Tides stir up deep Atlantic heat in the Arctic Ocean

February 17, 2015
Tides stir up deep Atlantic heat in the Arctic Ocean
Sea ice photographed by Bangor student, Joshua Griffiths. Credit: Joshua Griffiths

Researchers have identified how warm Atlantic water that is flowing deep into the Arctic Ocean is mixing with colder waters above to contribute to sea-ice loss in the Arctic. The results, published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience, show that tidal flows in the Arctic are causing deep, warm water (originating from the Gulf Stream) to mix with cold, fresh water lying above, in turn contributing to melting the floating sea-ice.

Past research on how warm layers of ocean water mix with cold layers lying above has focused on turbulence driven by winds and waves, rather than on tidal mixing, since tidal flows around the Arctic Ocean are generally weak. However, direct measurements of turbulence from across the seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean show that tidal motions interacting with steep slopes are in fact a major cause of vertical mixing.

Lead author, Tom Rippeth from Bangor University explains, "Our oceans are not made up of one body of water, but contain waters of different temperatures and salinity, lying in different 'layers', so the Arctic Ocean is a bit like a jam sandwich, where the "bread" is the cold water layers above and below the "jam", which is the warm, salty water that enters the Arctic from the Atlantic. Sea-ice floating on the surface of the ocean is insulated from the heat of the Atlantic layer by the "top slice" of cold polar water.

"We studied the warm body of water from the Atlantic that represents the largest oceanic input of heat into the Arctic – it is four degrees Celsius warmer than the surrounding water, and it is the warmest it has been in nearly two thousand years. The top of the warm layer sits at depths between 40 and 200 m, and its heat slowly diffuses upwards into the cold, fresher above, but sometimes this movement of heat can be greatly accelerated by turbulence which drives mixing. We have found that tides are producing significant amounts of turbulence over steep sea bed topography, and so are greatly enhancing the upward movement of heat in these regions. In areas where tidal currents interact with steep sea bed slopes, this process causes mixing of the warmer waters with the over-lying colder waters, and this in turn can generate 'hotspots' for sea-ice melt or thinning."

Sheldon Bacon, from the National Oceanography Centre, says, "Arctic sea ice is likely to retreat further in coming decades, and if it does, interactions between the wind and ocean currents may strengthen. These mixing hotspots may then grow into other areas of the Arctic Ocean with steep sea bed slopes, resulting in further sea-ice retreat. We know that the Arctic is already warming faster than the rest of the planet, and other research conducted in the past few years is pointing to the impact of Arctic warming on mid-latitude weather, so the Arctic may have had a role in recent weather extremes in the US, UK and Europe. Therefore the importance of the discovery of this new mechanism for moving heat up towards the Arctic ocean surface lies in its potential to further enhance Arctic warming."

Bangor University, the Norwegian Polar Institute (NPI) and the National Oceanography Centre (NOC) collaborated on four extensive Arctic research cruises covering the Arctic Ocean north of Svalbard, north of eastern and western Siberia, and in the Canada Basin. This was done by directly measuring turbulence around the Arctic Ocean and showing its direct correlation with tidal energy dissipation estimates made using satellite data.

Explore further: Could the Arctic be coming out of hibernation?

More information: "Tide-mediated warming of Arctic halocline by Atlantic heat fluxes over rough topography." Nature Geoscience (2015) DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2350

Related Stories

Large sea ice changes North of Swalbard

June 12, 2014

During the last decades warmer Atlantic water has caused a retreat of the ice edge north of Svalbard. In contrast to other areas of the Arctic Ocean, the largest ice loss north of Svalbard occurred during winter.

The yin-yang of polar sea ice

December 7, 2014

It comes as no surprise, therefore, when researchers announce as they did this past September that Arctic sea ice extent is still below normal, continuing a years-long downward trend, covering less and less of the north polar ...

Recommended for you

27 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TruGhost_OfBo
1 / 5 (13) Feb 17, 2015
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate, at Bergen, Norway
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post 90+ years ago.
ettubrute
3.8 / 5 (14) Feb 17, 2015
http://www.snopes...1922.asp - for a little further reading on the 1922 article.
rhsthjnty
5 / 5 (13) Feb 17, 2015
What most deniers seem to purposefully refuse to acknowledge...
-The article referenced a local event in Spitzbergen, not a trend applicable to the Arctic as a whole.

