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.
@ur momisugly Lars P.
(As in Porsena, of Clusium?)
You are right to say that the PIOMAS estimates are partly modelled, but as I understand it incorporating a lot of real survey data as well, including US Naval survey data and the recent calibration to Cryosat-2 satellite radar data. When their results were first presented to me I did not realise to what extent theirs was modelled data, so your criticisms may be valid. I have since been digging down into what exactly their real inputs are. What I would particularly like to see is their time series pinned at the other end – 1979 – to seasonably appropriate Seasat radar altimeter measurements Arctic ice volumes during that period.
In my background, I have some experience of satellite remote sensing and radar altimetry, so when the results of these surveys show minute but detectable global sea level changes, and volume changes in global ice sheets I put a mental tick in the box marked ‘trustworthy data and results’. I totally agree that it will be good to see another two or three years of Cryosat survey data and to have PIOMAS calibrated against that. PIOMAS do make the illustrative point themselves that the additional heat energy they are talking about in the Arctic is only the equivalent of one very small, dim torch bulb per square metre, so they are not overselling the story.
As a non-American I would be very interested to hear any view you might have on the reputability of research by US Polar Ice Centre at the University of Washington. I am not directly familiar with them, but assume that they are a reputable and diligent university research organisation.
With regards,
LK
Further on PIOMAS verification here:
http://spaceinvideos.esa.int/Videos/2013/05/Earth_from_Space_Kazakh_treasure
It is partly a matter of how good you think they are at what they have been doing as to whether you value their output to be worthy of inclusion here. If not, another two year’s Cryosat-2 data and verification should eventually satisfy.
Perhaps, having recognised that model did not accurately reproduce observed changes they should have gone back to looking at the data.
Simple spectral analysis of the areal acceleration of arctic sea ice area has strong periodic components In fact a spectral triplet that reveals a two year cycle (probably internal to the arctic system) is modulated by an external factor with a period of 12.85 , that is also found in North Atlantic SST.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=216
Reproducing the data with just this triplet accounts for the majority of the variation in the record. More to the point it matches 2007 perfectly !!
Equally. looking at rate of change of ice area reveals a strong and persistent period of 5.42 years that oscillates about zero rate of change. Recent changes are rapidly falling back into line with this pattern.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/open-mind-or-cowardly-bigot/ddt_arctic_ice/
This precise same frequency is found in the West Pacific trade wind data, where it can be seen to be manifestaion of a lunar influence on climate:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=281
These principals of interfernce patterns have been know quite literally for centuries, yet study after study comes out ignoring simple data analysis in favour of analysing output from models that are known not to correctly reproduce climate.
The logical aberation is astonding.
Here’s the plot showing the same 12.85 year frequency in North Atl. SST.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=217
Greg Goodman says:
May 31, 2013 at 3:13 pm
———————————–
Greg, I was just reading a post that mentioned the Tambora eruption. I also looked up Krakatoa. Both of these eruptions on the CET graph are followed by the 6 year temp spike. I don’t know if you read a recent comment I made, where I note that the neutron monitor on the solar page closely follows the surface temp changes of the oceans. I bet that if we had neutron flow data from that time period that we would see the drop and then the rise over 6 years on the neutron monitor. Another thought just popped up, “Could an inference be made that would yield the approximate rise and fall of neutron flow from 1815 by using the time intervals between Tambora and Pinatubo along with other known large volcano events?”.El Chichon, Pinatubo, and the Sumatra Christmas Quake and Tsunami fit exactly at the low of the neutron flow.