There have been a number of news articles that claim that a global average surface temperature trend (i.e. “global warming) explains the extreme cold weather and snow that has occurred recently; e.g. see
Comment On The CBS News Article “Is Extreme Weather a Result of Global Warming?”
In this post I want to illustrate why it is the location of the westerlies that determine areas that have extreme cold weather and snowstorms.
The first image below presents the heights of the 500mb pressure surface and the temperatures at 850mb from the ECMWF analysis for January 28 2011 at noon GMT.
The 500mb level is used as it is about halfway through the depth of the atmosphere. The distances between the lines of equal height are proportional to the speed of the winds at that level. Since, in the Northern Hemisphere, winds blow counterclockwise around regions of lower heights, the wind field (not shown) is predominately westerly. This is why the middle and higher latitudes are often referred to as the “westerlies”. Winds at this spatial scale blow almost parallel to lines of constant height. When the height contours are close together, we refer to the higher winds that result as the “polar jet stream”.
Clearly evident in the example below is the progressively cooler 850mb temperatures and lower 500mb heights as one progresses to higher latitudes. Also, clearly seen are the regions of colder air (and corresponding lower heights) that extend towards lower latitudes. When these large equatorward excursions of the westerlies occur, extreme cold weather often happens. On the east side of these cold pockets, where there is a strong contrast with warmer air to the east, winter storms occur. If the temperatures are cold enough, precipitation can fall as heavy snow. These large excursions of the westerlies explains why there have been several extreme snowstorms in the eastern USA and western Europe in recent months.
To illustrate the dynamic character of the westerlies, I have presented below the ECMWF 500mb height and 850mb temperature forecast for next Friday [February 7 2010]. Compare the above figure with the one below. Note, for example, the large excursion of cold air and, therefore, westerlies southward to over the central USA. If this forecast verifies, it will be an extreme cold outbreak with considerable snow (and ice storms) on the southeast flank of this cold region.
It is not scientifically accurate to attribute “global warming” of a few tenths of a degree to explain these extreme weather events.
Moreover, in the latest measurements, the lower tropospheric temperatures are actually cooler than the long-term average! [e.g. see
UAH prelim – January temp may be below normal globally.
For other excellent discussions of the recent extreme winter weather, see the posts by Joe Daleo; e.g.
Another Eastern Snow – Brutal Winter Assault Continues
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Then comes the REAL challenge. Are the westerlies this year truly out of the ordinary? Is there a scientific explanation of why they might be unusual that does not involve recent temperature trends? Is there a better scientific explanation of why they might be unusual that DOES involve recent temperature trends?
Yes. NASA pointed out that the Jet Streams have moved equatorwards as a direct result of low to very low Solar Activity.
That move leaves the unbuffeted space into which Arctic and Antarctic cold air masses can and do plunder.
The severity of the cold air masses is mitigated only by the relative phases of the oceans upon which the Westerlies travel.
This could get (and most likely will) get worse.
Nothing to do with AGW, GISS, MET or any other computerized modeling hysteria.
“This is an example of trying to reverse the burden of proof, aka “The Trenberth Gambit.” ”
I’m not trying to reverse, the burden of proof. When making a claim, the burden of proof should always rest with the person making the claim.
My point is that there was a claim made: “It is not scientifically accurate to attribute “global warming” of a few tenths of a degree to explain these extreme weather events.” This is, if you will, the “Reverse Trenberth Gambit”. (Or at least bordering very closely to the “Reverse Trenberth Gambit”.)
From what I have seen, there has been a measurable increase in global temperature over the last 30 years (and also over the last 300 years since the end of the LIA). Is there disagreement here?
It is a plausible hypothesis that significant changes in one important aspect of the atmosphere (global temperature) would lead to significant changes in some other specific aspect of the atmosphere (winter storms in the US).
To defend this position, one would need to present evidence of a link (hopefully both experimental and theoretical). Anyone simply saying “The hypothesis is plausible, therefore it is right” is not being scientific.
