Climate change is here — and worse than we thought
By James E. Hansen, Published: August 3
James E. Hansen directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
When I testified before the Senate in the hot summer of 1988 , I warned of the kind of future that climate change would bring to us and our planet. I painted a grim picture of the consequences of steadily increasing temperatures, driven by mankind’s use of fossil fuels.
But I have a confession to make: I was too optimistic.
My projections about increasing global temperature have been proved true. But I failed to fully explore how quickly that average rise would drive an increase in extreme weather.
In a new analysis of the past six decades of global temperatures, which will be published Monday, my colleagues and I have revealed a stunning increase in the frequency of extremely hot summers, with deeply troubling ramifications for not only our future but also for our present.
This is not a climate model or a prediction but actual observations of weather events and temperatures that have happened. Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change. To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change.
These weather events are not simply an example of what climate change could bring. They are caused by climate change. The odds that natural variability created these extremes are minuscule, vanishingly small. To count on those odds would be like quitting your job and playing the lottery every morning to pay the bills.
Twenty-four years ago, I introduced the concept of “climate dice” to help distinguish the long-term trend of climate change from the natural variability of day-to-day weather. Some summers are hot, some cool. Some winters brutal, some mild. That’s natural variability.
But as the climate warms, natural variability is altered, too. In a normal climate without global warming, two sides of the die would represent cooler-than-normal weather, two sides would be normal weather, and two sides would be warmer-than-normal weather. Rolling the die again and again, or season after season, you would get an equal variation of weather over time.
But loading the die with a warming climate changes the odds. You end up with only one side cooler than normal, one side average, and four sides warmer than normal. Even with climate change, you will occasionally see cooler-than-normal summers or a typically cold winter. Don’t let that fool you.
Our new peer-reviewed study, published by the National Academy of Sciences, makes clear that while average global temperature has been steadily rising due to a warming climate (up about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past century), the extremes are actually becoming much more frequent and more intense worldwide.
When we plotted the world’s changing temperatures on a bell curve, the extremes of unusually cool and, even more, the extremes of unusually hot are being altered so they are becoming both more common and more severe.
The change is so dramatic that one face of the die must now represent extreme weather to illustrate the greater frequency of extremely hot weather events.
Such events used to be exceedingly rare. Extremely hot temperatures covered about 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent of the globe in the base period of our study, from 1951 to 1980. In the last three decades, while the average temperature has slowly risen, the extremes have soared and now cover about 10 percent of the globe.
This is the world we have changed, and now we have to live in it — the world that caused the 2003 heat wave in Europe that killed more than 50,000 people and the 2011 drought in Texas that caused more than $5 billion in damage. Such events, our data show, will become even more frequent and more severe.
There is still time to act and avoid a worsening climate, but we are wasting precious time. We can solve the challenge of climate change with a gradually rising fee on carbon collected from fossil-fuel companies, with 100 percent of the money rebated to all legal residents on a per capita basis. This would stimulate innovations and create a robust clean-energy economy with millions of new jobs. It is a simple, honest and effective solution.
The nation’s best-known and most prescient climatologist, NASA’s James Hansen, has a must-read op-ed in the Washington Post.
Here’s how “Climate Change Is Here — And Worse Than We Thought” opens:
When I testified before the Senate in the hot summer of 1988, I warned of the kind of future that climate change would bring to us and our planet. I painted a grim picture of the consequences of steadily increasing temperatures, driven by mankind’s use of fossil fuels.
But I have a confession to make: I was too optimistic.
My projections about increasing global temperature have been proved true. But I failed to fully explore how quickly that average rise would drive an increase in extreme weather.
In a new analysis of the past six decades of global temperatures, which will be published Monday, my colleagues and I have revealed a stunning increase in the frequency of extremely hot summers, with deeply troubling ramifications for not only our future but also for our present.
This is not a climate model or a prediction but actual observations of weather events and temperatures that have happened. Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change. To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change.
