In the last month, the Arctic Oscillation Index (AO) has gone strongly negative. You can see that it headed to its negative peak right about the time the Copenhagen Climate Conference started, so it is no wonder that they ironically experienced cold and snow there. It is also a setup for the record snow and cold Canada and the USA has seen recently.
Source: NOAA Climate Predication Center Daily AO Index
With this change happening, the setup for an increased Arctic Sea Ice Maximum is enhanced this year, likely to happen sometime around March 1st, 2010.
NSIDC has an interesting writeup and graphic on the AO:
From NSIDC:
The Arctic Oscillation refers to opposing atmospheric pressure patterns in northern middle and high latitudes.
The oscillation exhibits a “negative phase” with relatively high pressure over the polar region and low pressure at midlatitudes (about 45 degrees North), and a “positive phase” in which the pattern is reversed. In the positive phase, higher pressure at midlatitudes drives ocean storms farther north, and changes in the circulation pattern bring wetter weather to Alaska, Scotland and Scandinavia, as well as drier conditions to the western United States and the Mediterranean. In the positive phase, frigid winter air does not extend as far into the middle of North America as it would during the negative phase of the oscillation. This keeps much of the United States east of the Rocky Mountains warmer than normal, but leaves Greenland and Newfoundland colder than usual. Weather patterns in the negative phase are in general “opposite” to those of the positive phase, as illustrated below.
Over most of the past century, the Arctic Oscillation alternated between its positive and negative phases. Starting in the 1970s, however, the oscillation has tended to stay in the positive phase, causing lower than normal arctic air pressure and higher than normal temperatures in much of the United States and northern Eurasia.
As we see in this graph below, we’ve seen more red (positive) than blue (negative) phases of the AO in the last 30–40 years. Whether this is short period negative excursion or the start of a longer trend is unknown.
Source: NOAA Climate Prediction Center
There are other indicators recently of a flip in patterns, notable is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which changed last year, but we also see the North Atlantic Oscillation in a negative phase as well. Whether it will remain negative or not we’ll soon know, but note that it has been negative the majority of time since August 31st.
Source: NOAA Climate Prediction Center
Since 2000, it has seen a fair amount of negative time also:
Source: NOAA Climate Prediction Center
The climate change seems to be changing now.
h/t to Werner Weber
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well, whadya’ know. Just as Pamela Gray said a few threads ago.
So this would suggest the possibility of an extended cooling period?
Yes, the North Atlantic Oscillation and the Arctic Oscillation (a/k/a Northern Annular Mode) are believed to be linked. If both go over to full negative phase, it will add a cooling influence to current climate.
The AO has been in overall positive (warm) phase since 1989 and the NOA since around 2001. Based on past patterns, they would be expected to remain in warm mode for another decade or two, but if they do a major early shift, all bets are off.
This is very interesting stuff… Thanks Anthony!
I’m in Germany. I want my warm winters back. I hate those arctic blasts. It nearly made me crash my car last week. Look at the way that arrow points over Europe. It’s the wrong direction now!
So this would suggest the possibility of an extended cooling period?
If there is an early shift in NOA/AO and if the PDO has genuinely turned negative, yes, there is a distinct possibility.
The NOA/AO is the atmospheric component. If the oceanic component (the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) follows along, that will be another indication.
wow…how quickly might we see fruit of this? it would be so funny if we reached a new IJIS maximum in march. any chance of this?
So if trade wind strength is influenced by the AO, does that mean ENSO is also influenced? As a major driver of ENSO changes is driven by the trade wind strength which is influenced by the AO?
Weather is NOT climate.
-10 F in Minneapolis tonight.
BURRRRrrrrr……
Max
WRT the NSIDC graphic on the AO; specifically the negative phase:
Oh; WONDERFUL:
The big, black ”cold” arrow diving down thru the middle of North America in the negative phase goes right thru northern ND; which is where I will be for the next few months. Last winter it got down to minus 41.7 degrees BELOW zero F. one morning. Wonder what we have to look forward to in ND in 2010 (we already had a pretty good approximation of an old-time 3-day blizzard). . . .