It is a plausible hypothesis that significant changes in one important aspect of the atmosphere (global temperature) would NOT lead to significant changes in some other specific aspect of the atmosphere (winter storms in the US).
To defend this position, one would need to present evidence. Anyone simply saying “The hypothesis is plausible, therefore it is right” is not being scientific. And as I read it, “It is not scientifically accurate to attribute “global warming” of a few tenths of a degree to explain these extreme weather events” is claiming that global warming is NOT the cause in the shift of westerlies and hence NOT the cause of the weather events. This sort of claim should have evidence to support it.
I’m saying it cuts both ways. I’d be perfectly happy with “I have not seen sufficient evidence (or even “any evidence”) to convince me that “global warming” of a few tenths of a degree is linked to these extreme weather events.” Then the burden of proof is shifted back to where it belongs — the scientists claiming that global warming IS connected.
And I am saying I would enjoy seeing the next layer deeper; the arguments as to how changing temperatures and changing weather patterns might be related. Stating “it is the location of the westerlies that determine areas that have extreme cold weather and snowstorms” seems almost tautological. But then what determines the location of the westerlies? THAT is the interesting question in my book!
Whither uncertainty? Are you certain the human contribution to the greenhouse effect has not impacted recent extreme weather events? As Kaku noted these events likely have more than one cause. Several researchers have given evidence that high ocean temperatures may have contributed to the Arctic Oscillation shift and the stronger El Nina. There is not a consensus on this and only time will tell. But unless skepticism has become a code word for rigid dogmatism, you climate change skeptics should be open minded. Although the global mean surface air temperature increase has only been 0.7C, the ocean warming in some regions, like the Arctic, is quite large and it plausible that this could have impacted recent weather events. When people who deny this possibility fall into misusing logic (ignoring that complex events can have more than one cause or that A -> B -> C is not negated by B -> C ) than you really need to ask what the nature of their ‘skeptism’ is.
rbatman, you said: “NASA pointed out that the Jet Streams have moved equatorwards as a direct result of low to very low Solar Activity.” Do you have a source for this claim?
I did a quick search on the NASA site for jet stream and found that the jet stream in the sun itself is related to sun spot activity. See:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/17jun_jetstream/
But you may be right and I just haven’t found the reference.
stephen richards says:
January 30, 2011 at 10:18 am
Theo Goodwin says:
January 30, 2011 at 7:59 am
No, Theo M. Folkerts is right. I am a scientist donc skeptic and as such I MUST agree with the Monsieur because Joe has not gone to the source of the change, he has merely cited a symptom. ‘most volitile westerlys ‘. I find this form of science is rampant in climate technology (it’s not science). If this were an electrical circuit and there was a light in the circuit which was suddenly extinquished do you assume that the fault is the bulb or do you go to the source of power first and ensure that the circuit is connected with ample supply? Do you see what is meant?
——————————
Stephen,
You must be the most expensive janitor on the face of the earth. Every time you have a light bulb to change you have to drive to the dam to make sure the turbines are turning.
Do you actually know where the dam is?
I dare to predict that we will continue to observe indicators of global warming until sometime between 2040 and 209o when the long term trend will return to colder conditions. Arctic sea ice is expected to turn the corner first, followed by SSTs and finally CO2. We can expect the magnitude in weather changes to increase as long as global energy is accumulating. All these are natural processes that have nothing to do with anthropogenic CO2. The ever changing processes of evaporation/condensation and freeze/thaw are controlling the rates of energy accumulation/loss.
Tim Folkerts says:
January 30, 2011 at 10:48 am
“My point is that there was a claim made: “It is not scientifically accurate to attribute “global warming” of a few tenths of a degree to explain these extreme weather events.” This is, if you will, the “Reverse Trenberth Gambit”. (Or at least bordering very closely to the “Reverse Trenberth Gambit”.) ”
Until firm proof is found to attribute these events to global warming it cannot be regarded as “scientifically accurate” to say it is.