Hansen has a good figure to show what’s happening:
Frequency of occurrence (vertical axis) of local June-July-August temperature anomalies (relative to 1951-1980 mean) for Northern Hemisphere land in units of local standard deviation (horizontal axis). Temperature anomalies in the period 1951-1980 match closely the normal distribution (“bell curve”, shown in green), which is used to define cold (blue), typical (white) and hot (red) seasons, each with probability 33.3%. The distribution of anomalies has shifted to the right as a consequence of the global warming of the past three decades such that cool summers now cover only half of one side of a six-sided die, white covers one side, red covers four sides, and an extremely hot (red-brown) anomaly covers half of one side.
Hansen’s mastery of climate science is quite literally what gives him climate prescience. We ignore him at our grave peril.
UPDATE: The AP’s excellent climate reporter, Seth Borenstein has a good piece up on Hansen’s new analysis, “New study links current events to climate change.” The AP has quotes from some credible independent experts:
The science in Hansen’s study is excellent “and reframes the question,” said Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria in British Columbia who was a member of the Nobel Prize-winning international panel of climate scientists that issued a series of reports on global warming.”Rather than say, ‘Is this because of climate change?’ That’s the wrong question. What you can say is, ‘How likely is this to have occurred with the absence of global warming?’ It’s so extraordinarily unlikely that it has to be due to global warming,” Weaver said….
Another upcoming study by Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, links the 2010 Russian heat wave to global warming by looking at the underlying weather that caused the heat wave. He called Hansen’s paper an important one that helps communicate the problem….
White House science adviser John Holdren praised the paper’s findings in a statement. But he also said it is true that scientists can’t blame single events on global warming: “This work, which finds that extremely hot summers are over 10 times more common than they used to be, reinforces many other lines of evidence showing that climate change is occurring and that it is harmful.”
… Granger Morgan, head of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University, called Hansen’s study “an important next step in what I expect will be a growing set of statistically-based arguments.”
These weather events are not simply an example of what climate change could bring. They are caused by climate change. The odds that natural variability created these extremes are minuscule, vanishingly small. To count on those odds would be like quitting your job and playing the lottery every morning to pay the bills.
Twenty-four years ago, I introduced the concept of “climate dice” to help distinguish the long-term trend of climate change from the natural variability of day-to-day weather. Some summers are hot, some cool. Some winters brutal, some mild. That’s natural variability.
But as the climate warms, natural variability is altered, too. In a normal climate without global warming, two sides of the die would represent cooler-than-normal weather, two sides would be normal weather, and two sides would be warmer-than-normal weather. Rolling the die again and again, or season after season, you would get an equal variation of weather over time.
But loading the die with a warming climate changes the odds. You end up with only one side cooler than normal, one side average, and four sides warmer than normal. Even with climate change, you will occasionally see cooler-than-normal summers or a typically cold winter. Don’t let that fool you.
Our new peer-reviewed study, published by the National Academy of Sciences, makes clear that while average global temperature has been steadily rising due to a warming climate (up about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past century), the extremes are actually becoming much more frequent and more intense worldwide.
When we plotted the world’s changing temperatures on a bell curve, the extremes of unusually cool and, even more, the extremes of unusually hot are being altered so they are becoming both more common and more severe.
The change is so dramatic that one face of the die must now represent extreme weather to illustrate the greater frequency of extremely hot weather events.
Such events used to be exceedingly rare. Extremely hot temperatures covered about 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent of the globe in the base period of our study, from 1951 to 1980. In the last three decades, while the average temperature has slowly risen, the extremes have soared and now cover about 10 percent of the globe.
This is the world we have changed, and now we have to live in it — the world that caused the 2003 heat wave in Europe that killed more than 50,000 people and the 2011 drought in Texas that caused more than $5 billion in damage. Such events, our data show, will become even more frequent and more severe.
My only (slight) disagreement with Hansen is on matters of policy:
There is still time to act and avoid a worsening climate, but we are wasting precious time. We can solve the challenge of climate change with a gradually rising fee on carbon collected from fossil-fuel companies, with 100 percent of the money rebated to all legal residents on a per capita basis. This would stimulate innovations and create a robust clean-energy economy with millions of new jobs. It is a simple, honest and effective solution.
