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
Well, in contrast to US and northern Europe, we in Greece are getting a mild December (18C daytime maximum, 9C minimum). Fortunately we did get a cold spell sometime in October ( cold meaning below 10C maximum) and in the beginning of December, otherwise all the fruit trees would have bloomed which would not be good for agriculture. This, fruit trees blooming in December has happened once in my memory of watching weather here( 50years?).
Our summer was cool though, practically air conditioned, so the yearly temperature should average out on the average 🙂
1. It would be interesting to look at reconstructions of the AO and NAO from the 1920’s and ’30’s.
2. The AO was deeply negative from the beginning of June, 2009 until the middle of August. During this time, the temperature reported in Central Park never reached 90F (not shown in the graph above).
2a. How much of the deeply negative AO this past summer was due to the eruptions of Mts Redoubt and Sarychev (more importantly the latter)? A significant injection of SO2 into the stratosphere might induce a sudden stratospheric warming an event which translates in the lower troposphere to a negative AO. Joe D’Aleo, I believe, wrote a blog post on Icecap about this connection at the time of the eruption of Sarychev.
3. Interesting shift around 1995. Negative AO’s seem to become more frequent and deeper. positives less frequent and shallower.
4. Deeply negative AO in October correlates with the third coldest October in the U.S. instrumental record.
5. Different signals can have widely different effects, especially in the context of longer-term variations in the ocean-atmosphere couplet, such as the AMO and PDO.
6. Could someone sit me down and explain, patiently and slowly, the basics of Atmospheric Angular Momentum? My spiritual serenity would be greatly torqued.
being picky here anthony but;; REPLY: The diagnosis was wrong, it just had a bad case of a cold. -Anthony
Shouldn’t that be case of warm. :))
Now its all down to how the climate re-acts when the PDO goes cold phase (now), AMO( just beginning), Sun( maybe now), Artic’just beginning) etc. What is reasonably obvious, he says carefully, is that warming would naturally continue up to the beginning of the next ice-age but also that the deeper a cold spell in between the slower and lower that warming could become, So doing an AGW funded scientist impression, we look to be in for a cold snap but global warming will resume ( but maybe not immediately and maybe not in time to show an overall dramatic increase in global temps before 2100)
Juraj V. (02:32:16) :
“The more I have been thinking about our central European climate, the more I am convinced the warming since mid-80ties has been caused by changes in air circulation.”
Here in Hungary I think exactly the same. The macrocirculation patterns have changed greatly over the last 20-30 years, especially during summer months. More sunshine, more SW radiation, more heat and higher temperatures. I think our climate is driven by AMO and sometimes influenced by ENSO.
Roger Knights (06:20:41) : Norwegian /Nansen ??
Is this what you are looking for?
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
Can anyone provide a starting point to look into the spatial relationships that underlie the “global” climate models?
Could somebody give me an idea of what is wrong with Real Climate’s analysis of C02 induced warming?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/
Eve (08:12:26) :Could somebody give me an idea of what is wrong with Real Climate’s analysis of C02 induced warming?
Everything!
Didn’t you know about “Climate Gate” ?
Eve,
It is wrong in so many ways I don’t think this post is the place to explain it all. Try this and follow some of the other links:
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/
Great curve on the AMO, and another stromg suggestion of big trouble. The mid century cold in NA started about 1944 and temperature dropped like a stone to about 1953, right after the AMO smoothed peak, warming started about 1976, right after the trough, we are now a year or so past the next peak. Oh oh! Murray
Eve
It’s toooooo simple, thats all. Yes CO² absorbs IR but at two very specific and narrow bands. CO² also gives up the radiation but it can’t give it to just any old molecule. N and O (96% of the atmosphere will not accept it) so CO² can only transfer its energy to N and O and other molecules but kinetic transfer, it has to get rid of the energy because it naturally wants to be in its ‘ground state’ (min energy state) so if it can’t do so by kinetic means then it will do it by re-radiation. Only other CO² can be reradiated but because they are already ‘saturated’ the reradiated energy is ‘assumed’ to radiate in all directions ie 50% down to earth and 50% into space. Kinetic transfer then relies on the 1:2500 CO² molecules exciting the others. Not very influential you see. If you were into purifying metals for money, ie gold, nickel, etc, you would consider 0.04% of impurity very close to pure and that is the amount of CO² in the atmosphere. For the fabrication of intergrated circuit we look for an impurity level of better than 0.01% to 0.001% or better that is to say 99.99% to 99.999% pure. You pay considerably more money for 5 nines pure than 4 nines pure but both are very difficult to achieve. Our atmosphere is 99.96% pure relative to CO².
Now this is also a very simple explanation but it should give you the drift. I will say, though, that CO² has the potential to warm the planet but we simply do not understand all the feedbacks within the system. Climate models make many assumption about these feedbacks which may or may not be correct but what is certain is that we need a lot more genuine and honest research into the climate system which will not happen until governments relinquish their desire to use climate as a means of taxation.
EVE
http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/PowerPoint/Joe_DAleo.ppt#283,31,Slide 31
CO2 induced warming is flawed because it fails the ultimate field test. In the real world the temperatures are going down while the CO2 levels are rising.
Eve (08:12:26) :
Step 5. There is a false sense of confidence about the climate sensitivity number.
stephen richards (08:46:19) :
until governments relinquish their desire to use climate as a means of taxation
So…the best idea to make them forget about carbon dioxide and climate change would be to accept a direct taxation on fossil fuels, that would fix your deficits and your economy, and believe me, it will assure fossil fuels industry because, readily the government becomes addicted to this tax. Rest assure that comsumption does not decrease at all. In my country we happily pay (the poorest and the richest) a premium gasoline price of US$4.89 per US gallon.
