Arctic Ice: How Does It Influence Our Weather?

[Methuselah]

I think it's just weather, and trying to pin short term trends on ice levels hundreds of miles away is pointless.

As with Sunspot Number, Solar UV, El Nino, AMO, QBO, local albedo etc, etc, etc, the state of the Arctic ice is merely one of a myriad influences...?

[4wd]

Interacting influences?

[Methuselah]

Interacting influences?

Indeed.

[Gray-Wolf]

With the nasty looking storm forecast for the Svalbard region I got to thinking what if we saw a run of such strong features driving ice so fast it ended up off the north of Scotland and entering the north Sea? Would folk expect such an event to influence the weather patterns that we see? Could we exepct such cold temps locally to lead to cyclogenesis to our north ( and not off Greenland)?? 

[mikeworst]

With the nasty looking storm forecast for the Svalbard region I got to thinking what if we saw a run of such strong features driving ice so fast it ended up off the north of Scotland and entering the north Sea? Would folk expect such an event to influence the weather patterns that we see? Could we exepct such cold temps locally to lead to cyclogenesis to our north ( and not off Greenland)?? 

You really need to stop this weird speculation thing GW. What if?. 

[Gray-Wolf]

I know Mike but I do find it helps to think 'outside the envelope'? Who's have thought 2007' could have befallen then Arctic back in 2006 eh? Never say never an' all of that.........

 

Should we see all of the current 2m ice exit Fram on a Hurricane force wind whose to say some of it will not make it far further south than under 'normal' circumstances?

 

To see the ice area suddenly decide to become second lowest after all the hype of it being 6th lowest? well? what next?

Edited November 11, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Devonian]

You really need to stop this weird speculation thing GW. What if?. 

 

Thinking? We can't have that can we

[Methuselah]

You really need to stop this weird speculation thing GW. What if?. 

Isn't everything that relates to the future 'speculation', to some extent, Mike?

[Methuselah]

With the nasty looking storm forecast for the Svalbard region I got to thinking what if we saw a run of such strong features driving ice so fast it ended up off the north of Scotland and entering the north Sea? Would folk expect such an event to influence the weather patterns that we see? Could we exepct such cold temps locally to lead to cyclogenesis to our north ( and not off Greenland)?? 

Of course not, Ian...Anthony Watts would claim that the icebergs were all made out of polystyrene! 

[4wd]

What would happen if all the Arctic Ice somehow broke lose and choked the North Sea is too speculative to ...umm... speculate about.The polar bears would fight with foxes for kebab leftovers in London streets probably.And the ferry from Hull to Rotterdam would be somewhat delayed.

[Gray-Wolf]

Four, you were one of the first to try and say that less ice could not impact weather. now you're trying to dodge the impacts of what too much ice would do. Either ice levels impact weather or they do not. I know what 'I know' and that tells me that ice plays it's part in local, regional and global weather patterns.

[4wd]

Changes in Arctic ice won't make much difference here for the most part, you didn't ask what difference it would make if ice was 10 miles away.Feasible changes that is,there will always be a great deal of ice for most of the year even if your cherished idea of melt-out occurs briefly in September some years.

[Gray-Wolf]

I think that you understand full well where we are headed with this four? If local ice can impact local climates then expanding that to 'regional ice levels will impact regionally and so changes in global ice levels will impact globally?

 

We are seeing global changes to the ice/snow cover we historically had and so should expect, via the myriad of teleconnections, for that to impact here ( surely?). 

 

Let's not hide away in pedantry and be brave enough to discuss the topic eh?

[Methuselah]

Changes in Arctic ice won't make much difference here for the most part, you didn't ask what difference it would make if ice was 10 miles away.Feasible changes that is,there will always be a great deal of ice for most of the year even if your cherished idea of melt-out occurs briefly in September some years.

The veracity (or not) of that statement might be something we are about to discover, 4? Though, I suspect (by way of a few very simple thought experiments) that if all the Arctic sea-ice were to suddenly disappear, there would be significant effects on our weather. Likewise, were ice to extend further south than Iceland and the Faeroe Islands?

