Hudson Bay Winter of 2011-2012 Tracking Thread

[TerryM]

I'm not screaming anything. I'm insisting that natural oceanic influences not be ignored and dismissed. If you read up on the AMO, there is plenty of uncertainty about how it works, but there is also evidence that the North Atlantic thermocline is affected, allowing warmer water to flow further north. It would then make sense that the AMO trending positive sense the 1970s would lead to greater Arctic ice loss. And the correlation certainly is there. The previous +AMO phase also brought more ice loss to the Arctic.

However, Hudson Bay is only very slightly influenced by Atlantic currents and James Bay not at all.

Since Friv. has demonstrated that this region is responding to AGW it follows that AGW NOT AMO is the cause of the bulk of the changes in ice coverage we are experiencing in the Arctic Ocean.

Thanks for making the comparison, it not only serves to show the importance of studying Hudson Bay's melt and freeze patterns - but also demonstrates how little influence AMO has further north.

[tacoman25]

Just as when we expect a new global high temp anomaly to occur during an El Nino year, so it seems reasonable to expect a decline in arctic sea ice during periods of favorable natural variability for loss of ice. However, the reason for the exceptionally warm N. Atlantic and sea ice at record lows is not due to AMO, but rather the general warming of the entire climate system. This AMO is working with the warmest SST's in recorded history.

Agreed. But too often the focus is narrowly just on global warming, and any change observed in nature is attributed to that. People forget that the earth has constantly gone through changing cycles throughout history, and the AMO/PDO oceanic cycles are a couple that have only recently been discovered.

[tacoman25]

this is about the hudson bay which is embedded pretty far into Canada. It is mostly in the subarctic.

The amo affects the Eurasian side of the arctic allowing warmer water to flow north of the Nordic region in to the barents. There is also a lot of nee evidence showing the amo can also be directly affected by the arctic not just the other way around.

please show how this has caused the Ice decline in the hudson.

This year is a +amo and the influx of water into the hudson was much colder than the in situ warming that took place over the NW, west, south, east areas while colder water flowed into the hudson from the Atlantic.

How does that contribute to the Ice decline?

First of all, the AMO is correlated to warmer waters in the Atlantic right by Hudson Bay. If warmer waters are affecting the ice pack and water at the Atlantic entryway to the Hudson, that will affect the Hudson itself. In addition, the AMO has been correlated to different temperature patterns for north America, including warmer summer temps.

Also, it makes little sense to me that the Arctic would drive the AMO...sounds like a backwards correlation. The AMO influences the entire North Atlantic from the tropics north and has fluctuated long before the Arctic began it's recent big decline, it seems unlikely that the Arctic would drive this.

[SVT450R]

This progress should continue as there will be -10/-20c 850 temps over the bay for the medium range.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The AMO is desribing the state of SSTs over a certain area in the Atlantic. I am assuming they track the ssts daily by sat and real time obs. Then average it out in a monthly format. Then take that number and formulate it into an equation to give us an indicies.

I read the amo to be positive or negative only works on a .5C swing.

The arctic and hudson have seen 4-10C sst anomaly swings all over the place. Expecially from 2005 on the same time the AMO dropped until 2010.

So while the AMO dropped ssts went up and ice melted at record pace.

The AMO is also not static. Most places that use it to explain arctic warming use the adjusted version to make it look linear when the long term version is up.

[Jonger]

Jong

'How do you define normal? In a period of non glaciation... What is normal. Normal to me are declines in glaciers and gradual earth temp rise. 1 degree over 100 years is normal.

So you believe that temperatures are now 10 degrees warmer than the Viking Era?

Or is it that we'll die out as a species in 1000 years?

Think first - then type

BTW What is a 'period of non glaciation'

The earth has warmed 1 degree in the past 100 years. Saying the earth will be 10 degrees higher is just for shock factor. This is so far off the deep end of extreme its worth nothing more then mockery.

[TerryM]

Jong

"nothing more then mockery"

as intended

[tacoman25]

The earth has warmed 1 degree in the past 100 years. Saying the earth will be 10 degrees higher is just for shock factor. This is so far off the deep end of extreme its worth nothing more then mockery.

Mockery as a form of distraction from your actual point, which was simple fact. Instead of confronting that fact, he made something up. Clever!

[tacoman25]

The AMO is desribing the state of SSTs over a certain area in the Atlantic. I am assuming they track the ssts daily by sat and real time obs. Then average it out in a monthly format. Then take that number and formulate it into an equation to give us an indicies.

I read the amo to be positive or negative only works on a .5C swing.

The arctic and hudson have seen 4-10C sst anomaly swings all over the place. Expecially from 2005 on the same time the AMO dropped until 2010.

So while the AMO dropped ssts went up and ice melted at record pace.

The AMO is also not static. Most places that use it to explain arctic warming use the adjusted version to make it look linear when the long term version is up.

