Here is a quote you don’t often see:
Our results provide a rare example of a climate change effect in which a type of extreme weather is likely to decrease, rather than increase.
From USA Today’s Science Fair:
OK, time to prove we’re not all gloom and doom here at Science Fair. Here’s some happy news about global warming, for once.
A new study out Wednesday in the British journal Nature finds that large, powerful North Atlantic ocean storms should actually become less frequent by the end of the century, due to climate change.
Led by Matthias Zahn of the U.K.’s University of Reading, the study used climate models to show that these North Atlantic storms — known as polar lows — may decrease in frequency by as much as 50% by 2100.
“Our results provide a rare example of a climate change effect in which a type of extreme weather is likely to decrease, rather than increase.” Zahn writes in the paper, which was co-authored by Hans von Storch of the University of Hamburg in Germany.
=================================================
Here’s the abstract from Nature
Decreased frequency of North Atlantic polar lows associated with future climate warming
Matthias Zahn & Hans von Storch
Every winter, the high-latitude oceans are struck by severe storms that are considerably smaller than the weather-dominating synoptic depressions. Accompanied by strong winds and heavy precipitation, these often explosively developing mesoscale cyclones—termed polar lows—constitute a threat to offshore activities such as shipping or oil and gas exploitation.
Yet owing to their small scale, polar lows are poorly represented in the observational and global reanalysis data often used for climatological investigations of atmospheric features and cannot be assessed in coarse-resolution global simulations of possible future climates. Here we show that in a future anthropogenically warmed climate, the frequency of polar lows is projected to decline. We used a series of regional climate model simulations to downscale a set of global climate change scenarios from the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change.
In this process, we first simulated the formation of polar low systems in the North Atlantic and then counted the individual cases. A previous study using NCEP/NCAR re-analysis data revealed that polar low frequency from 1948 to 2005 did not systematically change.
Now, in projections for the end of the twenty-first century, we found a significantly lower number of polar lows and a northward shift of their mean genesis region in response to elevated atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration. This change can be related to changes in the North Atlantic sea surface temperature and mid-troposphere temperature; the latter is found to rise faster than the former so that the resulting stability is increased, hindering the formation or intensification of polar lows.
Our results provide a rare example of a climate change effect in which a type of extreme weather is likely to decrease, rather than increase.
==============================================
Addendum: Since there’s a lot of whining about use of descriptive nomenclature in the comments, including some who think polar lows are not “strong storms”. I thought I’d point out this description from: Rasmussen, E. A. & Turner, J. (2003), Polar Lows: Mesoscale Weather Systems in the Polar Regions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 612, ISBN 0521624304.
Polar lows have been referred to by many other terms, such as polar mesoscale vortex, Arctic hurricane, Arctic low, and cold air depression. Today the term is usually reserved for the more vigorous systems that have near-surface winds of at least 17 m/s (38 mph).
Generally, I think of a storm that has 38mph near surface winds as a “strong storm”. A tropical cyclone that reaches tropical storm status has sustained winds of at least 39 mph, so the use of the description “strong storm” seems appropriate to me. Though, to be truer to the paper than USA today, and to appease the whiners who think I’m on some conspiracy to mislead people, I’ve added the word “polar” to the title.
Here’s an downlooking image of a polar low:
Polar lows were not discovered until after the advent of satellite meteorology, so we have only about 50 years of data on them.
Nature 467, 309-312 (16 September 2010) | doi:10.1038/nature09388; Received 14 August 2009; Accepted 26 July 2010
Open Innovation Challenges
-
Maintaining Fully Differentiated Human Primary Renal Proximal Tubular Epithelial Cells
A validated protocol is required for maintaining and expanding Human Primary Renal Proximal Tubular …
-
Derivatives of Racemic 2-Hydroxy-4-(methylthio)butanoic Acid and 2-Hydroxy-4-(methylthio)butanenitri
This Challenge seeks commercial applications for chemical derivatives of racemic 2-hydroxy-4-(methyl…
- More Challenges
-
Powered by:
nature jobs
-
Tenure Track Assistant Professor Position in Ecology
- University of British Columbia
- British Columbia, Canada
-
Product Support Specialist
- Quintiles Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd
- Bangalore, Karnataka India
Decreased frequency of North Atlantic polar lows associated with future climate warming
Matthias Zahn1,2 & Hans von Storch2,3
- Environmental Systems Science Centre, University of Reading, 3 Earley Gate, Reading, Berkshire RG6 6AL, UK
- Institute for Coastal Research /System Analysis and Modelling, GKSS-Research Centre, Max-Planck-Strasse 1, D-21502 Geesthacht, Germany
- Meteorological Institute, University of Hamburg, Bundesstrasse 55, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany
Correspondence to: Matthias Zahn1,2 Email: matthias.zahn@gkss.de
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/hurricanetrack-com
Live feed from Bermuda.