The NSIDC graphic suggests that during negative phase AO, Britain should experience sunny, cool, dry weather. But it has had much the opposite. Are we to take it that the arrow shown coming over Europe has, in this negative cycle, moved farther to the West than normal? Perhaps a test of this would be what is happening in Iceland and Greenland? Given the way “normal” weather patterns vary, one would expect the sunny, dry weather to be realised farther out in the North Atlantic area. Or perhaps the NSIDC graphic is full of S*&*% or so wildly general as to be almost useless for the purposes of interpreting the current phase change.
BTW Mojib Latif , german Climatologist in Kiel, has predicted something like this with a computer model that incorporates the thermohaline convection. He’s a convinced warmist and warns that this will give us only a break before rapid warming happens (no surprise there).
How come all this cooling around much of the world over the recent few months is not reflected in the official surface temperature readings as reported by NASA? I smell a rat.
Medium-range models have us VERY cold here in NC a few days after New Year’s.
Would this be a good thread to note that “natural variation” as an explanation is something I still find unsatisfying, even if accurate? To me, it still is just hiding another deeper level of detailed processes that we still don’t understand. There must be a process or group of processes that is/are susceptible to understanding that causes “natural variation”, and would thus would be at least predictable if understood. Or in other words, *why* did the AO just turn negative, and I don’t want to here “natural variation” as the answer, even if it is an accurate one. If you ask me “what is 2+2?” and I answer “Not less than 3 and not more than 10”, then I’ve given you an accurate answer. . .but not the best one that should be able to be arrived at.
Seems they were bang on (from 2003):
Quote,
Finally and importantly, it should be noted that the factors appear to have recently changed to modes favoring a cooling. If so, the recent winters of 2000/01 (coldest ever November and December for the United States) and 2002/03 (one of the coldest in the eastern states in many decades) could be sign of things to come.
Global Cooling About to “Kick-in”?
An Alernative View on Climate Change
http://www.biblelife.org/globalwarming-kick-in.pdf
I would surmise that a mix of warm ocean and cold atmospheric conditions with the right “negative” bent would result in a build-up of snow and a regrowth of glaciers over time. If everything turned cold, then rivers would freeze, precip would dry up, and many areas will be ice-locked. Larger water sources would continue to build up and create large ice dams. If a thaw then took place, we would have severe flooding in many areas. An all cold scenario is not to be wished for, especially if followed by warmth and rain.
Watts up with the south pacific? (SST anomilies)
This looks very strange to me. I don’t have the time right now to dig
through NOAA archives, but the Gulf Stream looks peculiar also.
Interesting times eh?
What would be really interesting is seeing a 3d volumetric time series in fine resolution of the entire atmosphere and ocean currents. I wonder if this is even possible given the current set of data collected from the various satellites and other data collection equipment in play today. This fine resolution volumetric visualization mapped onto Google Earth in real time or near real time would enable people, just about anyone, to see a detailed map aka representation of what is going on with the planet at any given moment in time. Correlate the upper atmosphere and solar winds and influence of the moon as Piers Corbyn alleges would also be fascinating.
It sure looks like Piers Corbyn called it right using a forecasting model based upon the Arctic Oscillation Index and comprehension of the diagram you show above. Cold blowing across Europe and Canada/USA in the NO graphic as Piers forecast. Fascinating.
pwl
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/28/long-term-weather-forecasting-with-piers-corbyn
I am also guessing that the jet stream, pressed upon by El Nino and trand wind behavior, would bring about some variation in the predictions globally portrayed above under a negative AO.
the picture on the right looks exactly like Corbin’s long term prognosis, with cold in the US and much of europe and storms in mediterranean europe.
the questions are,
how Corbin predicted the shape of the AO in advance,
and, why the hadley center has not been able to do so, let alone attributing AO variability as a or THE major factor of european warming in1979-2000 ?
This is very bad news for those who say Arctic ice is in a ‘death spiral’.
REPLY: The diagnosis was wrong, it just had a bad case of a cold. -Anthony
geo (20:05:53) :
Would this be a good thread to note that “natural variation” as an explanation is something I still find unsatisfying, even if accurate? To me, it still is just hiding another deeper level of detailed processes that we still don’t understand. There must be a process or group of processes that is/are susceptible to understanding that causes “natural variation”, and would thus would be at least predictable if understood. Or in other words, *why* did the AO just turn negative, and I don’t want to here “natural variation” as the answer, even if it is an accurate one. If you ask me “what is 2+2?” and I answer “Not less than 3 and not more than 10″, then I’ve given you an accurate answer. . .but not the best one that should be able to be arrived at.
