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
Mark T (23:09:11) :
Max Hugoson (19:46:33) :
Weather is NOT climate.
-10 F in Minneapolis tonight.
BURRRRrrrrr……
Thank God, eh? Because if it were, you’d be [snip]
Mark
In those temperatures, you wouldn’t even need the {snip}!
“… 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.”
This is exactly what occured in the Swiss and French Alps during the coldest periods of the LIA. Not only did the glaciers grow downslope, but during the summer, the ice dams would suddenly burst. Huge torrents of ice cold water destroyed entire villages and pasture lands.
It should also be noted that during periods of prolonged cold, semi-permanent high pressure centers develope in many places. This brings the unexpected consequences of summer heat waves and drought to those places. This is most obvious for Northern Europe and the interior of the Rockies (the famous 4-Corners High). The large center of subsiding air in the winter brings frigid polar and subartic air to localities; but, if it persists into the summer, scorching heatwaves and drought persist. The London Fire of 1666 was the result of one such high pressure center. Strong, dry northeasterlies kept London in the 90s and low 100s through the summer, and when a bakery fire broke out in September those winds fanned the flames. The following winter, the temps were so cold that oak trees in the English Midlands split right down the middle.
Are the satellites calibrated to ground measurements or not ?
In several locations I have read that they are but I keep coming across AGW supporters who deny it.
The truth, please.
John Finn (02:52:39) :
E.M.Smith (01:19:44) :
Peter of Sydney (19:53:38) : 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.
Well you might… NOAA via NCDC, creates the GHCN data set that is the ‘base’ data (have trouble calling it ‘raw’ since it isn’t…) that goes into CIStemp (and if the leaked emails are to be believed substantially matches CRU, and so HadCRUT, and the NCDC adjusted, and even the Japanese series).
So how do you explain the high UAH satellite anomalies?
70% of the earth’s surface is water. UAH correctly measures the above surface temp of both land and ocean. The oceans are currently yielding up some of the energy stored in them by the active sun of the C20th. Because the sun is quiet, a lot of this heat is rising straight up through the less humid than usual atmosphere and heading out to space. Hence the high outoing LW readings at the TOA over the last 8 years.
The sea normally warms the land in winter by giving heat to the air which then passes over land, but because the trade winds are weak, and the air is less humid, this isn’t helping as much as before, and the interiors of the N.H. continents are getting mighty cold.
“ralph (01:46:11) :
[…]
A bıt lıke the dıagnosıs for Swıne Flu beıng wrong. I thınk the global authorıtıes are rapıdly runnıng out of scare storıes to scare us wıth. ”
No they don’t:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8433288.stm
(coastal erosion in Australia, Video)
Someone should’ve told’em about dykes or dunes i guess.
Stephen Wilde, satellites are calibrated to air balloon radiosondes and were repeatedly recalibrated, found to match the radiosonde readings very well.
I have compared MSU satellite readings of lower troposphere with good quality stations like Irish Armagh Observatory and the agreement for given area was exceptional.
We are living now in “interesting times” we have not lived exactly before. Also the SOI index for el Nino it is positive while there is no el Nino at all, warm areas along the equatorial pacific are limited only to el Nino 3+4 area and have not reached SA, instead it appears a non expected hot zone in the middle of the south pacific.
I hope some a more informed people could interpret this. Perhaps the magnetic field approach of Vukcevick…
I came across a good site towards the study of Stratospheric Sudden Warmings (SSW) which drive the AO negative at:
http://www.appmath.columbia.edu/ssws/index.php
It also appears the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO) helps modulate the SSW (and therefor, AO) as well as many other weather/climate events…see:
http://ugamp.nerc.ac.uk/hot/ajh/qbo.htm
Just a few other things to add to the bag of ‘chaos’ which drives our weather/climate.
Jeff
Pt. II
Continuing the thought of the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO) affecting the Stratospheric Sudden Warmings (SSW) which help modulate the Arctic Oscillation (AO) as opposed to the Annual Oscillation (AO), I came across an interesting paper published in 2005 demonstrating a potential link between the QBO behaviour and the Solar Cycle at:
http://sd-www.jhuapl.edu/TIMED/WWW/science/meetings/2005_SWG_04_12/General_Science/Mayr_SolarCycle.pdf
What would be interesting to see is the way the QBO is reacting to this long solar minimum since it should cross several QBO cycles.
Jeff
savethesharks (22:29:02) :
http://digitaldiatribes.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/amoraw200908.png
Hi Chris
As you can see I do not give up easily, although banned from elsewhere, and occasionally getting hard time here.
Great chart, thanks
It would be helpful to know the originator.
Thanks everybody for the links to the aqrctic ice monitoring sites. Does anyone have a link to a Norwegian site? (I think it has a name like “Nansen”.)
Paul Vaughan (01:30:00) :
I’m afraid I don’t have these, I was simply basing it on the pattern of H and L regions currently which does not indicate a positive Arctic dipole pattern.
Andy
“”Eggsuckindog (23:03:37) :
Forget the Artic, its cold as hell in Florida””
On the bright side, a really cold winter might help reduce/eliminate some alien species like pythons and tropic fish.
Fox / Stossel should interview Dr. Gray. (Perhaps in conjunction with Tim Ball.)
vukcevic (06:16:13) : I was asking for an interpretation from you of this big hot spot in the middle of southern seas:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
Any guesses if you put it on your magnetic field charts?
