United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Warming North Atlantic water tied to heating Arctic, according to new study
Source:
University of Colorado Boulder.
URL Source: http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/9059018f4606597f20dc4965fa9c9104.html
Published: Jan 28, 2011
Author: University of Colorado Boulder.
Post Date: 2011-01-28 15:02:44 by go65
Keywords: None
Views: 7042
Comments: 14
The temperatures of North Atlantic Ocean water flowing north into the Arctic Ocean adjacent to Greenland -- the warmest water in at least 2,000 years -- are likely related to the amplification of global warming in the Arctic, says a new international study involving the University of Colorado Boulder. Led by Robert Spielhagen of the Academy of Sciences, Humanities and Literature in Mainz, Germany, the study showed that water from the Fram Strait that runs between Greenland and Svalbard -- an archipelago constituting the northernmost part of Norway -- has warmed roughly 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past century. The Fram Strait water temperatures today are about 2.5 degrees F warmer than during the Medieval Warm Period, which heated the North Atlantic from roughly 900 to 1300 and affected the climate in Northern Europe and northern North America. The team believes that the rapid warming of the Arctic and recent decrease in Arctic sea ice extent are tied to the enhanced heat transfer from the North Atlantic Ocean, said Spielhagen. According to CU- Boulder's National Snow and Ice Data Center, the total loss of Arctic sea ice extent from 1979 to 2009 was an area larger than the state of Alaska, and some scientists there believe the Arctic will become ice- free during the summers within the next several decades. "Such a warming of the Atlantic water in the Fram Strait is significantly different from all climate variations in the last 2,000 years," said Spielhagen, also of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Keil, Germany. According to study co-author Thomas Marchitto, a fellow at CU-Boulder's Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, the new observations are crucial for putting the current warming trend of the North Atlantic in the proper context. "We know that the Arctic is the most sensitive region on the Earth when it comes to warming, but there has been some question about how unusual the current Arctic warming is compared to the natural variability of the last thousand years," said Marchitto, also an associate professor in CU-Boulder's geological sciences department. "We found that modern Fram Strait water temperatures are well outside the natural bounds." A paper on the study will be published in the Jan. 28 issue of Science. The study was supported by the German Research Foundation; the Academy of Sciences, Humanities and Literature in Mainz, Germany; and the Norwegian Research Council. Other study co-authors included Kirstin Werner and Evguenia Kandiano of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Steffen Sorensen, Katarzyna Zamelczyk, Katrine Husum and Morten Hald from the University of Tromso in Norway and Gereon Budeus of the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven, Germany. Since continuous meteorological and oceanographic data for the Fram Strait reach back only 150 years, the team drilled ocean sediment cores dating back 2,000 years to determine past water temperatures. The researchers used microscopic, shelled protozoan organisms called foraminifera -- which prefer specific water temperatures at depths of roughly 150 to 650 feet -- as tiny thermometers. In addition, the team used a second, independent method that involved analyzing the chemical composition of the foraminifera shells to reconstruct past water temperatures in the Fram Strait, said Marchitto. The Fram Strait branch of the North Atlantic Current is the major carrier of oceanic heat to the Arctic Ocean. In the eastern part of the strait, relatively warm and salty water enters the Arctic. Fed by the Gulf Stream Current, the North Atlantic Current provides ice-free conditions adjacent to Svalbard even in winter, said Marchitto. "Cold seawater is critical for the formation of sea ice, which helps to cool the planet by reflecting sunlight back to space," said Marchitto. "Sea ice also allows Arctic air temperatures to be very cold by forming an insulating blanket over the ocean. Warmer waters could lead to major sea ice loss and drastic changes for the Arctic." The rate of Arctic sea ice decline appears to be accelerating due to positive feedbacks between the ice, the Arctic Ocean and the atmosphere, Marchitto said. As Arctic temperatures rise, summer ice cover declines, more solar heat is absorbed by the ocean and additional ice melts. Warmer water may delay freezing in the fall, leading to thinner ice cover in winter and spring, making the sea ice more vulnerable to melting during the next summer. Air temperatures in Greenland have risen roughly 7 degrees F in the past several decades, thought to be due primarily to an increase in Earth's greenhouse gases, according to CU-Boulder scientists. "We must assume that the accelerated decrease of the Arctic sea ice cover and the warming of the ocean and atmosphere of the Arctic measured in recent decades are in part related to an increased heat transfer from the Atlantic," said Spielhagen.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: go65 (#0)
CU? Isn't that the crap college that is responsible for the whole Ward Churchill scandal? Another home run, go.
