Ice melting Arctic cyclones more common than previously thought

Remember the Arctic cyclone that chopped up the Arctic sea ice in 2012, resulting in a new record low summer extent for the satellite era? It turns out they are rather common.

From the AGU Fall Meeting and the Ohio State University

Data analysis reveals hundreds of storms — mostly smaller ones — that had previously escaped detection

SAN FRANCISCO—From 2000 to 2010, about 1,900 cyclones churned across the top of the world each year, leaving warm water and air in their wakes—and melting sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.

That’s about 40 percent more than previously thought, according to a new analysis of these Arctic storms. 

A 40 percent difference in the number of cyclones could be important to anyone who lives north of 55 degrees latitude—the area of the study, which includes the northern reaches of Canada, Scandinavia and Russia, along with the state of Alaska.

The finding is also important to researchers who want to get a clear picture of current weather patterns, and a better understanding of potential climate change in the future, explained David Bromwich, professor of geography at The Ohio State University and senior research scientist at the Byrd Polar Research Center.

The study was presented Thursday, Dec. 12 at the American Geophysical Union meeting, in a poster co-authored by his colleagues Natalia Tilinina and Sergey Gulev of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Moscow State University.

“We now know there were more cyclones than previously thought, simply because we’ve gotten better at detecting them,” Bromwich said.

Cyclones are zones of low atmospheric pressure that have wind circulating around them. They can form over land or water, and go by different names depending on their size and where they are located. In Columbus, Ohio, for instance, a low-pressure system in December would simply be called a winter storm. Extreme low-pressure systems formed in the tropical waters can be called hurricanes or typhoons.

How could anyone miss a storm as big as a cyclone? You might think they are easy to detect, but as it turns out, many of the cyclones that were missed were small in size and short in duration, or occurred in unpopulated areas. Yet researchers need to know about all the storms that have occurred if they are to get a complete picture of storm trends in the region.

“We can’t yet tell if the number of cyclones is increasing or decreasing, because that would take a multidecade view. We do know that, since 2000, there have been a lot of rapid changes in the Arctic—Greenland ice melting, tundra thawing—so we can say that we’re capturing a good view of what’s happening in the Arctic during the current time of rapid changes,” Bromwich said.

Bromwich leads the Arctic System Reanalysis (ASR) collaboration, which uses statistics and computer algorithms to combine and re-examine diverse sources of historical weather information, such as satellite imagery, weather balloons, buoys and weather stations on the ground.

“There is actually so much information, it’s hard to know what to do with it all. Each piece of data tells a different part of the story—temperature, air pressure, wind, precipitation—and we try to take all of these data and blend them together in a coherent way,” Bromwich said.

The actual computations happen at the Ohio Supercomputer Center, and the combined ASR data are made publicly available to scientists.

Two such scientists are cyclone experts Tilinina and Gulev, who worked with Bromwich to look for evidence of telltale changes in wind direction and air pressure in the ASR data. They compared the results to three other data re-analysis groups, all of which combine global weather data.

“We found that ASR provides new vision of the cyclone activity in high latitudes, showing that the Arctic is much more densely populated with cyclones than was suggested by the global re-analyses,” Tilinina said.

One global data set used for comparison was ERA-Interim, which is generated by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. Focusing on ERA-Interim data for latitudes north of 55 degrees, Tilinina and Gulev identified more than 1,200 cyclones per year between 2000 and 2010. For the same time period, ASR data yielded more than 1,900 cyclones per year.

When they narrowed their search to cyclones that occurred directly over the Arctic Ocean, they found more than 200 per year in ERA-Interim, and a little over 300 per year in ASR.

There was good agreement between all the data sets when it came to big cyclones, the researchers found, but the Arctic-centered ASR appeared to catch smaller, shorter-lived cyclones that escaped detection in the larger, global data sets. The ASR data also provided more detail on the biggest cyclones, capturing the very beginning of the storms earlier and tracking their decay longer.

Extreme Arctic cyclones are of special concern to climate scientists because they melt sea ice, Bromwich said.