We agree on the need for a significant and rising price on carbon through what he calls a fee but which is the political equivalent of a tax. He thinks all the money has to be given back to the public to win popular support.
I generally think popular support has not been the problem, whereas business support has. Also, we have a massive deficit, so we at least have to leave open the possibility that some of the money collected will go toward deficit reduction.
In any case, it doesn’t really matter whether I am right or Hansen is as long as everyone is flexible in achieving the most important goal the rising carbon price, since the final deal will no doubt require compromises across the board.
House Speaker John Boehner might be spending a little too much time drowning his sorrows over the utter dysfunction he'll have to face again when August recess is over. Earlier today, President Obama took aim at Paul Ryan and his House leadership team for failing to pass a farm bill to help farmers and ranchers in this record heat and drought.
Get this. Boehner responded to Obama's criticism by saying the drought is all Obama's fault. Really.
On its website and in an email Monday, House Speaker John Boehner’s office said President Obama needs to take personal responsibility for the drought ravaging the Midwest.
Obama, “continues to blame anyone and everyone for the drought but himself,”reads a release from Boehner’s office posted online and distributed to reporters Monday. The quote was attributed to Boehner himself in a Financial Times story.
Now, Republicans might actually believe that God makes it rain. But Obama being personally responsible for the drought? That's a new one.
Actually, it ended up sounding so crazy that the statement has been edited to exclude all mention of Obama's amazing powers over the weather. Instead, it blames him for "failing to respond to the drought but himself." And now some poor schlub staffer is now taking Boehner's scotch and soda away from him.
This is why we need grown ups in charge. This is why we need to put the gavel back in Nancy Pelosi's hands.
Why Doesn’t President Obama Urge Senate Dems to Pass Urgently-Needed Drought Relief?
If President Obama were serious about helping farmers and ranchers address the ongoing drought, why doesn’t he urge Senate Democrats to pass the bipartisan House measure that was approved 11 days ago?
Instead, the president continues to blame anyone and everyone for failing to respond to the drought but himself.* Here’s a few quick facts that President Obama wants you to ignore today:
Eleven days ago, the House passed a bipartisan bill to help livestock producers devastated by the drought;
The Democratic-controlled Senate refused to take up this bipartisan bill before it adjourned for the August district work period;
According to press reports, the President would have signed this bill – but Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Senate Democrats refused to act, leaving livestock producers high-and-dry over August; and
See New York Timeshere: “The White House would have considered the House measure, but [Stabenow] resisted, Senate aides said.”
Ahead of President Obama’s visit to Iowa today – as was reported in the New York Times – Speaker Boehner made clear that the House took bipartisan action to help farmers and ranchers – a fact that the president conveniently likes to forget:
“You know the president — he’s going to be here in a couple of days … Some of you might want to remind him when he comes that the House passed a bill last week to help those in the livestock industry.”
A bipartisan House majority took responsible action to help farmers and ranchers suffering from this drought. It’s unfortunate that Senate Democrats have blocked this relief package from getting to those in need. If the president wanted to help those farmers and ranchers who are suffering, he should pick up the phone, call Senate Democratic leaders, and tell them to do the right thing.
* UPDATED @ 4:30 PM ET: Clarifies that the president is blaming others for failing to respond to the drought when he has yet to urge Senate Democrats to adopt a bipartisan drought-relief measure passed by the House.
Romney walks through one of Lemar Koethe's 54 farms. AP Photo: Charles Dharapak
If Mitt Romney wants to change perceptions that he’s out of touch with the average American, he might want to try a little harder.
In an attempt to show his concern for farmers hit by the devastating drought that has swept78 percent of the country, Romney had a photo-op with Iowa “farmer” Lemar Koethe. However, Koethe isn’t exactly the rugged down-home farmer struggling to keep his operation going that you might expect.
Or should I say operations — 54 of them. Yes, according to the Des Moines Register, Koethe owns 54 soy and corn farms. And that’s just one of his jobs.
In previous reports on his activity over the years from the Des Moines Register, Koethe is also a described as a millionaire, a real estate mogul, and a former concert promoter who booked acts like Slipknot at his 24,000 square foot event center.