Well, [war's] got to do something for attention, his multiple personalities aren't speaking to him any more, and his imaginary friends keep finding excuses not to come over.
More Global "Warming" Hysteria.... "There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." -- go65, LF's answer to Ben Bernanke --
“Air temperatures in Greenland have risen roughly 7 degrees F in the past several decades”. In those remote locations like Nuuk, Greenland, what have we there? Remote pockets of humanity. Humanity building little cities of warmth in the cold Arctic, growing cities: With 15,469 inhabitants as of 2010, Nuuk is the fastest-growing town in Greenland, with migrants from the smaller towns and settlements reinforcing the trend. Together with Tasiilaq, it is the only town in the Sermersooq municipality exhibiting stable growth patterns over the last two decades. The population increased by over a quarter relative to the 1990 levels, and by nearly 16 percent relative to the 2000 levels. Nuuk population growth dynamics in the last two decades. Source: Statistics Greenland Nuuk is not only a growing city, where UHI might now be a factor (but don’t take my word for it, see what NASA had to say about it at AGU this year), it is also a place where the official GHCN thermometers used by NASA are right next to human influences…like turboprop jet exhaust, such as this one in Nuuk’s airport right on the tarmac: Nuuk Airport looking Southwest Image: Panaramio via Google Earth Hmmm, I wonder what happened in Nuuk? The plot below is from NASA GISS (see it yourself here). That “instant global warming” line seems out of character for natural variation in Nuuk. Note the data discontinuity. Often that suggests a station move and/or a change in station environment. Sometimes a line like that with indicates airport construction near the thermometer, something I documented here. And here’s the interesting thing. Nuuk is just one data point, one “raging red” anomaly in the sparsely spaced hands-on-human-measured NASA GISS surface temperature dataset for the Arctic. The patterns of warm pockets of humanity with airports and GHCN stations repeat themselves all over the Arctic, because as anyone who has visited the Arctic knows, aviation is the lifeline of these remote communities. And where do they measure the weather data? At the airport of course. Aviation doesn’t work otherwise. See my complete report on the weird temperatures from Nuuk here. And while you are at it, read my report about the weird temperatures from Svalbaard, another warm single data point from NASA GISS. Interestingly, at that station a local citizen did some science and proved the UHI effect at the airport. Yes these are just two examples. But there is no denying these facts: * Remote communities in the Arctic are islands of anthropogenic warmth * These communities rely of aviation as a lifeline * The weather is measured at these airports, it is required for safety * Airports release huge amounts of waste heat, from exhaust, de-icing, terminal buildings, and even tarmac in the sun. * The majority of GHCN weather stations (used by NASA GISS) in the Arctic are at airports. Remember Nuuk and Svalbarrd’s thermometers, and then ask Jim Hansen why NASA GISS, a “space studies agency”, doesn’t use satellite data but instead relies upon a surface record that another division of NASA says likely has significant UHI effects that NASA GISS doesn’t filter out sensibly (they only allow for 0.05°C downward adjustment). And finally, can you really trust data from an organization that takes incoming data for that station and shifts it more than an entire degree C in the past, making a new trend? See the difference between “raw” (which really isn’t raw, it has a scads of adjustments already from NOAA) compared to the GISS final output in this chart: The data is downloaded from GISS for the station, datasets 1 and 2 were used (raw-combined for this location and homogenized) which are available from the station selector via a link to data below the charts they make on the GISS website. The data is plotted up to the data continuity break, and again after. The trend lines are plotted to the data continuity break, and there’s no trend in the raw data for the last 100+ years. The curious thing is that there’s no trend in the raw data at Nuuk until you do either (or both) of two things: 1. You use GISS homogenized data to plot the trend 2. You use the data after the discontinuity to plot the trend I believe the data discontinuity represents a station move, one that exposed it to a warmer local environment. And clearly, by examining the GISS data for Nuuk, you can see that GISS adds adjustments that are not part of the measured reality. What justification could there possibly be to adjust the temperatures of the past downwards? What justification in a growing community (as shown by the population curve) could there be for doing an adjustment that is reverse of waste energy UHI?
