Scientists explain the peculiar interplay that exists between sea-ice decline, wave height, and ice cloud formation over the Arctic
RESEARCH ORGANIZATION OF INFORMATION AND SYSTEMS
CREDIT: NIPR/JAMSTEC/KITAMI INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Some of the most well-known and feared aspects of climate change are its potential effects on weather patterns and how this could accelerate the melting of natural ice. Research has already proved that the area of sea-ice in the Arctic is rapidly declining due to global warming, and that temperature and moisture content across the Arctic have changed substantially. Unfortunately, understanding exactly how these changes affect cloud formation in the region is very challenging, and cloud composition and phase are important aspects to consider in predictive numerical models.
In a recent study published in Geophysical Research Letters, a team of scientists led by Dr. Jun Inoue of the National Institute of Polar Research, Japan, sought to answer a peculiar question: can higher waves in the Arctic Sea promote the development of ice-containing clouds? This question may seem strange at first, because most people would not have fathomed that a link could exist between those two natural phenomena. However, as the findings of this study indicate, it’s likely that there is one.
The field data used in the study was gathered in November 2018 during an expedition to the Chukchi Sea in the Arctic region aboard RV Mirai, a Japanese research vessel. Previous studies in the area had revealed that the sea-ice decline in the Arctic led to more frequent active weather systems, stronger winds, and taller waves. The research team suspected that these factors could affect cloud formation and composition because crashing waves and strong winds can cause organic particles on the sea surface to become dispersed through the atmosphere in the form of sea spray. Once these suspended organic particles reach an altitude high enough, they act as “seeds” that facilitate the formation of ice crystals, earning them the name of “ice-nucleating particles” (INPs). These ice crystals keep growing by freezing the surrounding water droplets, thereby forming what’s known as ice clouds.
To prove this hypothesis, Dr. Inoue and his crew on the RV Mirai periodically deployed various measurement instruments at key locations in the Chukchi Sea over the course of 12 days. Cloud particle sensors were balloon-launched from the ship to analyze the phase of clouds, ambient aerosols were regularly sampled on board for chemical analysis, and wave height and wind speed measurements were constantly made. Moreover, the researchers conducted turbidity measurements from different depths to clarify the relationship between weather and oceanic conditions.
After analyzing all the gathered data, the scientists managed to paint a clearer, evidence-supported view of the situation. “Chukchi Sea is relatively shallow, with a mean depth of only 40 meters. There, a mixed ocean layers develops and taps into the seafloor, which cloud provide a reservoir of INPs that get lifted by turbulent kinetic energy,” explains Dr. Inoue, “Sea spray induced by strong winds and high waves brings these INPs to the atmosphere, promoting the formation of ice clouds.” He adds that this is one of the first papers to simultaneously link oceanic structure, sea surface conditions, and aerosol and cloud characteristics.
The insight gained from this study is very important if we are to accurately predict the effects of global warming on the Arctic. Ice clouds reflect much less shortwave solar radiation than water clouds, and thus the phase of clouds greatly affects the surface heat budget of the polar regions. They may also increase the amount of snowfall, which in turn positively affects sea-ice formation. “Understanding the relationship between cloud formation and the new sea state originating from the recent Arctic sea-ice decline is critical for skillful weather and sea-ice forecasts, as well as future climate projections,” highlights Dr. Inoue. Let us hope further studies in the Arctic allow us to elucidate all the fine details and hidden interactions that dictate the weather so that the consequences of climate change don’t catch us off-guard.
###
About National Institute of Polar Research, Japan
Founded in 1973, the National Institute of Polar Research (NIPR) is an inter-university research institute that conducts comprehensive scientific research and observations in the polar regions. NIPR is one of the four institutes constituting the Research Organization of Information and Systems (ROIS) and engages in comprehensive research via observation stations in the Arctic and Antarctica. It strives to promote polar science by soliciting collaboration research projects publicly, as well as by providing samples, materials, and information. NIPR plays a special role as the only institute in Japan that comprehensively pursues observations and research efforts in both the Antarctic and Arctic regions.
Website: https://www.nipr.ac.jp/english/index.html
About Dr. Jun Inoue from National Institute of Polar Research, Japan
Jun Inoue obtained a Ph.D. in Environmental Earth Science from Hokkaido University, Japan, in 2001. He is currently affiliated to the National Institute of Polar Research, a member of the Research Organization of Information and Systems, Japan. His research interests lie on atmosphere–ice–ocean interactions centered on meteorology in relation to global warming and climate change.
About the Research Organization of Information and Systems (ROIS)
The Research Organization of Information and Systems (ROIS) is a parent organization of four national institutes (National Institute of Polar Research, National Institute of Informatics, the Institute of Statistical Mathematics and National Institute of Genetics) and the Joint Support-Center for Data Science Research. It is ROIS’s mission to promote integrated, cutting-edge research that goes beyond the barriers of these institutions, in addition to facilitating their research activities, as members of inter-university research institutes.
