Arctic sea ice–air interactions weaken El Niño–Southern Oscillation

This genre of paper is interesting. Underlying the research is the assumption that climate model simulations are data or reality. The researchers then perform an in-depth analysis of these PlayStation worlds as if the simulations represented physical reality.

A new study, published in Science Advances by researchers at the University at Albany and Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology in China, has found that these events, which typically occur once every few years, might become even stronger due to melting Arctic sea ice.

Using a combination of climate model simulations and observational data, the researchers found that the current interaction of Arctic sea ice with the atmosphere reduces the strength of El Niño events by up to 17%, compared to when the interaction is removed.

https://phys.org/news/2024-04-atmospheric-scientists-link-arctic-sea.amp

To reach their findings, the researchers performed and analyzed two global climate model simulations for 500 years using the Community Earth System Model from the National Center for Atmospheric Research. The simulations, carried out on a computer hosted at the UAlbany Data Center, had fixed atmospheric CO2 levels, one with sea ice-air interactions in the Arctic, and another without it.

By examining the difference between the two simulations, the researchers found that Arctic sea ice-air interactions weaken El Niño-related variations in the tropical Pacific Ocean by about 12 to 17%, compared to when the interaction was removed.

“The difference between the two model simulations represents the impact of the Arctic sea ice-air coupling, which led to significant changes in tropical Pacific Ocean mean climate states and El Niño–Southern Oscillation strength. This was mainly due to asymmetric impacts of positive and negative sea-ice anomalies on surface fluxes, the exchange of heat crossing the surface between the ocean and the atmosphere,” said Jiechun Deng, an associate professor at Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology and the study’s lead author.

“Our findings highlight the crucial role of sea ice-air interactions in regulating El Niño activity over the tropical Pacific. It calls for a more realistic representation of such interactions in current climate models, to better project El Niño and its various impacts in a warming future.”

https://phys.org/news/2024-04-atmospheric-scientists-link-arctic-sea.amp

Here is the abstract

Abstract

El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) over the tropical Pacific can affect Arctic climate, but whether it can be influenced by the Arctic is unclear. Using model simulations, we show that Arctic sea ice–air interactions weaken ENSO by about 12 to 17%. The northern North Pacific Ocean warms due to increased absorption of solar radiation under such interactions. The warming excites an anomalous tropospheric Rossby wave propagating equatorward into the tropical Pacific to strengthen cross-equator winds and deepen the thermocline. These mean changes dampen ENSO amplitude via weakened thermocline and zonal advective feedbacks. Observed historical changes from 1921–1960 (with strong sea ice–air interactions) to 1971–2000 (with weak interactions) are qualitatively consistent with the model results. Our findings suggest that Arctic sea ice–air interactions affect both the mean state and variability in the tropical Pacific, and imply increased ENSO amplitude as Arctic sea ice and its interactions with the atmosphere diminish under anthropogenic warming.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adk3990

Here is a “summation” of what the researchers “found”.

Arctic–to–tropical Pacific teleconnection

How would the above mean-state changes over the Arctic and northern North Pacific (mainly the BOS region) cause remote mean-state changes over the tropical Pacific? During JJAS, the increased surface net upward energy over the BOS in FC due to the sea ice–air coupling causes tropospheric warming that is largest near the surface and extends to ~200 hPa (Fig. 4A and fig. S8A), which leads to a positive 200-hPa geopotential height (Z200) anomaly (Fig. 4B and fig. S8B) and a negative sea level pressure (SLP) anomaly over the BOS (mainly the Sea of Okhotsk) (Fig. 4C) and thus ascending anomalies there (fig. S8C). The concurring anomalous divergence in the upper troposphere over most of the BOS region can locally generate a negative Rossby wave source (RWS) through the vortex squeezing (see Materials and Methods and fig. S9) and, thus, an anomalous Rossby wave propagating equatorward into the tropical Pacific. Concurrently, decreased air temperature (T) and Z200 with increased SLP are seen over a southwest-northeast zone just south of the BOS, while a negative SLP anomaly is located along ~20°N with weak positive Z200 anomaly (Fig. 4, A to C), featuring a northward tilted structure of such an anomalous Rossby wave (fig. S8B). Note that the increased SLP over the midlatitude North Pacific due to sea ice–air interactions is nearly opposite to that induced by Arctic sea ice loss (i.e., a negative SLP anomaly) noticed previously (24, 25), implying their competing effects on the tropical Pacific mean state and, thus, ENSO variability. The above T changes over the North Pacific north of ~20°N reduce the south-north T gradient and thus upper-level zonal wind along 40°N (fig. S8D), which decelerates the southern part of the mean westerly jet to facilitate the southeastward propagation of the anomalous Rossby wave.

