Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
So the reference to the AMO in response to my pointing out the confusion between weather and climate in that initial paper was just a deflection?
No, you said "the paper
I referenced, not the paper "you" referenced.
Yes the paper you (Snowy) referenced dealing with short term prediction:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
The initial paper, (you know the one I referenced?) does not as it clearly dealt with a single decade.
To my knowledge you have not referenced a single paper that deals with the AMO on this thread.
Snowy123 wrote:
And I thought that this paper brought up by Judith Curry on Climate Etc. fits this thread quite nicely.
From the conclusions... (with the decade reference highlighted)
Quote:
This article addresses probable causes of the observed reduction of the Arctic Ocean’s 179 coverage of MYI [multi-year ice] over that past decade. There is evidence of the increasingly important role 180 of atmospheric thermodynamic forcing in shaping recent changes of the Arctic MYI. In addition to direct MYI melt due to high-latitude warming, the impact of enhanced upper- ocean solar heating through numerous leads in decaying Arctic ice cover and consequent ice bottom melting has resulted in an accelerated rate of sea-ice retreat via a positive ice-albedo feedback mechanism. The pan-Arctic role of this feedback is yet to be quantified. Analysis of satellite ice motion suggests that the role of ice export through straits connecting the Arctic Ocean with sub-polar basins may be elusive. This situation probably differs from the situation that existed in the early to mid-1990s, when enhanced ice export through Fram Strait was caused by anomalous winds associated with the positive Arctic Oscillation phase. The possible long-lasting impact of anomalous winds such as those in 2004–05 or 2007 (especially when superimposed on a warming trend) on the state of MYI should not be ruled out. An intriguing feature of the scenario described here is the potential contribution of oceanic thermodynamic forcing to the recent changes of the high-latitude MYI coverage. Available observations suggest a thermodynamic coupling between the heat of the ocean interior and the sea ice. In the Canadian Basin, the impact of Pacific water warmth has been recently documented. While vertical AW [Atlantic Water] heat fluxes are negligible in the Canadian Basin, turbulent mixing may be strong enough in the western Nansen Basin to produce a sizable effect of AW heat on sea ice. In the eastern Eurasian Basin, double diffusion provides an important alternative to weak turbulent mixing for upward AW heat transport. However, this contribution to sea-ice loss remains uncertain pending new field experiments that will provide estimates of upward AW heat fluxes.
The fact that the rate of MYI recovery observed in recent years shows a delay relative to thermodynamic forcing indicates that MYI is resistant to recovery. However, the relative roles of dynamic and thermodynamic factors in recent changes of the Arctic MYI cover remains to be determined. Quantifying these roles is a high priority if we are to develop reliable forecasts of the future state of Arctic ice coverage.
The paper clearly adresses how there is more complexity to Arctic Ice melt, than what CAGW Proponents want to believe.
Not the papers mentioned in your reply:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Where short term prediction is the goal ..... the long term climate prediction, however, is less of a problem.
One of the authors in the paper points outthat unusual pulses of warm Atlantic water have been playing a major role in ice depletion in the Arctic, which can be associated with the record +AMO we saw this melt season.
Quote:
“One prominent researcher, Igor Polyakov at the University of Fairbanks, Alaska, points out that pulses of unusually warm water have been entering the Arctic Ocean from the Atlantic, which several years later are seen in the ocean north of Siberia. These pulses of water are helping to heat the upper Arctic Ocean, contributing to summer ice melt and helping to reduce winter ice growth.
Another scientist, Koji Shimada of the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, reports evidence of changes in ocean circulation in the Pacific side of the Arctic Ocean. Through a complex interaction with declining sea ice, warm water entering the Arctic Ocean through Bering Strait in summer is being shunted from the Alaskan coast into the Arctic Ocean, where it fosters further ice loss. Many questions still remain to be answered, but these changes in ocean circulation may be important keys for understanding the observed loss of Arctic sea ice.”
And the record +AMO can clearly be seen in the data.
With the AMO reaching record positive states, it is unusual IMO that 2011 did not see the lowest extent recorded this melt season.
Chylek et. al clearly demonstrates that there is a strong relationship with the AMO and the Arctic Temperatures.
From the abstract:
Quote:
Understanding Arctic temperature variability is essential for assessing possible future melting of the Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice and Arctic permafrost. Temperature trend reversals in 1940 and 1970 separate two Arctic warming periods (1910–1940 and 1970–2008) by a significant 1940–1970 cooling period. Analyzing temperature records of the Arctic meteorological stations we find that (a) the Arctic amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends) is not a constant but varies in time on a multi-decadal time scale, (b) the Arctic warming from 1910–1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970–2008 warming, and (c) the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on a multi-decadal time scale.
It is the AMO that is the main temperature driver in the Arctic Basin, and plays a role in Global Temperatures as well.
Quote:
Quote:
This situation probably differs from the situation that existed in the early to mid-1990s, when enhanced ice export through Fram Strait was caused by anomalous winds associated with the positive Arctic Oscillation phase.
They refer to the situation being different from the Mid 1990s, because this is when the AMO turned positive.
But the paper does not deal with the conditions prior to that which would be required if it were discussing climate rather than shorter-term weather. A passing reference to a large cause does not catapult the paper into the realm of climate study as much as you seem to wish to make it appear as such.
Snowy123 wrote:
To my knowledge you have not referenced a single paper that deals with the AMO on this thread.
So you were mistaken again?