JOURNAL
Geophysical Research Letters
DOI
from EurekAlert!
“Research has already proved that the area of sea-ice in the Arctic is rapidly declining due to global warming,” Que??
Dear researchers, please do try to find your way to this site:
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Good timing too as it is exactly at the median (11 below and 11 above, 2000 – 2021 inclusive) as 2021 passed its minimum a couple of days ago. It turned the corner around 2007 and went into a trough and now it’s probably headed back up to 1979 levels.
Tut tut griff, I thought you had volunteered for the updates. Too embarrassed to reprise your prediction of third highest, with my prediction being twelfth highest?
The paper may still have some validity but I can’t be bothered to read it.
When a scientist embarks on a journey “to prove this hypothesis…,” well, that shit can go into a garbage can.
Climate “science” is a butthole with infinite volume.
That’s why they can pull out whatever they want out of their ass – in endless quantities.
And that’s the reason why everything is shit they come up with and everything turns to shit they touch.
If we’re being scrupulously fair: That wording probably belongs to a paid writer of some sort.
For sure, gathering evidence to support a hypothesis is crap science of the worst sort. It’s Michael Mann bad.
The way it’s supposed to be done is to use the hypothesis to generate a unique prediction, one that would not have been made without the hypothesis. Then you devise an experiment to test the prediction. If that pans out, the best you can say is that the hypothesis has not been proven wrong. Feynman
I’m guessing that most scientists can repeat something like the above paraphrase of Feynman. Sadly, there is a distressing number of them who act like they don’t believe it.
I am sure you are amazed at how many scientists today and non-scientists think that an hypothesis is “proven” to be true by correlations. No experiments necessary to verify how, when, and why the hypothesis does work, only that two correlated variables are sufficient.
example = all people that drink water die, so the hypothesis that drinking water kills is verified?
The punchline to this is also a great example. RIP Norm Macdonald:
No correlation necessary.
Any semblance of similarity is called a “correlation” without all of that fussy proof business.
It’s why they spend so much time, effort and expenditures reprocessing data so they can claim the flimsiest similarities are “correlated”.
I wonder if they show graphs of the claimed phenomenon. Do such studies ever show graphed data? Seems like a bunch of hand waving.
That’s not how climate science works.
1)First comes the bold prediction/discovery
2)then you make up the data(but only if your stuff goes viral otherwise it’s wiser to use the time to make up new bold predictions instead of making up data for an old failed trick.)
3)If your lie succeeds you must constantly come up with new data and spectacular discoveries and important predictions.
It is necessary to make things appear supercomplicated to create the impression that only god and you and a chosen few are smart enough to understand the stuff .
It is also necessary to keep moving (the goalposts,the definitions).As soon as the lie stops moving it can be pinned down,therefore the lie needs exponential growth to exist.
A pyramid scheme of fear and misinformation so to say.
As soon as the lie stops moving it can be pinned down, therefore the lie needs exponential growth to exist. A pyramid scheme of fear and misinformation so to say.
“Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive.”
Sir Walter Scott
It looks like the sea ice minimum occurred around the 14th or 15th of this month. …
Depending of the 3 existing datasets, they had 3 dates:
11: /seaice.uni-bremen.de/data/amsr2/
12: /osisaf.met.no/
13: /sidads.colorado.edu
The 16th on NSIDC: 4,724,000 sq Km
the “climate” is not a force, it has NO power and has never caused even one weather event.
Right just by the definition of climate 😀
and THAT is the point……..they are claiming the climate is CAUSING weather and that is NOT possible, and anybody with grade school science education would KNOW that, the past has NO control over the future
And vice versa 😀
They would have us believe that an average of something is causing a variation or an extreme version of itself. Talk about a causal fallacy.
i enjoy sports and like the analogy from them does a batters batting average control or cause the result of his next at bat?
At best, his average will cause some interest at his next trade … or not.
And plays havoc in the fantasy baseball leagues.
One Portuguese coach once answered a journalist about what he was expecting from the next game: “Prognostics, only after the end of the game!”
And yet everything that happens in the future depends on things that happened in the past.
The term itself is a nonsense. Our planet has no climate. It has a coupled, non-linear chaotic system of discrete local climates which cannot be averaged because they have already been averaged to death, Averages of averages of averaged discrete information is meaningless for any practical purpose.
Beware of averages, the average person has one breast and one testicle. Dixie Lee Ray
Very true … such people are becoming increasingly common. I often ponder; if the average person in hospital has a temperature of 98.6 F, why are we spending so much on the sick?
Averages of averages is bad math, period.
And yet that is what passes for “data” these days.
when there is MORE ice today in 2021 than there was on this day in 2007 how on earth is that a “rapid decline”?…..that line alone renders that entire story is utter nonsense
Ever heard of “upside down” ? 😀 😀
Yes.
It’s a term used by car salesmen.
It happens when your debt payments have not kept pace with your debt plus depreciation.
