. In the surrounding mountains, this sudden rise in temperature caused the snow to suddenly melt.”
http://www.aljazeera.com/weather/2013/05/201352492134414196.html
Another “If Global Warming happens then such and such will happen” paper. These papers just mean that someone got a grant to investigate what global warming would do if it happened. Those papers provide information on how politicians give out grant money but tell us nothing about whether Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is true.
So with less ice what is the temperature of the water as it leaves the arctic? It would seem that with no ice and ‘warmer’ water the water leaving the arctic would be warmer thus adding to global warming.
Wouldn’t it be cool if we had something like Godwin’s Law, except for models? I mean, the first response of many people is “it’s a model, it’s useless”.
Like anything else, a model is a tool. Many models have really good real-world applications, like meteorological models used for short-term forecasting or engine simulators used to optimize airflow and fueling. They’re getting better because the inputs are better, the assumptions are better, and the conclusions are testable.
Sadly, too many people either put too much faith in their models, draw the wrong conclusions from their models, or have incorrect or even completely backward assumptions going into it.
Seems to me that one of the goals of this model is to attempt to prove the assumptions that sea ice is decreasing due to human factors, and that decreased sea ice will mess up weather. It doesn’t seem to be part of the program that messed up weather, or even normally occurring weather, is the reason for the “anomaly” in sea ice.
After watching this for the last several years, I’m baffled by the apparent inability for otherwise smart people to see that sea ice is neither a major metric, nor a sign of human climate change. At a minimum there is not even remotely enough historical data to draw any sort of conclusion. There are anecdotal observations of dramatically reduced sea ice in the past, but we didn’t have satellites to quantify the extent back then.
Arctic Sea Ice Extent is unimportant as a “smoking gun” or evidence of a human fingerprint or anything. The poles are the planet’s normal, natural destination for dumping heat. Sometimes there is more to dump, sometimes there is less.
Earth’s climate system works in cycles, not straight line trends.
“Two 30-year simulations, one using the sea ice levels of 2007 and another using sea ice levels at the end of the 20th century, were used to access the impact of ice free seas. The results showed a significant response to the anomalous open water of 2007.”
SIGH…how much did this “study” cost?
People know my opinions of models, simulations, representations, & the like!!!!
The part that caught my eye was the statement that less ice in the arctic would lead to less of a temperature differential between the lower latitudes and the arctic. We know that severe weather is driven by large temperature differential, and we also know that, in the US at least, the severity of storms has actually decreased. Am I seeing a true connection or is it my imagination?
kajauk
Here were the REAL temperatures for Lillehammer
http://www.worldweatheronline.com/lillehammer-weather/oppland/no.aspx?day=21
They were similar for both days and reached a maximum of 23C
Tonyb