Along with increased SLP over the midlatitude North Pacific, the anticyclonic surface circulation anomaly extends from the east of Japan to the west of North America (Fig. 4C). On one hand, the southwesterly wind anomaly on its northwestern side can transport more warm and moist airmass poleward (fig. S7E) to further warm the SSTs in the BOS region through increased downward LW radiation (Fig. 3I); on the other hand, the northeasterly wind anomaly in the south would strengthen the prevailing trade wind along ~30°N over the North Pacific (Fig. 4C), thus causing cooler SSTs there (Fig. 4D) via the WES feedback (34). Meanwhile, anomalous cyclonic circulation is found in the western tropical Pacific along ~20°N together with a negative SLP anomaly there (Fig. 4C) and anomalous subsidence to its south near ~10°N (fig. S8C). Thus, the anomalous southwesterly wind along its southern flank (north of 10°N) could weaken the prevailing northeasterlies (Fig. 4C), while the anomalous northerly wind to its south (south of 10°N) decreases the mean cross-equator southerlies in the western equatorial Pacific (Fig. 2A). These mean surface wind changes ultimately lead to warmer mean SSTs near the warm pool (Fig. 4D) via the WES feedback. This increases zonal SST gradients that strengthen mean trade winds over the central-eastern tropical Pacific to induce colder SSTs in the east (Fig. 2A), which would, in turn, further intensify surface winds and thus form a positive feedback loop (i.e., the Bjerknes feedback). Such an SST response pattern over the tropical and North Pacific resembles that induced by winter SIC anomalies over the Sea of Okhotsk through increased surface heat fluxes (36), although they appear in different seasons. In addition, the concurring negative anomalies of wind stress curl (fig. S4E) also deepen the thermocline over the central tropical Pacific via Ekman pumping. These mean changes in equatorial trade winds and thermocline depth can substantially weaken ENSO amplitude through dampening the TH and ZA feedbacks as discussed above. The southeastward propagating anomalous Rossby wave (Fig. 4B), excited by anomalous heating over the BOS and northern North Pacific due to sea ice–air interactions, serves as a key bridge that connects the Arctic and tropical Pacific mean-state changes.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adk3990

The Discussion (conclusion)