Maybe arcticice is like money.
Even if you have 30% more money than 10 years ago
you are a poorer person if the inflation during the same timeframe was 50%.
(the reason this can happen is that people don’t know the difference between currency and money )
We already know that melting ice has no volume,
as we have all the time all the recordmelt all around the world for many many years – but there is no sea level rise.
Therefore an inflation in sea ice can cause a recession in sea ice.
Yeah, but but the “WAVE HEIGHT IS HIGHER”… which means there is more water in the waves; and if there is more water in the waves, then there is less water on the coasts. Which explains why there is not a single high quality long term tide gauge shows accelerated sea level rise, which then explains why Obama owns a seaside estate on Martha’s Vineyard.
So, Willie Soon was right: ~ if the excess meltwater stays out in the middle of the ocean, as measured by satellites, it isn’t a problem for humans.
It all makes sense, if you think it through…
Yet, the National Weather Service (NWS) hasn’t increased their wave height weather predictions.
So some one is lying about wave heights, and it isn’t NWS.
…feared aspects…accelerate the melting…rapidly declining…changed substantially. Unfortunately…
Alternatively: “My God, it’s full of stars…”.
Yes, one of them might actually have realised that the universe is more complex than their computer simulations of the aforementioned universe.
For several decades Woodcock studied surface phenomena, both above and below. All sorts of near surface ocean materials, from living and plankton pieces, bacteria, and various aerosols to even clays from shallow turbid water can be ejected. Good to see somebody studying it, also in turbid water, despite usual modern bias. When you spend turbulent time at sea you see some of this, so give them some credit for the chilling real oceanographic cruise with data as cold dense air should have some differences from most of the ocean. We all know about EurekAlert! the wolf howling.
A couple–Woodcock, A. H. 1953. Salt nuclei in marine air as a function of altitude and wind force. J. Atmospheric Science. 10(5):362–371. 1955. Bursting bubbles and air pollution. Sewage Industrial Wastes. 27(10):1189-1292.
Hee, hee, hee. My first question early in reading the above was ‘ wouldn’t the nucleating particles also nucleate snow forming clouds?’ Behold: “They may also increase the amount of snowfall, which in turn positively affects sea-ice formation.” This shows that the results were pre-ordained and alternative scenarios were not investigated.
Anyway, Arctic sea ice has not been in decline for about 14 years.
Alarmists around the world have either just jumped out of their seats raging, or fainted.
Such a sweet thought!
They state:
“Previous studies in the area had revealed that the sea-ice decline in the Arctic led to more frequent active weather systems, stronger winds, and taller waves”.
The reality is:
Stronger winds, and taller waves from frequent active weather systems cause sea ice decline.
Talk about back to front.
https://eos.org/articles/strong-winds-leave-arctic-regions-on-thin-ice
All we need is a drop in Artic sea ice? https://electroverse.net/sharp-uptick-in-arctic-sea-ice-extent/. What years were they looking at?
I remember being in the arctic during the fall. (Usually I went in the spring.) You could tell where the edge of the ice was because there would be fog banks towering into the sky. The weather was pretty calm so I don’t expect the ocean waves were exceptional. (There’s almost always wind in the arctic.)
So, as far as I can tell, depending on the season, the mere presence of open water causes clouds. I’d surprised if wave height were more than a secondary effect. I’d also expect that air temperature and water temperature would matter a lot.
All that heat escaping…
“To prove this hypothesis, Dr. Inoue and his crew on the RV Mirai periodically deployed various measurement instruments at key locations in the Chukchi Sea over the course of 12 days.”
A whole 12 days? Is this what passes for an extensive study now?
Probably 3 times longer than they planned.
They were seasick the first 11 days.
“…periodically deployed various measurement instruments at key locations in the Chukchi Sea over the course of 12 days.”
They stuck thermometers in the ocean for 12 days.
Where is their proof of no ice in Arctic? Missed that part, apparently.
They get the lies in fast and early
Research has already proved that the area of sea-ice in the Arctic is rapidly declining due to global warming
To quote the late, great David Bellamy: “Poppycock”.
“if we are to accurately predict the effects of global warming”
I can’t take this seriously, fortunately for them their paymasters do.
Demmed disappointing chaps! I was expecting Arctic ice to bottom out at 5 Wadhams this year. Only 4.71! (Prof Wadhams predicted no ice summer 2013 er 2014 er 2015 er 1Msqkm 2016 thus 1Msqkm is a ‘Wadham’) I don’t think Arctic ice is melting actually.
So yet another negative feedback system exists, thwarting a persistent rise in temps.
Hmm. It’s almost like this whole CAGW hypothesis is simply wrong.
“Research has already proved that the area of sea-ice in the Arctic is rapidly declining due to global warming”
No it has not. Arctic warming has been dominated by weaker solar wind states since 1995 increasing negative North Atlantic Oscillation states and driving a warmer AMO. That has increased cloud cover over the Arctic Ocean since then.