From the above link:
"As interesting as this nearly century-old article might be from a modern perspective, however, it isn't substantive evidence either for or against the concept of anthropogenic global warming. As documented elsewhere, the warming phenomena observed in 1922 proved to be indicative only of a local event in Spitzbergen, not a trend applicable to the Arctic as a whole."
runrig
5 / 5 (11) Feb 17, 2015
http://www.snopes...1922.asp - for a little further reading on the 1922 article.

Yes indeed the science has come a long way in 93 years. Satellites FI.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (11) Feb 17, 2015
Thank you ettabrute, for linking to the actual article. Of particular interest, given the way that TruGhost_OfBo has falsely presented the first paragraphs, is this bit from the article:
As interesting as this nearly century-old article might be from a modern perspective, however, it isn't substantive evidence either for or against the concept of anthropogenic global warming. As documented elsewhere, the warming phenomena observed in 1922 proved to be indicative only of a local event in Spitzbergen, not a trend applicable to the Arctic as a whole.
Just more evidence, in the event any was needed, of the dupliciousness and deceit some will stoop to in their attempts to deny the undeniable.
ettubrute
4.2 / 5 (15) Feb 17, 2015
Exactly, rhsthjnty. That is why I posted the link. You must always look at the long term trend line and not just at the seasonal variability of a localized event if you wish to see if there is a change in the long term trend globally. An example would be the Boston area receiving so much snow over the past few weeks. Record amounts of snow for such a short time frame of the event. Is this just a seasonal variability, or will it become the long term trend? Obviously it is too soon to know this, but for every 1C rise in atmospheric temperature the atmosphere has the potential to hold 10% more water vapor. This does not tell us where this extra water vapor will precipitate back out, but it does tell us that any precipitation events could become more potent. I believe that this is what we are seeing in the global events now. Heavier snow and rain events where they occur. Now we need to see if this does become the long term trend for future precipitation events.
keith_hinkel_9
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 17, 2015
Lets cut this BS please. We know this warming is due to the HAARP Weather Weapon-2 bases located in Alaska and others around Planet! No one talks about HAARP but me. Look it up. It is active, melting/warming the North Polar region, while FREEZING most of America, run by the Feds and killing Americans.
ettubrute
4.3 / 5 (16) Feb 17, 2015
HAARP was shut down with the spending sequester. How much energy does HAARP put out, when it is active? How much energy would it take to alter the Jet Stream, let alone the planet's atmosphere? You will find a huge mismatch there.
quickbme
4.2 / 5 (15) Feb 17, 2015
Keith, let's indeed cut this BS,.i.e. your conspiracy crap.

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2015
Now that an article posts it and it is in favor of you, now do you skeptigoons believe me?

Back to the physical properties:

Energy required to heat 1 m3 of air 1C ~1.2kJ.
Energy required to heat 1m3 (1M g) of water 1C ~4179 kJ.

Air temperature is a poor indicator of climate change.

A blow for science is a blow against SkepticalScience.com.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2015
Now that an article posts it and it is in favor of you, now do you skeptigoons believe me?
Perhaps you could take a few moments to explain how this creates an atmosphere where you can be believed? What, exactly, do you think this explains that would cause these "skeptigoons" to believe you?
Back to the physical properties:

Energy required to heat 1 m3 of air 1C ~1.2kJ.
Energy required to heat 1m3 (1M g) of water 1C ~4179 kJ.
That's nice. What do you think this explains? What were you trying to show by putting this information here?
Air temperature is a poor indicator of climate change.
While this is true, how do you think that relates to what you posted above?
A blow for science is a blow against SkepticalScience.com.
What is it about this that you think disputes skepticalscience.com? Do you think it disputes everything they have set out in their blog? Or just some things? What do you have against them or J.Cook anyway?
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2015
Water_Prophet tried but failed with
Back to the physical properties:
Energy required to heat 1 m3 of air 1C ~1.2kJ.
Energy required to heat 1m3 (1M g) of water 1C ~4179 kJ.
Air temperature is a poor indicator of climate change.
For people who live in air its adequate but, obviously not an indicator of overall ocean heat.

Y r u ignoring ocean's comparative specific heat & regarding ocean temperature resolution ?

Be a good little fetus, u said "Back to the physical properties" why can't u do that with watts/m^2 with CO2 - its EASY for a Physical Chemist (PC) to be definitive with that issue ?

Y miss lectures on instrumentation in PC ?