Those graphs aren't created for that purpose at all. They are made that way to show the actual cyclical variation, just like the PDO. Of course overall SSTs have warmed over the longterm. But the pattern and extent of those anomalies changes with natural oceanic cycles, which those indexes reflect. And since the AMO is related to thermocline changes in the Atlantic, it's not just purely about anomalies. The influence is broader than that, just as the PDO influence is. These are puzzle pieces to a complex system that is constantly changing, and always has to a certain extent.

As far as the huge swings in Arctic temperature...the poles have always seen much greater swings and anomalies than broader/lower latititudes. That's beside the point.

[The_Global_Warmer]

This thread was intended so we can explore what Is happening up there.

You cant broadbrush this going back to the AMO. I asked for specifics. I dont see how that can be so hard.

Also the hudson is in Canada in the upper mid latitudes. Not the arctic. wouldnt the AO and NAO affect the Hudson the most.

the AMO in your view is basically hemispheric global warming.

no but you said the local factors are most important. They change regardless of the AMO.

the amo is subject to the Earths energy budget. Overall the AMO is linearally going up. Because the ocean is retaining more energy over a long term trend over the last century. That in itself is a signal of climate warming. Which would drive the amo at least partially.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Show me when the arctic was this warm recently since its regular

[Alpha5]

When you look at it, the atlantic side has really been responsible for the negative sea ice anomalies this year

[WeatherRusty]

The earth has warmed 1 degree in the past 100 years. Saying the earth will be 10 degrees higher is just for shock factor. This is so far off the deep end of extreme its worth nothing more then mockery.

He didn't say temps will be 10 degrees warmer. He said if 1 degree per century were normal then we should be 10 degrees warmer than 1,000 years ago. Obviously we are not 10 degrees warmer than 1,000 years ago and a rise of 1 degree per century is obviously not 'normal'.

Should we be surprised that I have to spell that out for you?

[tacoman25]

He didn't say temps will be 10 degrees warmer. He said if 1 degree per century were normal then we should be 10 degrees warmer than 1,000 years ago. Obviously we are not 10 degrees warmer than 1,000 years ago and a rise of 1 degree per century is obviously not 'normal'.

Should we be surprised that I have to spell that out for you?

And if we forget about the LIA and the advances in glaciation that brought.

Oh wait, I forgot. Climate didn't change until the last 100 years. See, I can make silly generalizations that don't really address your point, too!

[The_Global_Warmer]

There is the de-trended AMO. In case anyone is interested this only goes to 2006. Since 2006. 2007 averaged about a .17, 2008 about a .15, 2009 averaged about a .05, 2010 averaged about a .40, 2011 is averaging about a .17 threw November. You can see outside of a couple years the AMO in the cool period was not very negative....if the same rate of upward trending keeps taking place the next negative period on the de-trended graph many end up very close to neautral with some spikes below the 0 line. Unless the Earth drops back down .5C at least you won't see AMO indicies drop that low again. the AMO actually picks up the AGW signal.

So we have been in a downward direction on a yearly basis since 2005 and have seen the arctic sea ice continue to rapidly decline, we have seen the warmest water ever in the Hudson Bay during this time as well. We have seen the arctic it self continue to warm rapidly during this time as well.

The AMO is only calculated to 70N because by then nearly all of the heat transported North with the Gulf Stream is gone from evaporational cooling. And that is where the main thrust of the flow ends and mixes downward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline

The basic idea is that the AMO covers SSTs over the Atlantic to 70N because that is where the conveyor stops and sinks and the circulatory process is underway. The major problem with it's affects on the arctic is:

1. It doesn't actual transport warm water to the arctic

2. The water cools on it's way already dispersed of heat by 70N

3. the actual change in Sea Surface Temperature is very small.

4. The amo carries the warming signal it self.

I am sure the rebuttal to that will be that the AMO isn't melting ice but driving the climate to these extreme anomalies. Again this is not physics, this is correlations. And the AMO has

I think there is validity to it. But we are not talking about physics...we are talking man made correlations.

The AMO from 1987 to 1991 was up and down but was pulling out of the tank. From the previous lower period. It was positive or nuetral then in 1991 it was running about .10 for the year and the Volcanic eruptions took place and the the index hit the skids downwards until 1994. So that is the period scientists accept the global cooling from the Volcanic eruptions which "correlated to the AMO taking a nose dive". Arctic Sea Ice Extent also went up the next few years right inline with the AMO but also inline with the much more powerful factor the Volcanic Eruptions.

I realize that is an extreme event. That of course will over-ride other factors to cause the AMO to drop. To look for other factors that could co-exist with the AMO or drive it we would need ot break it down further with the other know factors that coorelate with it or drive climate themselves.

[Jonger]

Show me when the arctic was this warm recently since its regular

You have like 30 years of records. Stop trying to define regular and normal as if its factual.