Making this farmer’s life that much different from the average person, Koethe lives in a spaceship house. It might not have a car elevator like Romney’s planned home, but it’s got its own car wash bay and recreation center:
Here’s how the home was described by the Environmental Design Group:
Arguably one of the most distinctive homes in Iowa-if not the nation-this personal residence takes unique architecture to a new level. It contains an underground garage equipped for multiple vehicles, as well as a car wash bay.The lower level also contains a large recreation center with an art display area.Grade-level entry provides access to the elevator and a spiral staircase rising 35 feet to the main living area. The main level provides an amazing panoramic view of the area.
Not your typical farmhouse.
Finally, according to figures from the EWG Farm Subsidies database, Koethe has received $130,575 in conservation payments from the federal government. Conservation payments, which add up to about $5 billion in federal spending each year, are typically used by the government to encourage farmers not to grow crops — sometimes to stabilize prices and sometimes to preserve land.
Like a lot of people in the agricultural sector, Koethe says the drought is hurting some of his crops. Ultimately, when it comes to voicing his concerns, it shouldn’t matter if the man owns one farm, 10 farms, or 54 farms — he’s taking a hit like everyone else.
But really, Romney? Out of the hundreds of thousands of farmers being impacted by the drought — many of them family farmers struggling to keep their heads above water — you had to meet the millionaire real estate mogul who lives in a spaceship house with an underground car wash and recreation center?
Grover Norquist: Paul Ryan knows Democrats' tax tricks
By Grover Norquist
Updated 2d 1h ago
Paul Ryan gets plenty of credit for his strengths as a candidate for the vice presidency with Mitt Romney: his youth, success in winning in a democrat leaning district conveniently placed in the now swing state of Wisconsin with 10 electoral votes, his pleasant personality, strong speaking skills, and his expertise and leadership in budget and tax issues in Congress.
By J. Scott Applewhite, AP
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.
But little focus has been paid to Ryan's first real live fire test — his participation in the Simpson-Bowles "deficit commission." The commission was the invention of President Obama and was designed to recreate the 1982 budget deal where Ronald Reagan agreed to $80 billion dollars in tax hikes over three years in return for a promise of spending cuts of $240 Billion — $3 in spending reduction for every dollar of tax hikes. The tax hikes were real and permanent. We still pay them 30 years later. Spending, however, was not reduced. Real spending increased.
This Lucy-and-the-football trick was repeated in 1990, when George H.W. Bush fell for a similar deal promising $2 of phony spending cuts for every dollar of real and painful tax hike. Bush lost the presidency as punishment.
Two Republican presidents were talked into agreeing to bad deals that violated their principled opposition to higher taxes in the hopes that Democrats would reduce spending.
Ryan led the House Republican delegation of three to the so-called deficit commission, and when he saw the proposal drafted by the two chairmen working alone — former Wyoming senator Alan Simpson and former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles —Ryan led opposition to the plan.
The plan looked a great deal like the 1982 and 1990 budget deals. Nothing written down in legislative language, leaving plenty of fuzziness. Simpson and Bowles claimed they cut $3 of spending for every dollar of tax hike.
Ryan pointed out that the proposal called for increasing taxes such that the federal government would absorb not the 18.5% of GDP each year, the average over the past 30 years or so, but 21%. That meant $5 trillion in higher taxes over the decade.
Paul Ryan has already faced a test that even Reagan and Bush 41 failed, showing courage and a firm grasp of the lessons of history. Very presidential.With the establishment news media and all the best minds in political punditry shouting from the sidelines to accept this massive tax hike disguised as a compromise, Ryan stood firm and called out the tax hike with vague promises of spending restraint for what it was: anotherTrojan Horse for higher taxes. He did what Reagan did in Reykjavik, Iceland. He had the strength to walk away from a bad deal even through it would disappoint the establishment.
Stumping in Florida today, Mitt Romney charged President Obama’s Affordable Care Act will “cut more than $700 billion” out of Medicare.
What Romney didn’t say was that his running-mate’s budget — approved by House Republicans and by Romney himself — would cut Medicare by the same amount.