DISCUSSION

In summary, our model experiments reveal that Arctic sea ice–air interactions can remotely weaken ENSO’s amplitudes and associated variability in other fields in the tropical Pacific by 12 to 17% by modulating the tropical Pacific mean state. The main processes, summarized in Fig. 6, are as follows. During JJAS, sea ice–air interactions would lead to enhanced surface SW absorption, warmer SST, and increased upward energy fluxes over the northern North Pacific (mainly the BOS region) near the MIZ, causing anomalous warming from the surface to around 200 hPa there. Such a heating anomaly forces an anomalous cyclone at the surface over the BOS and an anticyclonic anomaly in the upper troposphere locally; it also excites an anomalous atmospheric Rossby wave propagating equatorward into the tropical Pacific. The Rossby wave creates alternating SLP patterns toward the tropical Pacific, with an anticyclonic response in the midlatitude North Pacific and a cyclonic anomaly around 20°N in the western-central Pacific. The anomalous southwesterly winds over the western-central tropical Pacific act to weaken the mean northeasterly trades, leading to warmer SSTs in the western-central tropical Pacific via the WES feedback and, thus, the enlarged zonal SST gradients over the tropical Pacific. This causes stronger mean trade winds and colder SSTs in the CEP through both Bjerknes and WES feedbacks, together with a slightly deeper mean thermocline in the western-central tropical Pacific by an accumulation of warm waters and Ekman pumping there. As a result, the ENSO amplitude is dampened because of the weakened TH feedback by the deeper mean thermocline and the weakened ZA feedback by the enlarged zonal SST gradient under stronger mean trade winds.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adk3990
Fig. 6. Schematic diagram for the Arctic–to–tropical Pacific teleconnection during JJAS.
The longitude-latitude and longitude-depth panels are the same as Figs. 4D and 2C, respectively. The key processes shown here include the following: (1) Sea ice–air interactions increase surface SW absorption over the northern North Pacific near the MIZ (indicated by dashed lines), but with little SW changes over the central Arctic due to the damping effect of increased low clouds there, leading to strong warming confined to the northern North Pacific (mainly the BOS region); (2) the resultant anomalous atmospheric heating over the BOS excites an anomalous Rossby wave propagating equatorward (gray curve arrows) into the tropical Pacific, with an anticyclone response (labeled as A) over the northern North Pacific and a cyclonic response (labeled as C) over the subtropical Pacific in the upper troposphere (colored solid circles), and the corresponding circulation response at the surface (black dashed circles) is nearly the opposite to that at 200 hPa; (3) the associated low-level southwesterly wind anomaly (solid black arrows between 10° and 20°N) weakens the subtropical mean northeasterly trades and leads to warmer SSTs over the western tropical Pacific and thus increased zonal SST gradients in the equatorial Pacific; (4) the resultant stronger mean trade winds (solid black arrows along the equator) cause colder SSTs in the eastern tropical Pacific that further enlarge zonal SST gradients and thus weaken the ZA feedback; (5) the thermocline over the central-western tropical Pacific is deepened because of the accumulation of warm waters under stronger mean trade winds and the negative anomalies of surface wind stress curl (black circular) through Ekman downwelling (dashed black downward arrows) and thus weakened TH feedback. These processes ultimately weaken ENSO activity.

The discussion continues with the following paragraph, emphasis mine.

Historical changes from P1 (with weak ENSO, strong SIC variations, and likely strong sea ice–air interactions) to P2 (with strong ENSO, weak SIC variations, and likely weak sea ice–air interactions) based on observational and reanalysis data are qualitatively consistent with the model results, such as the surface heat flux–induced teleconnection between the Arctic and tropical Pacific. The historical changes between P1 and P2 appear to be linked to changes in the strength of the sea ice–air interactions over the Pacific sector of the Arctic. Compared with P1, ENSO activity has already strengthened in P2 when the SIC variations become much weaker during JJAS (implying a weakening of the sea ice–air interactions) (fig. S5), although many other factors may also play a role in the real world. Note that the SIC variations have also become relatively stronger after the 1990s (but much weaker than P1 due to large sea ice loss). This implies that the associated stronger sea ice–air interactions might lead to weakened ENSO amplitude and increased CP El Niño occurrence in recent decades (24, 31), which is qualitatively consistent with our model results. However, this observed multidecadal relationship of the SIC variations with ENSO activity and diversity needs further investigation in multiple coupled climate models.

When I read this paper, especially paragraphs such as the above, all I could think of was this.

For brave souls who wish to dive in further, the paper can be found here.

5 7 votes
Article Rating
42 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 7, 2024 2:35 pm

That doesn’t make sense as the region where El-Nino develops is over 1,000 miles away from the Arctic region as there couldn’t be any direct effects on them.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Sunsettommy
April 7, 2024 2:53 pm

Alarmists believe in teleconnections. And they can ‘prove’ them using invalid climate models, as here in this new peer reviewed ‘research’ paper.

Sort of like Uri Geller (famous magician) demonstrating his psychokinetic ability to bend spoons. Except Uri was an entertaining illusionist. Alarmists, not so much.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 7, 2024 3:00 pm

Uri Geller was a stage magician who claimed to be a psychic, and some people did not figure out the magic involved.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 7, 2024 3:20 pm

Yup. To this day you can still find websites and commentaries believing Geller was for real, or trying to debunk his spoon psychokinetics. Both are equally funny.