I thought Watts was supposed to be a meteorologist. Does he not know the difference between a polar low and a hurricane? Hint – hurricanes are tropical whereas polar lows occur nearer the pole.
REPLY: Oh of course I know this, I just used the wrong word, I was looking for an image that showed both (since we have active hurricanes today). I picked the Atlantic view from my own radio station, was writing about the issue, got distracted by my children (I’m writing from home this Sunday Morning, we are preparing for a birthday party today). Then came back to finish and wrote “hurricanes” rather than “storms” in the title, because that was in my mind last. I always make titles last. Yes a silly error, and fixed now. Of course if you didn’t hate me so much, you probably would have written something less flaming. But, that’s what you live for, denigration.
And as an update, I note Richard did not comment on this blunder: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/15/noaas-sea-ice-extent-blunder/ and accuse NOAA of not being well trained, or not knowing the difference between second and third. I would submit that anyone who hasn’t made some sort of silly writing blunder in their career, should cast the first stone. I’m sure Mr. Telford can provide us with examples in his own writings on climate. – Anthony
Further proof that these guys are making it up as they go along.
The polar low, and its trough is what saved the East coast or the Gulf from Igor; pulling it North and away from land (except for Bermuda). More unintended consequences.
“Here we show that in a future anthropogenically warmed climate…” So here it goes, again.
Maybe fewers storms, but check out the early snow and record lows:
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=13450
Snow closes part of Going-To-The-Sun road
KRTV – September 17, 2010
The snow in Great Falls and surrounding areas is likely little more than a distraction for most people, but in Glacier National Park, it’s forced park officials to temporarily shut down the upper reaches of the Going-to-the-Sun Road. The historic route is now closed between Big Bend on the west side of the park and Jackson Glacier Overlook on the east side due to the recent snow accumulation, which has made the roads unsafe according to park officials.
———–
Dense Fog Warning Issued; Record-Low Temperatures Continue
Shelby Grad – Los Angeles Times September 18, 2010
The Los Angeles area had more record-low temperatures as the National Weather Service warned of dense fog this morning. A dense fog warning was issued for coastal areas as well as for downtown L.A. and surrounding areas. Officials said the fog could reduce visibility to a quarter-mile and that drivers should be careful. The fog should lessen by mid-morning, according to the NWS. The cool summer conditions continued as two cities posted records for the lowest maximum temperatures on Friday; Laguna Beach hit only 68 degrees and Oceanside hit only 64. Laguna Beach broke a record set in 1928 while Oceanside broke a record set in 1914.
I’ve always thought that a net warmer planet would lead to fewer large storms. Temperature differences drive the thermodynamic engine of weather. If the higher latitudes have a smaller temperature differential compared to the tropics, then there should be fewer large storms. An extreme case would be a planet with uniform temperature. There, I would suspect, the weather would be mainly due to rotational motion without the added mechanism of moving energy from higher temp. regimes to lower ones
next we’ll have global warming causes cold winters, global warming causes sea ice to increase, global warming reduces drought while simultaneously reducing rainfall.
they have now produced the forecasting equivalent of alchemy. Producing pure gold out of horsesh@t
Next black is white hot is cold and Gore is right even when he is so patently wrong
I wish Anthony and others here had read Marcel Leroux “Dynamic Analysis of Weather and Climate” Springer 2010 2ed. as this von Storch study is model based versus real observations and understanding.
More droughts, more floods. More extreme heat, more extreme cold. More big storms, fewer big storms.
Sounds to me like they are covering their bases. Any change in the weather is a sign of climate change. For rational people, it’s hard to take the AGW crowd seriously.
Bit of a “U” turn, isn’t it?
But it fits with their logic – frighten the public into thinking that storms will be bigger and more prolific with “global warming”, then when that’s proved not to work, change tack a bit and say that there will be fewer storms and of less magnitude with “global warming” (which, of course, isn’t called that anymore…). Either way, whatever happens to you and your lives, it’s the fault of climate whatever, and ultimately you’re to blame, and we told you so, in one or way another – so there – put THAT in your SUV and smoke it.
Since a large number of other studies claim the opposite, and this holds true with nearly every aspect of climate science, perhaps it is time to realize that
1) no one really knows- certainly not enough to base world shaping treaties and national economy damaging laws on
2) that the effects of ‘global warming’/’climate change’/’climate disruption’, what ever they are, so subtle that they are not quantifiable and easily shown to be anything a researcher wants them to be.
Here’s a few warmest articles to illustrate the flip flop occurring
Is up really down is in really out is warm really cold?