[Gray-Wolf]

This was what I was trying to highlight Pete. Be it more ice or less ice surely we should expect it to 'make a difference' to climate ( however limited?)?

 

At times it appears that some folk are loathe to admit that if you alter some area of the climate system that you should , reasonably, expect it to impact the system as a whole?

 

This is what I believe we see here?

 

The changes to the Arctic, esp. since 07', have been so rapid that I believe the climate has not had the time to fully adjust to the new forcings. Nor will it as the change is still ongoing there but some of the impacts there will bring instant augmentations. The proposed Jet stream changes, I believe ,are such a change?

 

If the loss of 1/3 of the ice cover over a limited time span each year is capable of driving such change ( and the 'stuck weather' patterns it brings with it) then surely we should expect much more from an open water basin soaking up energy for 3 months per year or more?

 

To me it would make more sense if the folk who think it will bring little or no change to our weather would explain just how this could work, just how such a flood of energy could be diffused without driving climatic change?

[BornFromTheVoid]

 

Paper looks legit
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/11209/2013/acp-13-11209-2013.html

Restricting the analysis to the 1998–2011 period, however, all the reanalyses show a cooling trend in the Arctic-mean 500 hPa temperature in autumn, and this also applies to both observations and the reanalyses when restricting the analysis to the locations with available IGRA radiosoundings. During this period, the surface observations mainly representing land areas surrounding the Arctic Ocean reveal no summertime trend, in contrast with the reanalyses whether restricted to the locations of the available surface observations or not. 

 

 

One interesting thing about this paper, is it would throw some additional doubt on the Francis and Vavrus theory of Arctic Amplification and its link with mid-latitude weather extremes.

[Interitus]

 

 

 

 

One interesting thing about this paper, is it would throw some additional doubt on the Francis and Vavrus theory of Arctic Amplification and its link with mid-latitude weather extremes.

 

 

Don't think that this is necessarily the case as their work considers the changes that have occurred in the Arctic atmosphere which this paper does not contradict. Whether the effect is reducing, or the degree of natural variability either way is another matter.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Don't think that this is necessarily the case as their work considers the changes that have occurred in the Arctic atmosphere which this paper does not contradict. Whether the effect is reducing, or the degree of natural variability either way is another matter.

 

The Francis and Vavrus paper suggests that warming is increasing the 500hPa geopotential heights and 1000-500hPa thickness across the Arctic, with the strongest trends in Autumn and Winter, reducing the poleward thickness gradient and reducing the upper level zonal flow. This based on the NCEP reanalysis.

The geopotential heights and thickness, I'd imagine, should be related to the 500hPa warming trends. Given that the Chung et al. paper suggests an Autumn cooling trend since 1998, and a weak Winter warming trend, for the 500hPa level, I think that would cast some doubt on the trends (or at least their statistical significance) identified by the Francis and Vavrus study.

[Interitus]

The Francis and Vavrus paper suggests that warming is increasing the 500hPa geopotential heights and 1000-500hPa thickness across the Arctic, with the strongest trends in Autumn and Winter, reducing the poleward thickness gradient and reducing the upper level zonal flow. This based on the NCEP reanalysis.

The geopotential heights and thickness, I'd imagine, should be related to the 500hPa warming trends. Given that the Chung et al. paper suggests an Autumn cooling trend since 1998, and a weak Winter warming trend, for the 500hPa level, I think that would cast some doubt on the trends (or at least their statistical significance) identified by the Francis and Vavrus study.

 

The Chung paper shows that the NCEP reanalysis matches 500mb observations quite well, including a decrease in temperature between 1998-2011 which surely would have affected the results of Frances and Vavrus if it was an issue. Their comparison of 1970-99 thicknesses with 2000-10 may still be valid as Chung et al agree that average Autumn temperatures increased at all levels for observations and reanalyses over the period as a whole.

Regarding thicknesses in particular between 1998-2011, this is proportional to the average temperature of the whole layer and the lower levels warmed more than the 500mb cooled which could suggest increasing thicknesses over this period (though this averaged temperature is an imprecise estimate of the actual temperature profile).

