News Section
Stories from Climate Central's Science Journalists and Content Partners

Major Storm Accelerated Arctic Sea Ice Loss, Study Finds

The "Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012," which struck the Arctic at the height of the sea ice melt season in early August, was not responsible for causing sea ice extent to plunge to a record low just a few weeks later. That is one of the conclusions of a new study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. It is the first study to quantify the impacts that the storm had on the fragile Arctic sea ice cover, which has been rapidly shrinking and thinning in response to rapid Arctic warming.    

An unusually strong storm formed off the coast of Alaska on August 5 and tracked into the center of the Arctic Ocean, where it slowly dissipated.
Click to enlarge the image. Credit: NASA

The study found that while the extraordinarily powerful storm did, in fact, accelerate the melting of Arctic sea ice, the sea ice extent record would have occurred regardless. The sea ice cover has been so depleted by warming air and water temperatures during the past few decades that it was "preconditioned" to reach a new record low, according to the study. Other studies have shown that manmade global warming is responsible for much of the sea ice loss by causing Arctic air and water temperatures to increase.

The research, by a team of University of Washington polar scientists, relied on a combination of computer models and meteorological data to simulate the effects that the storm had on the sea ice. They ran computer simulations of the sea ice cover interacting with last summer’s weather and compared it against simulations that did not include the storm. The simulations did not include every possible storm-related impact, as the model used left out wave-related effects, for example.      

The study found that the storm-related ice loss accelerated due to the way the storm caused warmer waters to rise from deeper ocean layers, melting sea ice from below.

In the summertime, thin sea ice cover and areas of open water allow sunlight to filter to the water below, creating a layer of denser, saltier water about 65 feet below the surface. That water can be warmed over time by the sun’s rays, and when stirred to the surface by a storm or other factors, it can help melt sea ice.

Monthly September ice extent for 1979 to 2012 shows a decline of 13 percent per decade.
Click to enlarge the image. Credit: NSIDC.

During the storm, which peaked during a three-day period from August 6-8, sea ice volume decreased at about twice the normal rate, due to a quadrupling in the melting of sea ice from below as the storm roiled the Arctic waters, transporting ocean heat upward. In fact, the three-day, storm-related sea ice volume loss was the largest three-day volume loss during the 1979-2011 period, the study said.

The study also found that the storm reduced the sea ice minimum at the end of the 2012 melt season by about 4.4 percent, or about 60,000 square miles, and forced the 2012 ice extent to drop below the 2007 minimum 10 days earlier than if the storm had not occurred.

However, sea ice extent at the end of the 2012 melt season was 18 percent below the 2007 record minimum, which indicates the storm's contribution was not the driving factor behind the record. 

"By September, most of the ice that melted would have melted with or without the cyclone," said lead author Jinlun Zhang, an oceanographer, in a press release. 

Ted Scambos, a scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., who was not involved in the study, said the results demonstrate that the long-term decline in sea ice cover is more consequential than the storm was. “I think the storm was remarkable, and for a brief time had the effect of pushing the ice extent a week or two ahead of where it would have been. But in the end, nothing extra was needed for 2012 to set a major new record low ice extent,” he said in an email conversation.  

Related Content
Great Arctic Cyclone in Summer 'Unprecedented': Study
Ongoing Coverage of the Earth’s Polar Regions
Arctic Storms: A Climate Danger Nobody's Talking About
Arctic Sea Ice On Pace for a Record Low in September
It’s Official: Arctic Sea Ice Shatters Record Low
Global Warming Has Pushed Arctic into ‘New Normal’
Arctic Paradox: Warmer Arctic May Mean Cold Blasts for Some

Comments

By climatehawk1 (Norwich VT 05055)
on February 1st, 2013

The headline seems unfortunate grist for deniers, in that it suggests ice loss was driven by the storm. At the Arctic Sea Ice blog, a better alternative is suggested, along the lines: “Record 2012 Arctic ice melt not caused by cyclone.”

Reply to this comment

By Andrew
on February 1st, 2013

Climatehawk1 - We considered a headline along the lines of Neven’s at his blog. Both are factually correct, and in our splash headline on the front page of our website it clearly says “Record melt would have occurred anyway.” The study makes the pt. that ice loss accelerated during the storm to a huge degree, and that future storms may have the same effect as they work on a weaker and weaker ice pack. That insight warranted the headline, IMHO.

(Also, if we first worried about climate contrarians before publishing, we’d probably never publish.)

Best - Andrew

Reply to this comment

By climatehawk1 (Norwich, VT 05055)
on February 3rd, 2013

Thanks. The point about what could happen to future ice packs escaped me, as I evidently didn’t read that far. (Thus proving my point. smile)  I urge you to think about climate contrarians before you publish, though—as you know, the stakes could not be bigger, and we all are not writing in a vacuum. Climate Central is doing terrific work. That work will be distorted in any event, but I hope you can make it as difficult as possible.  When I write a clause in my day job that could be misconstrued if taken out of context, for example, I make sure to include enough context in the full sentence so that if the clause is pulled out by opponents, it’s easy, and damning, to show the misquote that occurred. It’s the price of writing in an intensely adversarial environment.  Just my two cents.

Reply to this comment

By Lewis Cleverdon
on February 4th, 2013

Andrew - thanks for this interesting summary.
It generates further questions to which I’d hope the researchers will seek answers.

1/. Given that this exceptional storm advanced the rate of melting (but didn’t increase the overall melt for the year), it follows that it raised the area-weeks of open water for the season. So by what percentage did the storm raise the intake of solar energy to the Arctic ocean for 2012 when compared with a ‘storm-free’ simulation ?

2/. Given the exceptional energy of the storm, and the context of the ongoing destabilization of practically all arctic climate and hydrology norms, to what extent can an increase in storms’ number and power be demonstrated ?

3/. IF an increase in summer storm impacts can be demonstrated to be raising the intake of the arctic ocean’s summer intake of solar energy, then, in addition to rising SAT and the rising influx of heat energy via sea-currents from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, what does this imply for the date and development of an ice-free Arctic ocean in summer ?

Regards,

Lewis

Reply to this comment

Name (required):
Email (required):
City/State/Zip:
Enter the word "climate" in the box below:

[+] View our comment guidelines.

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment will not appear until reviewed by Climate Central staff. Thank you for your patience.