News media back then seemed to think this was a new thing, and downplayed the role of the cyclone is breaking up sea ice, preferring to attribute it to the omnipotent global warming. Apparently it’s just business as usual for the Arctic.
From the Ohio Supercomputer Center
Weather data at the Ohio Supercomputer Center reveals in new study hundreds of smaller storms that had previously escaped detection
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 of these Arctic storms than previously thought, according to a new study of vast troves of weather data that previously were synthesized at the Ohio Supercomputer Center (OSC).
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, Ph.D., professor of geography at The Ohio State University and senior research scientist at the Byrd Polar Research Center.
The cyclone study was presented at the American Geophysical Union meeting in December, 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,” said Bromwich, who amassed the weather database and consulted on the cyclone study.
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 multi-decade 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. ASR provides researchers with high-resolution information against which researchers can validate climate prediction tools.
“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 – and we try to take all of these data and blend them together in a coherent way,” Bromwich said.
To generate the complex visualizations, the ASR group accessed thousands of cores on OSC’s HP-Intel Xeon “Oakley Cluster” and IBM 1350 Opteron “Glenn Cluster” over the last few years to run the complex Polar Weather Research and Forecasting model (Polar WRF). Polar WRF was created by the Polar Meteorology Group of the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State and is a modification of the Weather Research and Forecasting model widely used by researchers and most federal agencies.
The ASR group analyzed 17 surface variables, 71 forecast surface variables, 13 forecast upper air variables and 3 soil variables. The data accumulated for and generated by the model filled hundreds of terabytes of disk space on the center’s IBM Mass Storage System. The combined 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 a 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 more than 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 collaborative effort involving 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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Alarmists have never been the type, to let reality stand in their way….
Another “Inconvient Truth” ?
More (karma) please!
In the fairly near future,at the end of all the madness, when no one ever believed in CAGW anyway, and after countless trillions of dollars have been wasted needlessly, the “science” will have evolved to the position that those of us with any common sense had 25 years ago: That CAGW is a total crock of shit.
What an amazing concept … there are powerful storms in the Arctic instead of it being a winter wonderland … whoda thunk.
Lessee. TSi has an unexpected effect, clouds have an unexpected effect, there are hundreds more Arctic cyclones than they thought, the “#spititofmawson Antarctic ice was unexpected…
I’m glad the science is settled, or the planet might explode in a burst of sheer chaos.
A preliminary report on this information was given at the Fall AGU meeting and reported on here at WUWT:: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/12/ice-melting-arctic-cyclones-more-common-than-previously-thought/
It would be interesting if they could build hypotheses into the Ice Age with their research.
The statement of the upwelling melting the ice, while certainly true, is misleading. The transport of ice to lower latitudes from larger storms is significant. I remember a quiet press release several years ago,,,,,,,,,
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html
If they had let the sentence about not having historical data end without discussions of rapid Arctic changes, it would have been an excellent report. As it is, I’m still happy to see that some of the billions dumped into climate research end up with possibly useful information.
Warmer, less dense, water below colder (denser) water in the Arctic??? Layering due to lack of mixing?
Do tropical cyclones get as large as the pictured storm?
Alan Robertson says:
January 16, 2014 at 6:25 pm
A preliminary report on this information was given at the Fall AGU meeting and reported on here at WUWT:: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/12/ice-melting-arctic-cyclones-more-common-than-previously-thought/
Thanks. I thought claims sounded familiar and was about to go looking for that post.
The supposed experts missed these storms, but we’re supposed to believe their predictions. I don’t think so.
The distortion effect of near-random storms on sea ice is maximized by the bulk of arctic ice reporting being through cherry-picking a single month minimum alone per year. In contrast, the annual average of ice extent is more informative, as visible 3/4ths of the way down in http://img250.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=45311_expanded_overview2_122_15lo.jpg
A bad day for ‘The’ Tren[d]berth.
And a bad day for the 1998 equatorial Pacific ocean temperatures: a combination of instrument change, calibration mismatch and administrative change artifacts from TOA (US) to TRITON (France) to JAMSTEC (Japan). I.e. another ‘inch to millimeter conversion debacle’ and the “NASA probe flies off into the uncharted heavens at taxpayer expense yet again.”
Ha ha
They should turn Eureka! loose on all that data they don’t know what to do with.
Why am I not surprised?
“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.”
If it were compact enough and in June instead of December it might be called a tornado.
Huh. These are model results. These models rely on physics that skeptics deny.
Sounds like proper science to me; observations, interpretation and recognising the limits of the findings.
Let’s not be too cynical here.
If you want to stop the heat under your porridge from making it stick or worse burn you stir it and so spread it throughout and some escapes at the top, so is is with the climate.
Willis, Bob and others have done some great posts about the movement of heat from the tropics to the poles and out to space and this system doesn’t need anyone to stir it, it does it itself. How COOL is that?
James Bull
BBC Hardtalk,Sat and Sunday,1630 and 1930 GMT.Interview with Greenpeace’s Kumi Naidoo.A quote from the trailer “we will find that Arctic ice is the lowest ever recorded in human history”.Should be fun to watch.
Sorry,tomorrow 18th and 19th of January.
I am not a scientist, ( these guys are not enhancing that name btw) So why didn’t any of them do this little bit of math?:
2000 to 2010, 1900 “cyclones”. If my math is correct that is 190 “cyclones” each year, that means there was at least a “cyclone” every second day, (okay, even slightly less then 2 days). What really bothers me is the fact that this David Bromwhich Phd. has people supporting this. Are his co-authors or supporters not allowed to question each other? (let alone their boss?).
We have had: Global Warming, Climate Change, Polar Vortexes. And now hundreds of cyclones every year, I am trying to find a new money sucking word as I speak. I am sure these guys have many , many more people working on that “project” alone and have morning meetings to find out if there is a new word of the day. (have they used blocking high’s, jet stream permutations and a fart in a wind storm yet? just asking). This is beyond ridiculous. BTW, there are as all of you know standards to get to before the word “Cyclone” is designated. (just in case D.B. is reading this).
Off the top of my head, I can’t remember the correct term for the effect but what I see here is a gradual reduction in ice cover leading to the remaining ice being more susceptible to disruption by storms. Once there is enough open water, a storm will lead to greater mixing of the thermal layers which leads to a net loss of energy(warm surface water losing energy quicker than cold water). The more energy released to the atmosphere, the more storms. When enough energy has been lost, the surface ice returns to its normal extent and the whole cycle starts again.
5 per day? I guess they are small in nature, but when there are no wind breaks, even a small breeze can make changes.