The big difference, though, is the Affordable Care Act achieves these savings by reducing Medicare payments to drug companies, hospitals, and other providers rather than cutting payments to Medicare beneficiaries.
The Romney-Ryan plan, by contrast, achieves its savings by turning Medicare into a voucher whose value doesn’t keep up with expected increases in healthcare costs — thereby shifting the burden onto Medicare beneficiaries, who will have to pay an average of $6,500 a year more for their Medicare insurance, according an analysis of the Republican plan by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
Moreover, the Affordable Care Act uses its Medicare savings to help children and lower-income Americans afford health care, and to help seniors pay for prescription drugs by filling the so-called “donut hole” in Medicare Part D coverage.
The Romney-Ryan plan uses the savings to finance even bigger tax cuts for the very wealthy.
Spread the word. Don’t allow the GOP to get away with this demagoguery.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential pick, is a virulent denier of climate science, with a voting record to match.
A favorite of the Koch brothers, Ryan has accused scientists of engaging in conspiracy to “intentionally mislead the public on the issue of climate change.” He has implied that snow invalidates global warming.
Ryan has voted to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from limiting greenhouse pollution, to eliminate White House climate advisers, to block the U.S. Department of Agriculture from preparing for climate disasters like the drought devastating his home state, and to eliminate the Department of Energy Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA-E):
Paul Ryan Promoted Unfounded Conspiracy Theories About Climate Scientists.
In a December 2009 op-ed during international climate talks, Ryan made reference to the hacked University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit emails. He accused climatologists of a “perversion of the scientific method, where data were manipulated to support a predetermined conclusion,” in order to “intentionally mislead the public on the issue of climate change.” Because of spurious claims of conspiracy like these, several governmental and academic inquiries were launched, all of which found the accusations to be without merit. [Paul Ryan, 12/11/09]
Paul Ryan Argued Snow Invalidates Global Warming Policy.
In the same anti-science, anti-scientist December 2009 op-ed, Ryan argued, “Unilateral economic restraint in the name of fighting global warming has been a tough sell in our communities, where much of the state is buried under snow.” Ryan’s line is especially disingenuous because he hasn’t been trying to sell climate action, he’s been spreading disinformation. [Paul Ryan, 12/11/09]
Paul Ryan Voted To Eliminate EPA Limits On Greenhouse Pollution.
Ryan voted in favor of H.R. 910, introduced in 2011 by Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) to block the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas pollution. [Roll Call 249, 4/7/11]
Paul Ryan Voted To Block The USDA From Preparing For Climate Change.
In 2011, Ryan voted in favor of the Scalise (R-LA) Amendment to the FY12 Agriculture Appropriations bill, to bar the U.S. Department of Agriculture from implementing its Climate Protection Plan. [Roll Call 448, 6/16/11]
Paul Ryan Voted To Eliminate White House Climate Advisers.
Ryan voted in favor of Scalise (R-LA) Amendment 204 to the 2011 Continuing Resolution, to eliminate the assistant to the president for energy and climate change, the special envoy for climate change (Todd Stern), and the special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation. [Roll Call 87, 2/17/11]
Paul Ryan Voted To Eliminate ARPA-E.
Ryan voted in favor of Biggert (R-IL) Amendment 192 to the 2011 Continuing Resolution, to eliminate the Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA-E). [Roll Call 55, 2/17/11]
Paul Ryan Voted To Eliminate Light Bulb Efficiency Standards.
In 2011, Ryan voted to roll back light-bulb efficiency standards that had reinvigorated the domestic lighting industry and that significantly reduce energy waste and carbon pollution. [Roll Call 563, 7/12/11]
Paul Ryan Voted For Keystone XL.
In 2011, Ryan voted to expedite the consideration and approval of the construction and operation of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. [Roll Call 650, 7/26/11]
Paul Ryan Budget Kept Big Oil Subsidies And Slashed Clean Energy Investment.
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed FY 2013 budget resolution retained a decade’s worth of oil tax breaks worth $40 billion, while slashing funding for investments in clean energy research, development, deployment, and commercialization, along with other energy programs. The plan called for a $3 billion cut in energy programs in FY 2013 alone. [CAP,3/20/12]
In short, Paul Ryan stands with Big Oil against scientific fact and the future of human civilization.