But agreed, any work related to reanalysis must be viewed with caution, especially over areas with scant observational data such as the Arctic - as Chung et al point out, the significance of some of their results is likewise affected by having only 34 radiosonde sites.

[BornFromTheVoid]

The Chung paper shows that the NCEP reanalysis matches 500mb observations quite well, including a decrease in temperature between 1998-2011 which surely would have affected the results of Frances and Vavrus if it was an issue. Their comparison of 1970-99 thicknesses with 2000-10 may still be valid as Chung et al agree that average Autumn temperatures increased at all levels for observations and reanalyses over the period as a whole.

Regarding thicknesses in particular between 1998-2011, this is proportional to the average temperature of the whole layer and the lower levels warmed more than the 500mb cooled which could suggest increasing thicknesses over this period (though this averaged temperature is an imprecise estimate of the actual temperature profile).

But agreed, any work related to reanalysis must be viewed with caution, especially over areas with scant observational data such as the Arctic - as Chung et al point out, the significance of some of their results is likewise affected by having only 34 radiosonde sites.

 

Yup, looks like the 500hPa Autumn cooling from 1998 to 2011 is still there, but less strong on the NCEP data (-0.6C over 14 year using the timeseries data here) than the GISTEMP and radiosonde (-1C) data used in the study, but still within the margin of error. The 925hPa warming is very different, +1.8C over 14 years with the NCEP reanalysis and just +0.3C from obs. 

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nclimate2065?utm_campaign=readcube_access&utm_source=nature.com&utm_medium=purchase_option&utm_content=thumb_version

 

Another Study posing the question of a link between Arctic melt and weather impacts further south.

 

EDIT: and this;

 

http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nclimate2079?utm_campaign=readcube_access&utm_source=nature.com&utm_medium=purchase_option&utm_content=thumb_version

 

I'm still not quite getting my head around the 500hpa temp drops paper?

 

Am I right in thinking that the physical height you find this pressure at varies with surface pressure and so temps might vary if we saw certain pressure anoms at ground level?

Edited December 9, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[mikeworst]

If you are trying to push a point what is thegood of putting up a " pay" article/paper?. Sort of makes me think that you have not read it either. 

[knocker]

http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nclimate2065?utm_campaign=readcube_access&utm_source=nature.com&utm_medium=purchase_option&utm_content=thumb_version

 

Another Study posing the question of a link between Arctic melt and weather impacts further south.

 

EDIT: and this;

 

http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nclimate2079?utm_campaign=readcube_access&utm_source=nature.com&utm_medium=purchase_option&utm_content=thumb_version

 

I'm still not quite getting my head around the 500hpa temp drops paper?

 

Am I right in thinking that the physical height you find this pressure at varies with surface pressure and so temps might vary if we saw certain pressure anoms at ground level?

 

If I'm getting your meaning correctly GW the 500MB height above mean sea level is dependent on pressure and temperature. Initially you calculate the 1000MB height using the surface pressure and temperature. If the pressure is below 1000mb it will be negative. Then the temperature profile is used between 1000MB-500MB to calculate the thickness between the two levels. The two are then added together to obtain the 500MB height.

 

Thus the colder the layer the lower the height and vice versa. The same applies to the surface pressure. To answer your question a surface pressure anomaly would effect the height but I would think it would be very small depending on the size of the anomaly of course.

 

In the old days this was calculated by hand using a thermodynamic diagram, I wish I had a pound for the times I've done this, but I assume these days they use the equations. I would repress the urge to go there. Hope this helps.

Edited December 9, 2013 by knocker

[BornFromTheVoid]

If you are trying to push a point what is thegood of putting up a " pay" article/paper?. Sort of makes me think that you have not read it either.

Most peer reviewed papers, especially new ones, are behind paywalls, Mike. Usually we have to make do with the abstracts and reviews of the papers, which is very often the case on this forum when it comes to the latest research. Surprised you hadn't noticed this?

[mikeworst]

Better then to post the review don't you think? Otherwise a chocolate teapot is of more use, at least it is tasty.