To get this proof you first have to show a clear mechanism for how it would work ( and also show how in other years such warming led to a totally different set of warming patterns).
Secondly you need to definitively prove that these events were not caused by other factors.
Perhaps you are using the Reverse Reverse Trenberth Gambit!!
I agree that it would be nice to know how all sorts of things work with the climate. However we should perhaps concentrate our resources on forecasting short term events ( i.e. a year or two ahead).
This is an interesting article, but speaks nothing to the larger issue of whether or not increased GH gases can affect the longer-term climate cycles such as the PDO and AMO, or the shorter term cycles such as ENSO, all of which are intimately connected to and reflected in immediate causes such as the westerlies. There can be no diffinitive statement about the extent to which anthropogenic GH gases have or have not affected recent extreme weather events, and any statements that attempt to be diffinitive either way, indicate more about the bias of those making the statement rather than anything founded in solid scientific verifiable fact.
Of course the jets shift poleward and equatorward cyclically over centuries as part of the interplay between top down solar influences and bottom up oceanic influences.
I have been pushing that very point here and elsewhere for over three years now.
In effect ALL regional climate change is explicable as a consequence of a change in the latitudinal position of the air circulation systems above a particular region.
A change in absolute global tropospheric temperature of a degree or two C is a complete irrelevance, barely discernible from day to day and wholly swamped by the perceived changes when the air circulation systems change their latitudinal positions.
Oliver Ramsay says:
January 30, 2011 at 11:07 am
stephen richards says:
January 30, 2011 at 10:18 am
Yes very funny, but no I would check the fuse if it were easily accessible or if I had a bulb to hand I would plug it in. But your were just being facetious were you not 🙂
Mike says:
January 30, 2011 at 10:49 am
Whither uncertainty? Are you certain the human contribution to the greenhouse effect has not impacted recent extreme weather events?
Too many assumptions Mike. Human contribution of annual CO² is 3.27%. Is it possible that this contributes to global warming? yes. Is it possible that it makes more snow at lower latitudes? probably not. Is CO² more important than naturel cycles? Definitely NO. Why? temperatures have droped 0.6°C (REM satelite data) since August 2010. Would not be possible if CO² was the thermostat.
stephen richards says:
January 30, 2011 at 11:37 am
Oliver Ramsay says:
January 30, 2011 at 11:07 am
stephen richards says:
January 30, 2011 at 10:18 am
Yes very funny, but no I would check the fuse if it were easily accessible or if I had a bulb to hand I would plug it in. But your were just being facetious were you not 🙂
——————————-
A bit flippant, I’ll grant you but my thought was that there isn’t a fool-proof protocol for trouble-shooting or reverse-engineering.
We’re pretty confident that we have snowfall on one end and the sun on the other but the details in between are much less certain.
Insisting that we always start at the sun and work forwards is urealistic.
I don’t disagree with Tim Folkert’s point.
Paul Vaughan, I have also read this one at amazon:
Dynamic Analysis of Weather and Climate: Atmospheric circulation, Perturbations, Climatic evolution (Springer Praxis Books / Environmental Sciences)
+++
Marcel Leroux (1938-2008) was a French climatologist Emeritus Professor of Climatology at Lyon III. The 3rd French edition of « La Dynamique du Temps et du Climat : circulation atmosphérique, perturbations, évolution climatique » was completed in May 2008, and it is its faithful equivalent, the 2nd edition in English which was published in January 2010.
Leroux demonstrated through analysis of satellite imagery, meteorological and paleo-environmental data over tropical Africa that the seasonal and paleoclimatic migration of the Meteorological Equator represent a reliable indicator of Earth’s climate evolution. He defines and explains how these phenomena result from continuous meridional exchanges in the denser, lower layers of the atmosphere. These exchanges are governed by the continual ballet of Mobile Polar Highs (MPH), cold lenticular air masses 1.5 km thick, up to 3000 kilometers in diameter, originating from the poles, which power and frequency depends directly on the polar thermal deficit. Cooling spurns an accelerated circulation while warming will slow the general circulation and exchanges.