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/050915_stormfrm.htm
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1099102,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article567156.ece
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0912-32.htm
Von Storch, future Global Warming events, all birds of one feather.
Another attempt to keep the hoax alive.
Ready to dump this article where it belongs.
In the garbage bin.
…I guess Hansen better get busy and do a re-write of his book “Storms of my Grandchildren”!!
http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/
From the Preface:
“Global warming does increase the intensity of droughts and heat waves, and thus
the area of forest fires. However, because a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor, global warming must also increase the intensity of the other extreme of the hydrologic cycle— meaning heavier rains, more extreme floods, and more intense storms driven by latent heat, including thunderstorms, tornadoes, and tropical
storms.”
…these clowns don’t know WHICH way to go next!! Global warming, climate change, climate disruption, worse storms, not-as-bad storms etc. It’s really pathetic, I’ve never seen scientists oscillate so wildly on another topic, so quickly!!
My sympathies, Anthony, over pointless comments made by the likes of Telford. I’m sure I speak for many here in saying how pathetic they seem. I suppose the comments show how rattled people with his sad world outlook are becoming.
Contrast the attitude of regulars here who try to engage in dialogue with people of opposing views on sites such as Real Climhate, and then simply give up visiting, with those of a warmist persuasion who must have their Iphone alerts set so that they can pick up each new topic and give us the benefit of their unpleasant thoughts in one of the top slots.
It says many things about you that you still allow the comments to be published, but it says even more about the people who take advantage of your hospitality.
Back to the topic – yet another result of modeling, yawn.
The author wrote: ,,A new study out Wednesday in the British journal Nature finds that large, powerful North Atlantic ocean storms should actually become less frequent by the end of the century, due to climate change.”
Well, actually, polar lows are very small, which is one of their main characteristics. Typically, the circulation is less than 250 kilometres in diameter. However, they are powerful, often bringing a lot of snow and strong winds (gale force of stronger). I’m a forecaster from the Netherlands, our country has polar lows coming over the North Sea on our shores, usually at least once or twice a year. In any case, they are an often occurrence to monitor over the northern regions of Europe during our shifts in winter time.
Polar lows develop in very cold, arctic airflow, directed southward from the pole. Just like a hurricane, they have a warm core and develop within small baroclinic disturbances in a potentially (not conditionally) unstable air mass. Key parameters of the conceptual model are T500 below -40°C, a maximum of PVA at 500 hPa superimposed over the area and initial development occurs near a surface trough ahead of an upper-level trough (as seen on 1000 and 500 hPa topography).
Given the key parameters of the conceptual model of a polar low, used by meteorologists in Europe, the two systems on the satellite picture are definitely not polar lows, as stated. The air mass is too warm and the origin and development of these extratropical cyclones occurred as regularly seen with cyclones along the coast of Nova Scotia. These two can easily be tracked with archived model output, whereas polar lows are usually absent from large-scale models without proper initialisation (a significant problem at high latitudes, due to lack of observational data).
Ben Lankamp, meteorologist (The Netherlands)
That’s got to be serious Atlantic cooling?
This beautifully illustrates the robustness of the current “climate disruption” theory. Here we have anthropogenic climate disruption disrupting a natural climatic disruption event. We are disrupting a disruption with a disruption. The two disruptions effectively cancel each other out and leave behind an unstable anti-disruption. Hence, John Holdren’s prescient forecast of our disruptive future has already disrupted the status quo.
Here we show that in a future anthropogenically warmed climate, the frequency of polar lows is projected to decline.
Presumably, this ain’t gonna happen because we don’t have an ‘anthropogenically warmed’ climate.
Or would we be able able to falsify the ‘anthropogenic’ hypothesis if polar lows don’t decline?
Too quick to publish.
Too soon to tell.
Man-made global warming fools many.
Wait and see.
You people must understand that the climate models predict EVERYTHING so they can NEVER be falsified. :o)
There is no difference between warming caused by natural forces and that caused by anthropogenic causes.
But one thing is certain: A warming world is not a cooling world.
By observing increasing intensity of polar low storms, this study says that is a cooling world.
One thing is puzzling about warmists: Why do they always have everything upside down, inside out and totally backwards, while in the same breath they have associated such states with the non-inverted world?
It would seem to me that if the AGW effect is less then active or meaningful on a regional scale perhaps it simply does not exist or is significantly less powerful then thought. I have little use for these numeric models anyway. Further comment needs be held until I see the paper itself. From the face of this and other recent papers it would appear that regional models, if models are good for anything at all, may be far more useful then those of global scale.
I also wonder if this is a good time to remind that T. C. Chamberland thought the “green house effect” might just help to moderate the coming glacial? This paper does not, from the abstract, appear to address that idea in any way however.
Correction: I know it is Chamberlin, sorry about that. dn