[Jonger]

He didn't say temps will be 10 degrees warmer. He said if 1 degree per century were normal then we should be 10 degrees warmer than 1,000 years ago. Obviously we are not 10 degrees warmer than 1,000 years ago and a rise of 1 degree per century is obviously not 'normal'.

Should we be surprised that I have to spell that out for you?

The guy has a few years of records and he wants to basically dismantle capitalism and go back to pre-industrial era emmisions. Can't have one without the other.

So if the science is so settled, whats step 2 for your ambitions? Just try to shock us more and more with hazy stats and a few years of records. I say "few" because in the grand scheme of things its less then that... Its 30 years of satellite data. Before that it was just the old man on the corners recollection of what things used to be like as a kid.

CO2 has proven to be a poor indication of earth temps... So try again mr. Ice core.

[The_Global_Warmer]

30 years huh?

you might want to stop making things up and passing them off as fact.

If I was Tacoman I would not be happy that we now only have 30 years of arctic temperatures considering we have at tempetature data above 70N going back to the 1880s and full data sets upwards of 50 or more since the 1910s.

Which help tie the arctic fluctuations to the AMO back multiple cycles

its onvious when you said 30 years you meant satelitte data which is non-existant above 82.5N and less reliable than Hadcrut and giss above 60N.

At least you didn't say ice was forming on the Hudson in mid October.

[The_Global_Warmer]

You confermed it in your 2nd absurdly un informed post in ten min time.

Please stop, you shouldnt be allowed to post these lies.

Ice cores are very valuable and reliable to a certain extent.

You gotta stop making things up on the fly

[Snowstorms]

When you look at it, the atlantic side has really been responsible for the negative sea ice anomalies this year

Most of the negative anomalies are really across the Kara Sea with the Pacific near normal, Eastern Greenland and the Davis Strait. The Hudson is making a nice catch up recently with the decrease in temepratures surrounding the Bay.

Last year around this time we had a major West Based -NAO anomaly with the PV situated much further south than usual and this pumped up heights across the Hudson thus we experienced a slower growth across much of NE Canada in general whereas this year, there's virtually blocking but with the Pacific as horrible as it is, Canada is having a hard time cooling down to below normal anomalies given the consistent +EPO and hugely positive AO.

The Sea ice anomaly made a nice come back up with a currently anomaly of -0.986.

Lets see. I expect the Sea ice to grow nicely thru much of December unless Eastern Canada really torches LOL.

[WeatherRusty]

The guy has a few years of records and he wants to basically dismantle capitalism and go back to pre-industrial era emmisions. Can't have one without the other.

So if the science is so settled, whats step 2 for your ambitions? Just try to shock us more and more with hazy stats and a few years of records. I say "few" because in the grand scheme of things its less then that... Its 30 years of satellite data. Before that it was just the old man on the corners recollection of what things used to be like as a kid.

CO2 has proven to be a poor indication of earth temps... So try again mr. Ice core.

"basically dismantle capitalism and go back to pre-industrial era emmisions."

Geezzz, I didn't realize I wish for my decedents to live in squalor. Thanks for pointing that out.

Oh, and global warming science is based on 30 years of satellite data and a few ice cores...I get it.

[TerryM]

Statistics Canada has now joined the conspiracy.

http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/65674past_40_years_sees_drop_in_arctic_summer_sea_ice_statscan/

How can we hope to save ourselves when mathematicians have aligned themselves with evil climate scientists!

[tacoman25]

Statistics Canada has now joined the conspiracy.

http://www.nunatsiaq...a_ice_statscan/

How can we hope to save ourselves when mathematicians have aligned themselves with evil climate scientists!

In reality, who is denying that there is less ice up north than there used to be?

[TerryM]

In reality, who is denying that there is less ice up north than there used to be?

So you don't find the fact that Hudson Bay is loosing ice at the rate of 11%/decade - alarming?

[jbcmh81]

So you don't find the fact that Hudson Bay is loosing ice at the rate of 11%/decade - alarming?

If it was losing it yes, but it doesn't bother me that it's loosing it.

[TerryM]

If it was losing it yes, but it doesn't bother me that it's loosing it.

I must be loosing it ;-)

[tacoman25]

So you don't find the fact that Hudson Bay is loosing ice at the rate of 11%/decade - alarming?

Not particularly. Climate has never been static.

[TerryM]

Then you don't find the fact that Davis Strait is losing ice at the rate of 14%/decade - alarming?

[skierinvermont]

Not particularly. Climate has never been static.

Right out of the WUWT/denier playbook.

[tacoman25]

Right out of the WUWT/denier playbook.

Except I'm not a WUWT follower or denier.

It's fact. The fact that the climate has changed over the past decades does not alarm me. Even without AGW, we would have seen obvious climate changes over the past few decades, especially in areas further north that are more prone to bigger fluctuations.