Based on direct observations, the scientific rigor of Leroux exposes the inconsistencies of previous general circulation models, indices of oscillations and various meteorological schools -frontologic, dynamic, reductionist and diagnostic (models)-. In doing so, Leroux rejects the artificial separation between meteorology and climatology and demonstrates that very little is owed to hazard or chaos: there is no “unruly climate” but intensity shifts of the sum of weather processes that constitute the climate.
His research shows that the climatic shift observed since the 1970s corresponds to the setting of an accelerated mode of circulation, always associated with cooling during the late Quaternary palaeoclimatic evolution, and its meteorological consequences: contrasted weather, stronger mid-latitude storms, increase water vapour in the troposphere and impermanent anticyclonic stability over continents leading to vigorous cold snaps in winter and heatwaves in summer. His analysis of the European heatwave of 2003 and 2007 floods takes aim in biting style at the improbable explanations by weather services and IPCC alike!
Marcel Leroux was a true Cartesian and his books are highly didactic. He offers more than a Master / Engineering school level textbook on Meteorology and Climatology: it is a masterly demonstration reminding us of the primacy of observed facts over models and thus should appeal to rational minds who want to form an educated opinion on Climate Change and the level of the present debate.
Other available works by Marcel Leroux(in English):
His updated doctoral dissertation contains the database of his African work on which he based his ideas on the general circulation [ “The weather and climate of tropical Africa, Springer Verlag, Springer-Praxis Books in Environmental Sciences, London, New York, 548 p. + CD: 300 p., 250 maps, 2001, ISBN: 978-3-540-42636-3].
An unforgiving history of the global warming science [Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Herring Ways of Climatology “, Springer-Praxis Books in Environmental Sciences, Berlin, Heidelberg, London, New York, 509p., 2005, ISBN: 978-3 -540-23909-3].
stephen richards says:
January 30, 2011 at 11:43 am
Mike says:
January 30, 2011 at 10:49 am
Whither uncertainty? Are you certain the human contribution to the greenhouse effect has not impacted recent extreme weather events?
Too many assumptions Mike. Human contribution of annual CO² is 3.27%. Is it possible that this contributes to global warming? yes. Is it possible that it makes more snow at lower latitudes? probably not. Is CO² more important than naturel cycles? Definitely NO. Why? temperatures have droped 0.6°C (REM satelite data) since August 2010. Would not be possible if CO² was the thermostat.
_____
Your last sentence here relates to your misperception that a global temp/CO2 connection would be linear. Absolutely no GCM has ever shown that, especially in a chaotic system such as climate, so your attempt at a showing the lack of a short term linear correlation between temperatures and CO2 as proof that CO2 is not a thermostat is severely flawed. I suggest you read:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Lacis_etal.pdf (scroll down a bit to start of article)
Mike says:
January 30, 2011 at 11:01 am
I cannot find the reference either, but I do know that it has been discussed in here more than once. Also, both Jupiter and Saturn are currently displaying observable changes in thier Jet Streams. That makes one Star and 3 Planets.
R Gates said:
“There can be no definitive statement about the extent to which anthropogenic GH gases have or have not affected recent extreme weather events.”
Any effect from extra CO2 is clearly insignificant as compared to natural variability unless one can blame CO2 levels for changes in the global air circulation distributions.
Before about 2005 the poleward shift of the jets was supposed to be a result of our emissions and permanent.
Since 2000 and especially recently the jets have been swinging much more equatorward but CO2 continues to increase so it cannot be a major factor.
I think that natural strong warming gives us zonal poleward jets (MWP), natural strong cooling gives us zonal equatorward jets (LIA) and periods of transition such as now give us meridional jets.