“When a cyclone goes over water, it mixes the water up. In the tropical latitudes, surface water is warm, and hurricanes churn cold water from the deep up to the surface. In the Arctic, it’s the exact opposite: there’s warmer water below, and the cyclone churns that warm water up to the surface, so the ice melts.”

As an example, he cited the especially large cyclone that hit the Arctic in August 2012, which scientists believe played a significant role in the record retreat of sea ice that year.

###

ASR is a collaboration among Ohio State, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the University of Colorado-Boulder. It is funded by the National Science Foundation as an International Polar Year project.

Poster A43C-0280, “Storm tracks in Arctic System Reanalysis – New View of Polar Cyclone Activity,” will be presented on Thursday, Dec. 12 from 1:40-6:00 p.m. PT in Hall A-C of Moscone South.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
41 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 12, 2013 5:33 pm

The Arctic polar vortex is beginning to form, in fits & starts. These little cyclones are analogous to the tornadoes and waterspouts on the periphery of a hurricane. I’d love to see this cyclone detection method applied to the Antarctic, where the largest cyclone on the planet spins on, year after year.

December 12, 2013 5:38 pm

“When a cyclone goes over water, it mixes the water up. In the tropical latitudes, surface water is warm, and hurricanes churn cold water from the deep up to the surface. In the Arctic, it’s the exact opposite: there’s warmer water below, and the cyclone churns that warm water up to the surface, so the ice melts.”
It is much more subtle and complex than this statement suggests. There is not an unlimited amount of warm water to churn up. Once it is mixed up, a totally new sort of fluid-dynamics comes into play.
Think to yourself, “How the heck can warm water be under cold water? Doesn’t the warm water rise and the cold water sink?” The answer is “Yes, but water also layers itself in terms of salinity, so salty water sinks and fresh water rises.”
Only when the water is still and untroubled, (as it is when protected by ice,) can you get these delicate balances between salinity and temperature that allow warm water to build up below cold water, and boundaries such as the thermocline and pycnocline to be stable. The water slides in layers like shuffled cards. Once the ice is gone, it is like someone played 52-pick-up with the cards, and flung them in the air. “Churned up” barely describes the complete derangement that occurs to the system.
And the result? The warm AMO switches over to the cold AMO, and a period of low-ice-extent gives way to a period of high-ice-extent. It seemingly takes roughly thirty years to swing from one extreme to the other, and thirty years to swing back again.
I think the study of these arctic systems is quite valuable, in terms of being able to plan on (or make educated guesses at) the future warmth available for northern lands. (IE: Are we heading for a MWP or a LIA?) Unfortunately this study got all mixed up with the Global Warming balderdash. When the backlash against Global Warming rises, I fear the baby will get thrown out with the bathwater, and these arctic studies will get the ax.

December 12, 2013 5:43 pm

Gunga Din says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
December 12, 2013 at 5:14 pm
I know I have a typo. (should be “gained political power from” rather than “gained political from”) And I did mention a certain almost-a-disaterous-president’s name but other than that, I can’t figure out why I’m in moderation.

December 12, 2013 5:45 pm

I’m out of moderation. Thanks. But I am curious what triggered it.

Carla
December 12, 2013 7:08 pm

Looks like this is a game changer for total cyclonic energy (TCE) thingy..
OssQss says:
December 12, 2013 at 5:14 pm
—–
Quite the waves rolling off the NE Greenland side..Do they have a name..
I’ll have to watch that again. thanks

December 12, 2013 7:25 pm

Paraphrasing Dick Lindzen…..Arctic sea ice extent has more to do with wind than temperature, this stuff used to be text book….appears as if it may become text book again?

Box of Rocks
December 12, 2013 7:47 pm

Who is doing the math wrt the mass flow and temps of the water exiting the polar regions?
Cold water has to go somewhere, right? How much and how cold will have an impact on the global energy budget.

