A pause in minimum Arctic sea ice extent

Arctic decadal and interdecadal variability
Polyakov and Johnson
Abstract:
Atmospheric and oceanic variability in the Arctic shows the existence of several oscillatory modes. The decadal-scale mode associated with the Arctic Oscillation (AO) and a low-frequency oscillation (LFO) with an approximate time scale of 60–80 years, dominate.

Both modes were positive in the 1990s, signifying a prolonged phase of anomalously low atmospheric sea level pressure and above normal surface air temperature in the central Arctic. Consistent with an enhanced cyclonic component, the arctic anticyclone was weakened and vorticity of winds became positive.

The rapid reduction of arctic ice thickness in the 1990s may be one manifestation of the intense atmosphere and ice cyclonic circulation regime due to the synchronous actions of the AO and LFO. Our results suggest that the decadal AO and multidecadal LFO drive large amplitude natural variability in the Arctic making detection of possible long-term trends induced by greenhouse gas warming most difficult.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2000GL011909

DB2

In my view, you are reaching. I don’t see any data that specifically supports

but your links are quite technical (e.g., sea ice extent is not the same as ice mass).

I will note that your first reference starts the Introduction with
“Since the late 1970s, the Arctic sea-ice extent has exhibited a significant decline in all seasons, which is due to human influence (IPCC, 2021) and is expected to continue.”

3 Likes

I think that sea ice extent is actually more important than mass/volume. The sea ice extent (SIE) obviously affects albedo. It increases or decreases the ocean-heat flux to the atmosphere, changing temperature gradients and thus influencing large-scale wind flows. The halocline (the top 100+ meters of the ocean where the salinity varies rapidly) is also changed.

DB2

It’s not clear that there are any mulitidecadal oscillations. Michael Mann of hockey stick fame was a strong proponent of the existence of multidecadal oscillations. He published several papers doing statistical analysis of various climate datasets demonstrating their properties.

Then, in 2020 he published an article that contradicts his, and many others, previous work, claiming that multidecadal oscillations are a statistical artifact:

"Here we use a combination of observational data and state-of-the-art forced and control climate model simulations to demonstrate the absence of consistent evidence for decadal or longer-term internal oscillatory signals that are distinguishable from climatic noise. "

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13823-w

Lot’s of papers are still being published about the PDO and NAO, so I don’t know how much consensus there is around Mann’s conclusion that it’s all just noise.

1 Like

Since there is no well-defined, agreed-upon preinstrumental AMO time series that could be. Model failure to find oscillations may be just that, model failures.

Stroeve et al. found a 60/40 split between external forcing and internal variability through 2011. Since then Arctic sea ice extent has continued to go sideways, so the unforced portion may be higher than 40%.

“Kay et al. concluded that approximately half (56%) of the observed rate of decline from 1979 to 2005 was externally forced…Based on the CMIP5 multi-model ensemble mean, approximately 60% of the observed rate of decline from 1979-2011 is externally forced…”

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2012GL052676

DB2

1 Like

Well, you can switch to sea ice extent as a metric, but you asserted multi-decadal oscillatons for ice mass and I’m not seeing much data upthread to support that assertion.

Instead, from the NSIDC upthread, they say:

Glaciologists have found, in study after study, that both of the planet’s remaining ice sheets are losing overall mass at an accelerating rate.

I’m inclined to go with their view, at least right now.

3 Likes

Check out the title of the thread.

The mass of the ice sheets (which would be Greenland and Antarctica) is not the same as Arctic sea ice extent.

Both ice sheets are losing mass, although I’m not sure the loss rate is accelerating. Look at these two graphs from JPL; the decline looks pretty linear.

At the same time, Arctic SIE has not been decreasing over the last 17 years according to the National Snow & Ice Data Center. Do you have any thoughts on why?

DB2

1 Like

We agree!

Happy Thanksgiving to you and your loved ones.

Go XOM!!!

200000002000000200000

Here is a graph of average Greenland temps going back to 1851.


Mikkelsen et al, Influence of temperature fluctuations on equilibrium ice sheet volume

DB2

The National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) follows conditions in the polar regions, including the Arctic minimum sea ice extent each September. This year’s number is 4.28 million sq km.

For the last 18 years (2007-2024) the trend is -0.011 per year, not significantly different from zero (p=0.60).

DB2

Arctic sea ice minimum has large natural variability within the long term decline. Swart and co-authors looked at large numbers of climate model simulations to estimate the variability.

Internal climate variability can mask or enhance human-induced sea-ice loss on timescales ranging from years to decades. It must be properly accounted for when considering observations, understanding projections and evaluating models.

image
Probability of a pause as a function of pause length in the Historical-RCP4.5 experiment over 1979–2013 (black), and in the future over 2066–2100 under the RCP2.6 (blue), RCP4.5 (cyan) and RCP8.5 (red) experiments.

https://climate-science.press/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Swart_2015_NatureCC_Arcticseaicetrends_internalvariability.pdf

Assuming the planet is close to RCP4.5, the models estimate the probability of an 18 year pause before 2013 to be about 10%, growing to about 30% after 2066.

The article is from January 2015 – climate models predicted the possibility of the current pause nearly 10 years ago. Yet another example of climate model success.

2 Likes

The paper is fine, but it says that given the observed variation an-18 year pause has a 10% probability. It wouldn’t happen in 90% of 18-yr periods.

DB2