Well, I am uncertain of the significance of 2.5 degrees over a period of centuries but I am certain I am experiencing the difference of 10 degrees colder than last year on my side of the Arctic.
Hence your opinion (no offense) is meaningless. Asking a lay person about climate change based on no dat ahe has other than what he remembers the weather to be is silly. That is like if you ask your auto mechanic to check out a skin blemish. Leave it to the experts and the peer reviewed system.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
I think it is a safe bet that I have more experience with the climate of this planet over the last 70+ years than you do. All you know is what us old folks have written and what guesses you have made baseed on the flawed indoctrination you have experienced. I have heard the rantings of the self-proclaimed superior intelects for many decades and so far they have cried wolf so many times no one is paying attention any more.
Have you kept a daily log of data like scientists have over those 70 years because scientists have done that....
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
Wishful thinking.
If you are going to cut and paste from Anthony Watts (who has as much credibility as you do) at least cite the source so I don't have to waste time finding it. You really need to stop focusing on single locations and look at the broader data, even if there's a problem with the sensor at Nuuk we have satellite records and records from multiple other sensors across a broad swath of area, not just from GISS but from other multiple data sources, and over the last 30 years, they are all in rough agreement.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/full-report/national-climate-change#key8 Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
I have seen some of that data, it varies greatly.
I like how you pretend to play scientist.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
That's really stupid! One does not have to be a scientist to read a data sheet. You are so puffed up within your superiority delusion that you think everyone is just intellectually inferior. This appears to be a common mental malady among "climate scientists". Why is that?
It's like that PC-version of mathematics they were teaching in the grade schools for years, called "New-New Math." [If you google it, you'll find plenty to make your blood boil...] Anyway, New-New Math has a simple premise: it doesn't matter if you get the right answer, as long as you feel GOOD about it... In other words, New-New Math clearly mirrors what you just noted as a common flaw amongst ALL leftists. They exhibit the incongruent characteristics of in-your-face elitism, with a shocking level of ignorance. They really don't give a shit about the truth, they don't care about facts, and they aren't interested in learning, because THEY believe they know enough to judge on any subject, at any time. And once they've made their conclusions- even if they're shockingly flawed- they refuse to change... they don't want to take the chance of being embarrassed or sad, because they got the wrong answer. So they'll *stick* with the wrong answer, and feel GOOD about it... It gives them a feeling of smugness and self-righteously complacency. So when go56 or godwinson or ... whomever... gets on, and starts pushing the leftist agenda, they will not back down, no matter how wrong they may be. Stubbornly clinging to fantasy, so that they can feel GOOD about themselves, is all they care about, no matter how delusional their statements may be. The only tactic that works with them, is to be shouted down. If they cannot keep restating their flawed position, if they're attacked every time they lie, if they exposed for the pschological misfits that they truly are, they will eventually skulk away, because being attacked constantly deprives them of their offensive self-satisfaction. That is why they use this tactic on others (shouting people down), because it works on THEM. You ever listen to a radio talk-show, when a leftist calls in? You notice how they keep talking, NEVER stop, even when they're trapped into a corner, and can't get out...? They think that being aggressive in their arguments (even if the arguments are patently false), pure bravado will win the day for them... [In the same way, they foolishly believe such tactics will work here, and that's why choose to attack anyone whose factual data refutes their position. When that tactic fails, they will then resort to the bozo filter (if you've not done so already), and then start bitching at other forums about US, at this forum... Because we're not responding as THEY would respond. There are two main philosophies in the area of qualitative research: Positivists generally assume that reality is objectively given and can be described by measurable properties which are independent of the observer. Interpretive researchers start out with the assumption that access to reality (given or socially constructed) is only through social constructions such as language, consciousness and shared meanings. I'm most definitely in the positivist segment, while the leftists gravitate to the "interpretivist" camp, because they believe that a shared consensus of perceived reality- even if radically different from observable, measureable reality- is equally valid. I am working on my doctorate- and dealing with a LOT of the "interpretivist" crowd. And honestly, I'm so SICK of their consensus- driven horse-shit...