Sort of like CO2 causes catastrophic global warming. No it doesn’t—no effect at all. Both are also equally ‘funny’—just not really in the latter case.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 7, 2024 3:33 pm

If you want a dose of reality, look up some of the work of James Randi – stage magician and sceptic who exposed many paranormal frauds in his time. You can probably find clips of his appearances on various shows (Penn and Teller being one I think) as well as others – well worth looking up.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Richard Page
April 7, 2024 3:37 pm

That was my thought too. James Randi had a fair number of clips on YouTube debunking Geller.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 7, 2024 3:58 pm

Yup. The really funny thing is Randi fell for Geller’s claim to have psychokinesis, when he was actually just a fellow magic illusionist.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 7, 2024 10:20 pm

Randi didn’t fall for anyone’s psy claims and even offered a $1,000,000 reward to any so-called psychic who could pass his tests – Uri failed!

BCBill
Reply to  Richard Page
April 8, 2024 1:35 am

James Randi was a folk hero and the world really needs somebody with his courage today. With the collapse of science the hocus pocus is growing unchecked . A well educated colleague once gave me a video with some psychic phenomenon that she was really impressed by and challenged me to explain it. I emailed The Amazing Randi and he replied within the hour with a detailed explanation. Contrast that with the spineless pseudo scientific medical community that turns a blind eye to homeopathy, chiropracty, accupuncture, charismatic healing and multiple other brands of nonsense. It takes remarkable courage to stay strong against the onslaught of nonsense and its vindictive proponents armed with their personal anecdotes. James Randi is sorely missed.

Richard Greene
Reply to  BCBill
April 8, 2024 2:44 am

Chiropractors and Acupuncturists offer temporary pain relief for a relative with chronic neck pain.

She gets long term relief from precise, multiple, expensive Botox injections.

But when they wear off, she gets temporary relief with chiropractors and acupuncture until she can fly across several states for an appointment with her doctor in NYC.

Both work for a day or two. That seems like nothing much, but if you had chronic neck pain, it would be a big deal.

Reply to  Richard Greene
April 8, 2024 3:51 am

I used to be skeptical about Chiropractors until I injured my neck and went to one for treatment.

I’m a believer now.

michael hart
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 8, 2024 5:46 am

I agree. Chiropractors are about physical manipulation of the skeleton/musculature. This is standard in professional sports where an understanding of the body’s mechanics clearly makes a difference.

There is also reason to think that there is evidence for acupuncture helping in some conditions, sometimes.

But if I catch Malaria I’m going straight for the drugs.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 8, 2024 10:36 am

The problem with chiropractic is not that it’s not an effective treatment.
The problem is the earlier theory that, since the nerves run through the spine before going to various organs, it could treat problems with the various organs better than “regular” medicine.
I don’t know if or how many Chiropractors still hold that view but that’s likely the root of the animosity between chiropractic and “regular” medicine.
All fields of “the healing arts” have their limits. If those working in the different fields would recognize the strengths and limits of their own field and the same for other fields, we’d all be better off.

Tunnel vision, just like those who claim controlling Man’s CO2 is the way to stop “Climate Change”.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Gunga Din
April 9, 2024 8:50 am

I used to go to a chiropractor and got pain relief for about a week (hip replacement surgery eliminated the pain). He also claimed he could cure diabetes and a host of other ailments. That I don’t believe.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
April 8, 2024 4:59 am

It makes sense, because the folks who came up with this are government supported, who would not get published if their write up did not support government policies.

Coeur de Lion
April 7, 2024 2:36 pm

What do they mean “…up to 17%”? Given ENSO variability even 17% is lost in the experimental noise. Is the Arctic melting?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
April 7, 2024 2:54 pm

Quibbling about reality. Not allowed in the alarmist world.

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
April 8, 2024 3:53 am

“Is the Arctic melting?”

I think that is the key question here. These guys are assuming that warming and arctic melting will continue. If it doesn’t, then their whole theory is out the window.

That’s the problem with climate alarmism: They assume too much.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 9, 2024 8:51 am

Their world is one of straight lines, there are no cycles.

Rud Istvan
April 7, 2024 2:41 pm

Ty, CR.