Jonsie
Thats exactly what the French have done. Which is where I live and work with local government. We have a €17/tonne tax on carbon beginning next week. BUT I think it is deceitful. I would rather be taxed honestly thank you and not told seemingly endless lies in order to impose it. We pay 0.60€ /ltr for heating fuel at the moment and €1.26/ltr for petrol which is about €5.67/gallon with an average wage of €1500/mth before tax. Premium petrol is about €1.32/ltr although I use diesel @ur momisugly €1 / ltr so you see that carbon taxes are already very high against the average wage.
The difference with ecotax and the reason the governments like it is because they can make the halfwitted average mr public feel good about paying it. There is no other tax that does that; Which also means they can augment it at will. Incidently the french deficit is about average for europe, so well below the US and UK on a par with germany.
Jonesll, the syndrome – “happily pay(ing)” a tax – should be enough to get you a Zoloft prescription.
If some one bothers you all days and all the time…it’s better to finish it by asking : what do you want?!!…then I’ll give you some money but go!
That’s the logic of it. If with that money we pay they can do what they please OK, but let us leave us live in peace!. That is the price we have to pay to allow us to live, see?. They will, of course, as corrupt as they are, will spend part of that money in buying some whittish stuff that will make them more useless that they are now, and we can happily live our simpler but fruitful lives.
They really will become the real “gammas” of their naive “Brave new world”, and we, the commonest among the common will have the wealth of knowledge. Just leave them to live their miserable lives only scarcely bearable by sniffing that starnge powder imported from southern latitudes.☺
JonesII (07:36:13) :
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
Im kind of curious about the warm water off Greenland on the gif. Is it real, and if so is it geothermal or sumthin?
Yes, thanks.
**************
JonesII (09:35:35) :
stephen richards (08:46:19) :
until governments relinquish their desire to use climate as a means of taxation
So…the best idea to make them forget about carbon dioxide and climate change would be to accept a direct taxation on fossil fuels, that would fix your deficits and your economy, and believe me, it will assure fossil fuels industry because, readily the government becomes addicted to this tax. Rest assure that comsumption does not decrease at all. In my country we happily pay (the poorest and the richest) a premium gasoline price of US$4.89 per US gallon.
*****************
The best idea is to forget taxing CO2 and forget taxing gasoline. I mean, a tax cut would be the best idea. What’s up with all you taxing people??
Looking at NOAA’s historical averages for December going back to 1950 make December 2009 very significant. I was unable to get raw data to see just how far below (-4) the index is actually recording but even assuming maximum anomalies of (-4) and standard arithmetic averages, we could be exceeding (-3) for the month which is significant given the record for the last 60 years for December is (-2.3)
JAN 1977 -3.76
JAN 1963 -3.31
JAN 1966 -3.23
FEB 1969 -3.11
FEB 1978 -3.01
And as Matt V (07:54:18) :
has shown the December reading would be approaching all time lows for January and February.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/monthly.ao.index.b50.current.ascii
1950 1 -0.60310E-01
1950 12 -0.19281E+01
1951 12 0.19872E+01
1952 12 -0.18267E+01
1953 12 0.57547E+00
1954 12 0.55259E+00
1955 12 -0.44403E+00
1956 12 0.89139E-03
1957 12 0.82801E+00
1958 12 -0.16865E+01
1959 12 -0.41950E-01
1960 12 -0.34295E+00
1961 12 -0.16682E+01
1962 12 -0.71143E+00
1963 12 -0.11781E+01
1964 12 -0.24609E+00
1965 12 0.16297E+00
1966 12 -0.14015E+01
1967 12 -0.34693E+00
1968 12 -0.78317E+00
1969 12 -0.18556E+01
1970 12 -0.39915E+00
1971 12 0.82387E+00
1972 12 0.12375E+01
1973 12 -0.18148E+00
1974 12 0.55645E+00
1975 12 0.12898E+01
1976 12 -0.20743E+01
1977 12 -0.23965E+00
1978 12 -0.98014E+00
1979 12 0.12948E+01
1980 12 -0.57300E-01
1981 12 -0.12157E+01
1982 12 0.96718E+00
1983 12 0.18625E+00
1984 12 0.44600E+00
1985 12 -0.19476E+01
1986 12 0.59768E-01
1987 12 -0.53391E+00
1988 12 0.16788E+01
1989 12 -0.64365E+00
1990 12 0.12767E+00
1991 12 0.16132E+01
1992 12 0.16267E+01
1993 12 -0.10412E+00
1994 12 0.89383E+00
1995 12 -0.21271E+01
1996 12 -0.17208E+01
1997 12 -0.71116E-01
1998 12 0.13534E+01
1999 12 0.10431E+01
2000 12 -0.23544E+01*
2001 12 -0.13224E+01
2002 12 -0.15921E+01
2003 12 0.26521E+00
2004 12 0.12301E+01
2005 12 -0.21039E+01
2006 12 0.22817E+01
2007 12 0.82113E+00
2008 12 0.64778E+00
2009 12 -0.99900E+34
Jim
Great idea but countries are like households. We should spend only what we get in income or perhaps a little than our income in order to save for banker induced economic failures.
The big difference of course, is that countries can print more money. That works for a while but eventually fails in massive inflation and bankruptcy.
So tax is income and we need it to help the sick (us sometimes), to build infrastructure, recreaction facilities and so on. In reality, oil is a very cheap commodity these days relative to our personal incomes and at the well head it is massively cheaper than at the pump. Which why OPEC gets really annoyed when western governments tell them to drop their prices. So honesty first, I think.
Ron
Is that right? 2009 12 -0.99900E+34
Dec 2009 -0.999 to the power of +34
That is just a place holder for missing data. Since it is the monthly value that is shown, Dec doesn’t have a value yet. Also sometimes represented as NaN’s (not a number)