"There will be no more money when the U.S. dollar has no value, until that time we can keep printing more." -- go65, LF's answer to Ben Bernanke --
#2. To: go65 (#0)
Warming North Atlantic water tied to heating Arctic, according to new study
#3. To: go65 (#0)
#4. To: go65 (#0)
The Fram Strait water temperatures today are about 2.5 degrees F warmer than during the Medieval Warm Period,..
#5. To: eskimo, go65 (#4)
Well, I am uncertain of the significance of 2.5 degrees over a period of centuries
#6. To: Godwinson (#5)
Hence your opinion (no offense) is meaningless. Asking a lay person about climate change...
#7. To: eskimo (#6)
I think it is a safe bet that I have more experience with the climate of this planet over the last 70+ years than you do.
#8. To: go65 (#0)
the warmest water in at least 2,000 years -- are likely related to the amplification of global warming in the Arctic
#9. To: no gnu taxes (#3)
In those remote locations like Nuuk, Greenland, what have we there? Remote pockets of humanity. Humanity building little cities of warmth in the cold Arctic, growing cities:
#10. To: Happy Quanzaa (#8)
Storm tracks have shifted northward over the last 50 years as evidenced by a decrease in the frequency of storms in mid-latitude areas of the Northern Hemisphere, while high-latitude activity has increased. There is also evidence of an increase in the intensity of storms in both the mid- and high-latitude areas of the Northern Hemisphere, with greater confidence in the increases occurring in high latitudes (Kunkel et al., 2008). The northward shift is projected to continue, and strong cold season storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent, with greater wind speeds and more extreme wave heights". The study also noted that we should expect an increase in lake-effect snowstorms over the next few decades. Lake-effect snow is produced by the strong flow of cold air across large areas of relatively warmer ice-free water. The report says, "As the climate has warmed, ice coverage on the Great Lakes has fallen. The maximum seasonal coverage of Great Lakes ice decreased at a rate of 8.4 percent per decade from 1973 through 2008, amounting to a roughly 30 percent decrease in ice coverage. This has created conditions conducive to greater evaporation of moisture and thus heavier snowstorms. Among recent extreme lake-effect snow events was a February 2007 10-day storm total of over 10 feet of snow in western New York state. Climate models suggest that lake-effect snowfalls are likely to increase over the next few decades. In the longer term, lake-effect snows are likely to decrease as temperatures continue to rise, with the precipitation then falling as rain".
#11. To: Godwinson (#7)
Have you kept a daily log of data like scientists have over those 70 years because scientists have done that....
#12. To: eskimo (#11)
#13. To: Godwinson (#12)
I like how you pretend to play scientist.
#14. To: eskimo (#13)
You are so puffed up within your superiority delusion that you think everyone is just intellectually inferior. This appears to be a common mental malady among "climate scientists". Why is that?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]