Absurd. Models do not produce data even if modelers claim otherwise. And with one CMIP6 exception (INM CM5, not used here) they are all provably wrong in several basic fundamental ways. There is no tropical troposphere hotspot in the real world, only in the modeled world. Observational ECS is half of modeled. Thanks to CFL computational constraints, models have to be parameterized. The parameters are required by CMIP to be tuned to best hindcast, which drags in the attribution (natural variation) problem. Comparing model anomalies hides the important basic fact that in actual temperature terms, the ‘best hindcasts’ after parameter tuning vary by about +/-3C—6x the future warming they are supposed to predict. In old military terms: FUBAR; SNAFU.

To assume not so in this particular new miraculously teleconnected Arctic ice/ENSO ‘model research’ paper just shows how poor ‘climate science’ really is.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 7, 2024 3:36 pm

Yep. They looked at two computer programs and found that the programming did a funny thing so they wrote a paper on it and, being educated morons, were unable to distinguish between fantasy computer world and reality.

Reply to  Richard Page
April 8, 2024 10:48 am

Forgive me for putting up these quotes again.

— “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” – Professor Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.

— “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” – Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University.

— “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace.

gezza1298
April 7, 2024 3:12 pm

‘Science Advances’ – hmmm….doesn’t much look like it if they publish stuff like this.

Editor
April 7, 2024 3:28 pm

Well, I reckpn I covered this in Traffic Lights and Roundabouts. In a chaotic system, a tiny error will relentlessly increase in size until it has completely swamped the predictions.

michael hart
Reply to  Mike Jonas
April 8, 2024 5:58 am

The outside observer never gets to know what they did to keep the model from leaving the rails. It is contained nicely in the word “constrained”.

Protein folders do it too. They think they know what the answer ‘should be’, so it becomes intellectually easier to discard results they don’t like.
Of course real experimental scientists always get rogue data that should be discarded, but the slippery slope starts much earlier with people who produced their own “data” via a program they wrote. Failure in the real world teaches better.

April 7, 2024 3:48 pm

There are models and then there is reality.

The attached chart shows the latitudinal changes in OLR and Reflected SW from the inception of CERES data in 2001 to 2023.

Now tell me how and where the “greenhouse effect” is working based on real data. Reflected short wave has gone down more than OLR has gone up. There are two minor exceptions to the overall trend. One near the South Pole and the other just north of the Equator.

How is increasing absorption in the atmosphere of long wave causing an increase in OLR while causing a reduction in reflected sunlight.

Climate models are based on seriously inept understanding of energy transfer. They are a poor joke. Real scientist should all stop playing this silly game of demonising CO2.

Changes_SWR_OLR_01to23
Richard M
Reply to  RickWill
April 8, 2024 7:57 am

That is a very interesting graph and answers a question I have been wondering about. Based on the work of Dr. Bill Gray we should be seeing an increase in convective clouds over the tropics due to the increase in CO2. This is what drives the high altitude negative water vapor feedback and eliminates any hot spot.

The only data I had seen is the CERES data showing an overall reduction in clouds which had me questioning Gray’s work. Your graph shows Gray is right on the mark and it is the rest of the planet that is seeing the cloud reductions.

I noticed Rud once again commenting that CO2 must cause warming. This graph shows why he is wrong.

Reply to  Richard M
April 8, 2024 2:30 pm

Richard
You are correct about CO2 doing next to nothing. It only contributes by way of any added atmospheric mass. The cloud associated with the expanding warm pools in August and September (north of the equator) has a very high negative feedback that achieves a surface cyclic thermal balance when the temperature reaches 30C. The reflection goes up twice the rate that the OLR comes down. So very powerful negative feedback from the convective cloud formation. It is cyclic instability so goes from clear sky to dense cloud over a period of a few days.

Although the chart above shows the negative relationship, it is dampened by the fact that the warm pools north of the Equator do not persist for the whole year while that chart is the difference of whole years.

The chart needs a correction, the scale is out by a factor of 12. I summed months rather than averaged. The increase sunlight being thermalised averages 2.4W/m^2. The increase in OLR averages 1.3W/m^2. I have corrected the scale on attached.

Changes_SWR_OLR_01to23
MarkW
April 7, 2024 4:45 pm

The so called study starts with an assumption that has already been disproven.
That being the claim that less ice means a dramatic warming of Arctic waters as sunlight hits the water instead of bouncing off the ice.