December 12, 2013 7:58 pm

55 degrees? That’s just a half degree north of Edmonton, Alberta and 1.7 degrees south of Fort McMurray. That is a lot of Canada and virtually all of Alaska except a tiny piece of the panhandle. Hazelton BC on the Yellowhead Highway to Prince Rupert is north of 55. What makes north of 55 significant? North of 60 is significant to Canadians but probably no one else. The MIDDLE of the four western provinces of Canada is 54.5 N. There is a lot of land north of 55. (Including all of Norway, Sweden, Finland and a large piece of Russia)

Brian H
December 12, 2013 8:28 pm

A.D. Everard says:
December 12, 2013 at 10:18 am
“…We do know that, since 2000, there have been a lot of rapid changes in the Arctic—Greenland ice melting, tundra thawing—so we can say that we’re capturing a good view of what’s happening in the Arctic during the current time of rapid changes,” Bromwich said.
*
Lost me right there. Data is no use at all if they are still running it side-by-side with assumptions of warming, melting and “rapid changes”. They are determined to see and use the meme that We Dun It.

+1
Greenland ice melting? Tundra thawing? Only in CAGW model dreams, &/or at a pace unchanged since the LIA.

charles nelson
December 13, 2013 1:03 am

Uh, I checked your planet and the thermostat seems to be working perfectly.

Jake2
December 13, 2013 1:58 am

If we get these regularly, the arctic ice is going to be in poor shape.

December 13, 2013 7:00 am

RE: Jake2 says:
December 13, 2013 at 1:58 am
The study suggests that in fact we do get such storms regularly. In fact we got at least two such polar gales last summer, but the ice didn’t melt nearly as much. Why not? I assume it is because the water beneath the ice was not nearly as warm in August 2013 as it was in August 2012. (This would also explain why the air temperatures north of eighty degrees were cooler as well.)
What people fail to factor in is that once the water is “churned up,” there no longer is any warm water left below to churn up. Melting all that ice used up the heat, and the entire column of water is cooled. Further storms churn up cooler water, and the ice cannot melt to the same degree. Storms can smash up the ice, but this tends to pile the ice up more thickly in some areas while leaving patches of cooler open water between, which loses more heat and also forms new ice more quickly, once the sun sets in September.
In terms of “volume,” the big storm of August, 2012 likely reduced volume, but the storms of 2013 likely saw volume remain roughly the same (or reduce only a little,) even though “extent” dipped.
Last summer’s storms, and the failures of the smashed up bergs to melt, were real eye-openers to Alarmists and Skeptics alike, due to the fact the ice seemingly began the summer “in poor shape.” Not only was there a lot of “baby ice” due to the low extent of the prior summer, but that ice got smashed up by a gale in February, and wide leads were covered by ice even thinner than baby-ice, as it was formed after the February gale, in the brief tail-end of winter. Alarmists were licking their chops in anticipation of all this thin ice melting more swiftly than ice of more normal thickness, but it simply refused to do so. I confess I was amazed by how stubborn the ice proved to be. The only explanation that makes much sense to me is that the water under the ice was colder, due to being “churned up.”
I think most of the melting at the Pole comes from beneath, and is due to the mysteries surrounding dramatic shifts in the northern tendrils of the Gulf Stream, which somehow relates to the warm and cold phases of the AMO. Please send me money in a brown paper bag so I can study this fascinating mystery further. (I have a rough idea of what is happening, but the devil is in the details.)

Brian H
December 13, 2013 8:03 pm

You mean the expense (and revenue) is in the details? (;-)

Brian H
December 14, 2013 3:56 pm

nevket;
Ice moves crust and mantle! Love to have an animation.

John Runberg
December 15, 2013 10:15 am

Oceanography tells us there are currents into and out of the region. Other threads have [dealt] with this. But most studies seem to look at just a “snapshot” of time and very limited vertical region (surface upward). American and [Russian] subs have been operating in and around the arctic for how long? It is my understanding that they monitor salinity, temperature, and other factors that affect sound transmission through water as well as having an affect on navigation. How much of that data is available and added to any studies of the region for a dynamic picture of what is going on?