A massive cyclone blew over the central Arctic Ocean this past week, north of the Beaufort Sea, and some Arctic researchers said they have never seen anything like it.
Mark Serreze, a senior research scientist from the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center, said cyclones are common at this time of year, but he said this week's storm was stronger than any he's seen.
Serreze said he believes the cyclone is causing Arctic sea ice to melt faster this year.
"It causes a lot of break-up of the ice floes. These can drift into warmer waters where the ice can then melt very quickly, and it looks like we're seeing some of that now, or we have, over the past week with the storm. So the point is, in terms of the sea-ice cover, it does have a big effect because with the strong winds and a big storm like that, it really chews things up," said Serreze.
He said it’s likely the Arctic sea ice cover will hit a new record low this year, thanks in part to the cyclone. Serreze added that about 600,000 square kilometres of sea ice was lost in the central Arctic in the last week.
Serreze said the Northwest Passage had been clear of ice, but now pieces have blown in to block the western entrance.
Suomi NPP View of Summer Arctic Storm
Suomi NPP View of Summer Arctic Storm [annotated]
Summer Storm Spins Over Arctic
Strong Summer Cyclone Churns Over the Arctic
An unusually large, long-lasting, and powerful cyclone was churning over the Arctic in early August 2012. Two smaller systems merged on August 5 to form the storm, which at the time occupied much of the Beaufort-Chukchi Sea and Canadian Basin. On average, Arctic cyclones last about 40 hours; as of August 9, 2012, this storm had lasted more than five days.
Arctic cyclones are more common during the summer than winter; however, summer cyclones tend to be weaker than the storms that batter the region during the winter. This cyclone’s central sea level pressure reached about 964 millibars on August 6, 2012—a number more typical of a winter cyclone. That pressure puts it within the lowest 3 percent of all minimum daily sea level pressures recorded north of 70 degrees latitude, noted Stephen Vavrus, an atmospheric scientist based at the University of Wisconsin.
The number of cyclones affecting the Arctic appears to be increasing. According to a study of long-term Arctic cyclone trends authored by a team led by John Walsh and Xiangdong Zhang of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, the number and intensity of Arctic cyclones has increased during the second half of the twentieth century, particularly during the summer.
The cause of the increase is an open question, but climate change may be affecting Arctic cyclones. One studypublished in Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Letters, concluded that the total number of exratropical cyclones in the Northern Hemisphere would decline as the climate changed, but that the Arctic Ocean and adjacent areas would see slightly more and stronger summer storms.
One way climate change may affect Arctic cyclones is by changing the sea ice and ocean temperature. Climate change has caused sea ice to retreat markedly in recent decades and has also warmed Arctic Ocean temperatures. Such changes may be providing more energy and moisture to support cyclone development and persistence, Zhang explained.
However, scientists who study extratropical storms emphasize that pinning down how exactly climate change is affecting the size, frequency, or tracks of Arctic storms remains an important but unresolved question. “This past week’s storm was exceptional, and the occurrence of Arctic storms of extreme intensity is a topic deserving closer investigation,” noted Walsh. “With reduced ice cover and warmer sea surfaces, the occurrence of more intense storms is certainly a plausible scenario. The limitation at present is the small sample size of exceptional events, but that may change in the future.”
NASA Earth Observatory image by Jesse Allen and Robert Simmon, using VIIRS data. Caption by Adam Voiland with information from Robert Walsh, Xiangdong Zhang, and Stephen Vavrus.
William Chapman, the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, researcher who maintains the Cryosphere Today Web site, which was a source for some of the content on the Arctic Sea Ice blog. Below you can read his “Your Dot” description of the storm and analysis of its possible repercussions.
But before you read on, have a quick look at this short time-lapse video of sea ice and weather conditions in the central Arctic Ocean from early July through August 8, recorded by one of the two autonomous cameras set on the sea ice near the North Pole each spring by a research team from the University of Washington (the same folks I accompanied in 2003). [8:46 p.m. | Updated | Note: The center of the storm is hundreds of miles away from the drifting sea ice cameras.]