Y can't u deal with something "right up your alley" ?

As I said I don't claim to be a Physical Chemist but, I move in wide circles & not one of the PCs I work with bother with your naive immature claims, u are NOT a PC by any means, a mere kid !

Answer my question properly & definitively to prove your claim re CO2 like a PC can !
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2015
Well, at least you acknowledge you're both goons.
Even if nothing else comes of it, we all have that at least.
That, and you continue to demonstrate you have no hope of understanding basic science.

Is there any, anyone, ANYONE else the least bit confused by, or need clarification of my previous post?
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 17, 2015
Question to Water_Prophet
To be clear to everyone observing your evasion first verify u accept terms/definition re vocation as real PC does:-
https://en.wikipe...hemistry
?
This is your very obvious pattern.

When asked direct question re your claimed degree U ignore it & instead make irrelevant claims, u CANNOT answer simple direct questions in your claimed degree - Y ?

It appears u are caught out yet AGAIN !

So, as a claimed Physical Chemist, is your particular training commensurate with the definition in link I supplied above ?

Obviously it SHOULD be as the uni definitions r global but, I will give u a chance to exclude an issue u missed in a lecture or failed to pass in or needed a supplementary due to illness at a main exam.

So tell re Physical Chemistry as per my link above.

R U or R U not educated in this field re a degree with ALL it implies ?

btw: In Oz "graduate level" is studies towards uni degree qualification.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (8) Feb 17, 2015
Well, at least you acknowledge you're both goons.
Even if nothing else comes of it, we all have that at least.
That, and you continue to demonstrate you have no hope of understanding basic science.

Is there any, anyone, ANYONE else the least bit confused by, or need clarification of my previous post?
No on else reads your posts.

No answer then. Typical.

You have never once provided evidence that your theory that mechanical heating is responsible for global warming can work.

Never. Not once.

Ones uses those terms a lot with you.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Feb 17, 2015
Is there any, anyone, ANYONE else the least bit confused by, or need clarification of my previous post?
@ALCHE
ok, hold the phone for a minute...

so, what you are trying to say is this:
ONLY the problems that YOU post are worth being scientific or accurate about?

You've been challenged to supply the refute to a STUDY and your reply was to link a wiki graph of properties and then say we are all monkeys looking at wrist watches

you've never once been able to provide a scientific refute of ANY study given to you, nor have you been able to break down any specific points in any study showing how they were wrong.... but somehow everyone else is a goon because ???????

WOW

now that is one powerful Dunning-Kruger!

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2015
Ah, Stumps, my post confused you to? No surprise, you're a skeptigoon.

No, my post wasn't about me, it was just some calculations, presenting a point, where would you get that idea? That's nuts! and I thought we were over the study thing, didn't you mis-represent me to the AAAS? Won't that be the end of it?

Well yes, Stumpy, if FOR EXAMPLE, you tell me that Sunlight is broken up into spectra, contains energy, warms the Earth, drives the weather, and challenge me to describe it's source, and I tell you "nuclear fusion," and you don't understand it, because nuclear fusion is not spectra, isn't heat, isn't Sunlight...

You are a monkey looking at at a wristwatch.

What gets me, is everyone but the skeptigoons get it. Even the deniers. Everybody else learns, adapts, changes.

A paid shill couldn't learn and adapt, they'd be paid to present and maintain ignorance.

Just sayn.
Caliban
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2015


A paid shill couldn't learn and adapt, they'd be paid to present and maintain ignorance.

Just sayn.


And you've just described your own efforts here in the PO comments quite incisively, Whiffen_Poof.

After having trotted out your bowl'o'water "model" for the ad nauseamth time.

So much for [everybody else] (ie, you) learning, adapting, changing....
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2015
Don't mock the brass bowl man. It works. You mock the brass bowl, you find yourself in it, it's suddenly porcelain, and FLUSH!
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 18, 2015
Water_Prophet showing himself up again & completely deluded with hindsight interpretations to fit
Don't mock the brass bowl man. It works. You mock the brass bowl, you find yourself in it, it's suddenly porcelain, and FLUSH!
Every post you make goes to prove you could not have graduated as a Physical Chemist (PC) with one degree let alone your claim of 4 ?!

Your choice of language is immature, childlike & intellectually naive, replete with egotistical claims NOT commensurate with any uni training.

You several claims re CO2 & its negligible effects have NEVER been definitively covered.