The reality is that the additional energy absorbed by water is miniscule because most of the energy bounces off the water because of the low angle of incidence. In fact it’s hard to say whether there is more light energy absorbed by the ice, especially dirty ice, than by sea water.

Beyond that they ignore the fact that sea ice is an insulator and helps to prevent sea water from losing energy.

All in all, losing sea ice is a strong negative feedback, not the positive one they need it to be.

Reply to  MarkW
April 7, 2024 5:41 pm

In fact it’s hard to say whether there is more light energy absorbed by the ice, especially dirty ice, than by sea water.

There is no month when the Arctic Ocean absorbs net heat through radiation. It is always losing heat. Less ice means it loses more heat through a combination of low angle of incidence and loss of insulation from the ice so more OLR to space. Radiating temperature of open Arctic water around 271K or more. It could be down to 245K with just a thin layer of ice insulating the water surface. That shift in temperature will reduce long wave radiating power by 1/3rd.

Richard M
Reply to  MarkW
April 8, 2024 8:04 am

This is the key to my Arctic sea ice oscillation hypothesis. The insulating properties of the sea ice cause the underlying ocean water to warm, most likely from geothermal heat. Lack of sea ice vents the heat.

Hence, the build up of heat melts ice which then vents the heat allowing more ice to form. Back and forth it goes over a ~60 year cycle. This also drives the AMO cycle.

April 7, 2024 4:47 pm

By examining the difference between the two simulations,…. blah , blah…”

Stupid attribution-style junk…. Just throw it in the circular file and shred it. !!

Gary Pearse
April 7, 2024 5:31 pm

Story tip : Eric W’s story below

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/04/05/mckibben-is-the-fight-against-climate-change-losing-momentum/

is a powerful presentation on the topic of the impossibility of achieving net zero (without going nuclear which ideologue greens won’t consider, even to save the planet), all done by harkening back over a large number of past stories from from WUWT. Reading this has a knockout effect on a reader. It also displays motives of the proponents that have nothing to do with saving the planet. I believe many other topics can be presented to great effect using the same technique. How green are the greens? How concerned about habitat? About endangered species? What the real objectives are that climate is a front for?

Richard Greene
April 8, 2024 2:31 am

I did not read the article past the title. I did not read the study

Based on 26 years of climate reading I am going to predict what the article says:

(1) Here is new climate “knowledge” from our study

(2) It’s new bad news, or old bad news that is worse than previously thought

(3) It may not make sense to science deniers but passed pal review and got published.

(4) It was discovered using confuser games (computer models)

(5) If mentioned, the “cure” is government spending on windmills, and solar panels, and leftist fascism to force Nut Zero on a reluctant general public fille with science deniers.

Was this prediction anything like the actual article, for those with the patience to read it?

April 8, 2024 3:40 am

To reach their findings, the researchers performed and analyzed two global climate model simulations for 500 years …

The IPCC evaluated all of the models used in the CMIP6 cycle against whatever empirical data was available.

NB : “ENSO” is the 7th line. Remember that in this case “red = good, blue = bad“.

CMIP6_CMAT-1-0_Model-performance-summary_111122
michael hart
April 8, 2024 5:36 am

“Underlying the research is the assumption that climate model simulations are data or reality.”

Nailed it in one.

Sparta Nova 4
April 8, 2024 9:20 am

And they got paid how much to come up with this drivel?

Corrigenda
April 8, 2024 9:29 am

Time that these (supposed) scientists with ideas wait until their ideas have been proved before
publishing.

SteveZ56
April 8, 2024 1:31 pm

How do these researchers intend to prevent the atmosphere from interacting with sea ice in the Arctic? You might be able to flip a switch in a model, but not in reality…

April 12, 2024 6:04 am

El Nino episodes cause ~5 month lagged negative North Atlantic Oscillation conditions, and major warm pulses to the AMO lagged by about 8 months, which both reduce the sea ice. This effect is absent during a cold AMO phase. See the AMO anomalies in Augusts 1998, 2005, 2010, 2016:

https://psl.noaa.gov/data/correlation/amon.us.data

NAO index:

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/norm.nao.monthly.b5001.current.ascii.table

April 12, 2024 3:10 pm

In other news, new study shows that low Arctic sea ice extent in 2019 caused a triple La Nina! 🙂