Here’s Chapman’s look at this summer’s powerful Arctic storm and its impact on sea ice:
I’ve been keeping an eye on this storm for a variety of reasons. First, it’s a rare event. This storm is intense for any time of year, but especially for summer, when the weather is normally fairly benign in the Arctic. This storm formed and intensified near the Beaufort Sea and moved to the central Arctic Ocean where it will slowly lose its intensity over the next several days. Ordinarily, the Beaufort Sea and the Arctic Ocean are dominated by high pressure, so having a low pressure system form and intensify here is quite uncommon. Although, it has been happening with more frequency over the past few decades as pressures have dropped significantly in the Arctic during this time and are projected to drop even more during the next century by the global climate models.
Second, we’re interested in the effects of the storm on the Arctic sea ice cover. Impacts on sea ice from storms like this are typically due to strong surface winds. Surface winds can impact the sea ice both through accelerated freezing or melting (via heat transfer from the atmosphere to and from the surface) and by blowing the ice from one place to another. This storm is intense and it covers a large area so the region of the Arctic that will be impacted by strong winds is quite large.
Strong winds are much more effective at transferring heat and moisture between the atmosphere and the ice/ocean surface. It’s why we blow on our tea to cool it off. The effectiveness of the heat transfer increases dramatically with increasing wind. It is a non-linear effect. However, the heat and moisture transfer is also dependent on the difference between the temperatures and moisture content between the air and the surface. In this particular case, since we are in the melt season, both the air and the ice surface are near the melting/freezing point of water and the air is near saturation, so while the winds are strong, the effects of the storm on transferring heat and moisture and therefore causing any freezing or melting will probably be limited.
The effects of this storm on the ice cover therefore will be limited to redistributing the sea ice by blowing it around. The effects may be more impressive than if it occurred during other parts of the year as we are only few weeks away from the annual summer minimum in sea ice area. The ice is at its thinnest, weakest and least compacted now so it’s more free to be blown about by the winds.
Low pressure systems tend to cause a divergence or spreading out of the ice pack (high pressure systems in contrast, cause convergence and compaction). The sea ice cover this summer was already very spread out. Much more of the Arctic ocean was comprised of individual broken ice floes and the pack ice had holes in it exposing ocean in many places. This storm should cause even more of that, especially in the far north where that storm will sit for a few days. To stay with the tea analogy, instead of a cup of iced tea with solid cubes floating on the surface, the storm will churn the tea into a more slushy consistency. The exposed open water caused by the wind divergence may absorb some additional sunlight and melt more ice than usual over the next few weeks (temperature-albedo feedback) [related NASA animation], but given that the sun is well on its way to setting for the winter, I think this effect will be fairly minimal.
Massive cyclone blows over central Arctic ocean
Scientist says cyclone is causing sea ice to melt faster this year
In this Aug. 24, 2009 picture provided by the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy breaks ice ahead of the Canadian Coast Guard Ship Louis S. St-Laurent in the Arctic Ocean. (AP Photo/U.S. Coast Guard, Petty Officer Patrick Kelley)
A massive cyclone blew over the central Arctic Ocean this past week, north of the Beaufort Sea, and some Arctic researchers said they have never seen anything like it.
Mark Serreze, a senior research scientist from the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center, said cyclones are common at this time of year, but he said this week's storm was stronger than any he's seen.
Serreze said he believes the cyclone is causing Arctic sea ice to melt faster this year.
"It causes a lot of break-up of the ice floes. These can drift into warmer waters where the ice can then melt very quickly, and it looks like we're seeing some of that now, or we have, over the past week with the storm. So the point is, in terms of the sea-ice cover, it does have a big effect because with the strong winds and a big storm like that, it really chews things up," said Serreze.
He said it’s likely the Arctic sea ice cover will hit a new record low this year, thanks in part to the cyclone. Serreze added that about 600,000 square kilometres of sea ice was lost in the central Arctic in the last week.
Serreze said the Northwest Passage had been clear of ice, but now pieces have blown in to block the western entrance.
ARCTIC CYCLONES
Rationale behind the "Arctic cyclones" work package