BTW El Nino it´s “congealed” and debilitated in the Nino 3+4 area and he seems to be scared not daring going eastward, not obeying SOI differential pressure.
Snowguy716 (22:10:00) : We have to be careful when talking about warming or cooling in the Arctic and the stratosphere. My guess (forecast?) of a coming cold NH winter was based upon this chart here: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php or see Anthony’s link to DMI Polar Temperature above on the right.
An AGW simpleton would look at the warmer Arctic temperatures during the last few months and shout global warming. To me it meant the Arctic was warmer than usual so losing more [IR] energy to space. Hence the NH was actually cooling down.
Warmer poles mean the Earth is cooling, colder poles mean the Earth is warming. The same applies to the stratosphere.
Pamela Gray (20:30:21) :
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.
You are in Oregon, right? I lived there for about 10 years, during the ’60’s and ’70’s, and remember some pretty bad flooding along the Willamette. Now I’m in Arkansas, where we are about to finish the year with ~85 inches of rainfall, compared to a normal of ~50 inches. The school where I teach has flooded twice, the second time on Christmas eve, wiping out most of the school’s computers (~150 or so).
Flooding is not nice.
Mapou (21:36:00) :
Can someone please explain in simple language what the implications are with respect to the AGW hypothesis.
It’s not getting warmer.
John Finn (03:01:19) : “You” use anomalies. If the 1951-1980 mean temperature for a station is 25C (77F) and in 2009 it only reads 23C (73F) then the anomaly will be -2, i.e. the anomaly will be ‘cold’ even though the climate/weather is still warm.
I any case, as I said above, satellite readings are also showing high anomalies and have a similar 30 year warming trend over the US as the GISS record.”
Plus or minus anomalies are totally dependent on the base period chosen.
Perhaps there should be a standard base period that would be as long as possible. Then anomalies could be compared on equal footings.
John Finn (03:01:19) :
“You” use anomalies. If the 1951-1980 mean temperature for a station is 25C (77F) and in 2009 it only reads 23C (73F) then the anomaly will be -2, i.e. the anomaly will be ‘cold’ even though the climate/weather is still warm.
I think you miss EM’s point. In order to calculate your anomalies you need a base line to subtract. So for CA if you had 3 stations in 1965, one coastal, one valley and one mountain then your gridded (5×5) product base line is the product of all three. If in 1990 you remove the valley and mountain stations but keep your 1950-1980 base line then post 1990 …
There is a huge influx of stations around 1950 and a huge exodus around 1990. It is difficult to see how like is being compared with like in 2009.
I any case, as I said above, satellite readings are also showing high anomalies and have a similar 30 year warming trend over the US as the GISS record.
Not sure too many here would disagree that there has been a warming trend since 1975 or so. Or that we are thankfully not still stuck in the LIA.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu …
There is an urgent need to correctly identify natural changes and remove them from the present global warming/cooling trend, in order to accurately and correctly identify the contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect.
Sometimes the correct answer is; “umm, I dunno”. No one likes to give that answer because it makes them look dumb, but nonetheless it is sometimes the right answer.
Our climate is incredibly complex. Anyone who thinks CO2 is like a thermostat on our climate is vastly oversimplifying it. Maybe one day we will be able to understand and possibly even control earth’s climate, but we aren’t there yet. Let’s just pray we are able to exercise some control over it before the next ice age hits.
AlanG (06:52:42) :
Warmer poles mean the Earth is cooling, colder poles mean the Earth is warming. The same applies to the stratosphere
Very interesting..Watch this hot spot in the middle of the pacific and cold waters east of it and surrounding it. The pacific anticyclone, which goes form south to north and counterclockwise to the west could displace those hot waters southwards (??)
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
E.M.Smith (01:19:44) :
Thanks for the concise summary of the work you’ve been doing on this.
I have a question, and we could take it up at your blog, if it is too OT here, but I don’t think we’ll get too off topic You wrote:
“IMHO, this biases the input data via thermometer change so much that it swamps the ability of the “anomaly process” to recover a valid anomaly.”
I understand this, I think. But wouldn’t the bias be there even if you do not use anomalies? I frequently use station, state, or regional data that doesn’t have an anomaly base, just temps (in F, though I sometimes convert to C). I simple 12 month moving average of the monthly values gives me a nice “annualized” graph of the series, but in degrees F (or C), not “anomalyized”. Now if we were to take the “raw” global temperatures, not “anomalyized,” and do the same, we’d still have the bias you report, wouldn’t we?
On the other hand, since the global temperature is built from gridding the station data, and not simply taking an average of all the stations, doesn’t this limit the influence of the problem you are talking about? I can see the large station dropout raising uncertainty levels, but not necessarily the mean. Unless, of course, you are saying that what dropped out within specific grid boxes were cooler stations, leaving behind proportionately more warmer stations.
The December 2009 AO index is indeed worthy of note .The recent level of around -4 looks to be the lowest since the 1950 start of record keeping. It is the lowest for December ever?
PREVIOUS LOWS
JAN 1977 -3.76
JAN 1963 -3.31
JAN 1966 -3.23
FEB 1969 -3.11
FEB 1978 -3.01
PDO and NAO are also negative and AMO is about to go negative . So many signs are all pointing in the same direction. This is not just a one winter event but may last for decades and is comparable to the 1960-1980 era.