Well when people say Natural Variation it is in contrast to Anthropological Global Warming… That is not to say that there are not definitive mechanisms that we are not learning about and peeling away from climate science. TO be honest the true sad story is that AGW and it’s backers have pretty much hijacked the real science funding that was going about and peeling back the first real layers of understanding that we were developing. that is not to say that it is not still going on only that the true scientists that are studying have to homage to the great AGW story in order to get funding.
As far as the ‘Natural Variation’ goes it is all about peeling back layer upon layer of complexity. Nothing in the climate system does not touch something else but the feedback and responses to any added variable are fluid in nature. Meaning hat there are SO MANY VARIABLES to account for. This is one of the reasons why CO2 is a scapegoat rather then anything else. Just because in physics it says CO2 retains heat better then say nitrogen does not mean that by introducing CO2 into the atmosphere we will have an overall warmer climate… It also does not mean we will not have a warmer climate… You have to account for Solar radiance, tidal flux, oceanic currents, magnetic resonance, cosmic rays?, Tectonic movement, solar wind, cloud cover, evaporation, solar winds, UHI, and probably a few tens of things we have not learned enough about to ask the correct questions about. So while someone else may be able to answer your question as to what mechanism CAUSED the arctic to get colder I welcome the response, but what we have learned at the vary least is the cause and effect of when it does this and the knowledge that it does in fact change. I know that may not seem like a great answer but it is all I got, anyone else?
“Source: NOAA Climate Predication Center Daily AO Index”
Is the 1st source supposed to be a more logical forecast center?
Over the last 1.8-million years, cyclical Pleistocene ice ages have averaged some 102,000 years interspersed with median 12,250-year interglacial epochs. Since the Pleistocene Era is barely one-seventh through its statistically-alotted span, this well-defined pattern should recur for another 12 – 14 million years.
Though Earth’s latest ice age lasted from about 116,400 – 14,400 years-before-present (YBP), continental ice sheets did not fully recede prior to c. BC 8800 (10,800 YBP). Our current Holocene Interglacial Epoch, however, was set back 1,500 years to BC 7300 by a so-called Younger Dryas “cold shock” induced by cometary/meteorite debris impacting Earth from Sol’s enveloping Oort Cloud (qv). Though Earth’s Long Summer should have ended about AD 500, coincident with the Fall of Rome, odds now are that the Holocene was due to end about AD 2000 + (12,250 – 12,300) = AD 1950. As warmth rebounds from the 500-year Little Ice Age that ended c. 1850 – ’90, Earth enters on a 70-year “dead sun” Maunder Minimum which may well tip the planet to Ice Time once again.
Milankovich orbital cycles, various intra-solar and cosmic radiation factors are all very well, but Ice Ages are at bottom geophysical phenomena tied to Wegener’s “continental drift”, aka plate tectonics. When Gondwanaland clumped all Earth’s landmasses together at the South Pole, pre-Cambrian ice ages lasted up to 500-million years. For some 300-million years before the Pleistocene, continental dispositions precluded freezing because most lay in temperate zones. Now that North and South American continents wall off eastern from western hemispheres, interfering with deep-ocean currents that drive atmospheric convection circulation, it seems that landmass configuration lends itself to oscillating temperature regimes.
Like botany, climatology is a classificatory rather than experimental science– hindsight derives data which may serve to formulate hypotheses, but Lorenz’s Chaos Theory renders linear extrapolations mathematically impossible for complex systems. So we rely on cyclical phenomena, alternating peaks and troughs of varying amplitude and frequency that cancel and reinforce at intervals to produce extended stable periods, which in fact are no such thing.
Given Luddite sociopaths’ willful sabotage of the U.S. energy economy since early 1970s, we can only hope that Ice Time will be deferred a few more centuries. But as contrary evidence accumulates, odds of that grow very slim. And what will Cock Robin do then, poor thing?