Are u really a PC at the highest ethical standard re this vocational definition:-
https://en.wikipe...hemistry

And if so then WHY would you have to claim it, so where and when did you graduate ?

Obviously u don't see that u don't know enough at all re "Experimental Methodology" to even counter one little bit as to Y a brass bowl could ever model climate !
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 18, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
You are a monkey looking at at a wristwatch
You claimed to be a Physical Chemist (PC) and with 3 more degrees and as such a PC would NEVER utter these words or if he did he didn't pass & was kicked out first year for intellectual fraud !

A PC would provide an audit-able sequence from first principles to 'connect the dots' to support any derived equation or maths showing an empirical relationship, such that any pontential of an immature notion of watches/monkeys would NEVER need to be uttered, except by a child.

Physical Chemists learn foundational aspects of Physics & that is unit dimensions, in respect of Earth's energy balance this is WHY Watts per square meter are definitive & NOT relative ppm.

Trouble is u cannot address it, therefore u are a LIAR, a cheat & waste of time !
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2015
my post confused you to?
@ALCHE
nope
i want to know why you are trying to post science now, but you refuse to post anything like relevant science or supporting evidence when posting about your "proof" where you "debunked" a study
that is a claim you continually make, but you've never been able to support that claim with any evidence
Science is evidence based, correct?
so then your answers should also be evidence based
I thought we were over the study thing
I'm not
idn't you mis-represent me to the AAAS?
Nope. I copied your words VERBATIM
if anything is misrepresented, it is in YOUR words, not mine
Won't that be the end of it?
when we get a reply it will
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2015
Continued @ ALCHE
Everybody else learns, adapts, changes.
A paid shill couldn't learn and adapt, they'd be paid to present and maintain ignorance
you know, this is EXACTLY what i have been saying about YOU for a long time!
in fact, just the FACTS point to you being a paid shill for someone

-you refuse to back up your statements with evidence (so that it can't be used against you)
-You intentionally mislead with false "experiments" that are not controlled, detailed or capable of actually representing the climate
- you intentionally LIE and cause obfuscation of science (see: refuted a study)
-you intentionally make claims that are not true (from historical predictions that cannot be linked to debunking a study)
-you create strawmen arguments
-You claim no one is smart enough to understand but you and your followers

PSEUDOSCIENCE and shill
http://phys.org/n...ate.html

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2015
@ALCHE lastly
FOR EXAMPLE, you tell me that
Ok, lets back up a minute
you say that your brass bowl BS is accurate and can predict the climate and climate change we see
YET
1-you've never posted any CONTROL to the experiment
2-you've never made sure that the experiment was controlled, either, telling everyone that the room temperature should be XXXX degrees, on ANY scale, F or C
3-you've never noted that all other sources of heating, cooling etc be controlled (meaning heaters, fans, incandescent lights, etc) which means someone could, per your failure to discuss it, put the whole shebang under a spotlight and get the same results
4-you've never shown any historical experimentation and annotation on said experiment which would validate your claims
5-you cannot even be grammatically or scientifically clear and concise

IOW - you don't know the scientific method
NOR do you likely have any degree's in ANY scientific field (contrary to your claims)

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2015
You know, other people than you skeptigoons have to read this post. Have some kind of respect!

LOL, who am I kidding?
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2015
You know, other people than you skeptigoons have to read this post. Have some kind of respect!


Bravo, whiffen-Poof!

Now, go take your own advice, and then go find a rope to piss up.

Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2015
Elsewhere re the tragedy of Water_Prophet...

Water_Prophet claimed
This means all future increases in atmospheric temperature must have another powerful source. Not CO2!
I wonder what it could be?
I wonder Y someone who claims to be a Physical Chemist (PC) is impotent/clueless as to how to determine quantification of the most appropriate units of Watts per Square meter re CO2 or ANY greenhouse gas ?

As if Water_Prophet completely lied about his claimed degree as a PC ?

Why can't a PC determine energy in Joules by formulating the increase in thermal resistivity of CO2's absorbancy/re-radiation of long wave infra red to Space ?

What seems to be wrong with this Water_Prophet, who makes lots of egotistical claims re his multiple 4 technical degrees yet CANNOT talk like one, articulate fundamentals like one & evades any discussion on issues he cannot find addressed via google ?

Water_Prophet grow up, own up or AT LEAST prove your claimed credentials ?

Caught !

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.