As for more extreme events generally, see here:
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/irishweather/climate/extreme-weather-and-climate-change.html
and for how the whole system seems to work, see here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6645
Mike says:
January 30, 2011 at 10:49 am
Whither uncertainty? Are you certain the human contribution to the greenhouse effect has not impacted recent extreme weather events?
To which stephen richards says:
January 30, 2011 at 11:43 am
Too many assumptions Mike. Human contribution of annual CO² is 3.27%. Is it possible that this contributes to global warming? yes. Is it possible that it makes more snow at lower latitudes? probably not. Is CO² more important than naturel cycles? Definitely NO. Why? temperatures have droped 0.6°C (REM satelite data) since August 2010. Would not be possible if CO² was the thermostat.
———————————
You have made a series of assumptions with no basis at all. Human generated CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere. The current CO2 in the atmosphere is about 26% human generated. (Not to mention CH4, NO2, & CFC.) So, while your first fact was correct it is misleading. After that you merely make unfounded speculations. So, go read the article R. Gates cited. Oh, and chemical formulas are usually written with subscripts not superscripts (which I know how to use in LaTeX but don’t bother with html). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_formula .
Stephen Wilde says:
January 30, 2011 at 12:46 pm
R Gates said:
“There can be no definitive statement about the extent to which anthropogenic GH gases have or have not affected recent extreme weather events.”
Any effect from extra CO2 is clearly insignificant as compared to natural variability unless one can blame CO2 levels for changes in the global air circulation distributions
______
I would not agree that any effect from extra CO2 is “clearly insignificant”, no more than I would agree that it is “clearly significant”, and certainly, no such conclusion is warranted based on any solid research. To state a “clearly insignificant” effect from CO2 reveals more of a personal presumption and indication of bias as opposed to solid science.
R Gates:
You ignored my qualifying comment as follows:
“unless one can blame CO2 levels for changes in the global air circulation distributions”
Given that it now appears that the circulation changes are substantially independent of CO2 levels when earlier a link was claimed then how can a reasonable person still claim that the CO2 influence is significant ?
The 500mb level is used as it is about halfway through the depth of the atmosphere. The distances between the lines of equal height are proportional to the speed of the winds at that level….
Should read:
The 500mb level is used as it is about halfway through the depth of the atmosphere. The distances between the lines of equal height are INVERSELY proportional to the speed of the winds at that level.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 30, 2011 at 1:07 pm
R Gates:
You ignored my qualifying comment as follows:
“unless one can blame CO2 levels for changes in the global air circulation distributions”
Given that it now appears that the circulation changes are substantially independent of CO2 levels….
_____
If you are going to make the claim that “it now appears that circulation changes are substantially independent of CO2 levels…” please cite the peer-reviewed research that draws this conclusion. In a much as our planet would return to a complete ice-house world without CO2, how can anyone make the claim that circulation changes are in any way independent of CO2 levels, given that it is global circulation (both ocean and atmosphere) that distributes that greenhouse induced heat that we all so much enjoy as living creatures on a non-icehouse planet. And before you raise the objection that water vapor, and not CO2, that creates much of the GH world we enjoy, I suggest you read this: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Lacis_etal.pdf (scroll down a bit to start of article)
Without CO2 our planet would become an ice house world, so why would one assume that it does not affect global circulation patterns?
rbateman:
Here you go:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20011206/
Unbelievably that paper is from Gavin Schmidt et al but they ignored it all in favour of recent GHG emissions overriding the natural processes.
They noted the low solar activity of the LIA as a cooling effect (especially regionally) but then attached zero significance to the high solar activity of the late 20th century.
Why would they have done that ?
Now with a quieter sun the GHG option is going out of the window and we are back with solar as the primary influence.
To sustain any suggestion that GHGs have a significant effect they have to find ‘missing energy’ somewhere hence Trenberth’s dismay.
If the oceans start reducing their heat content despite more GHGs then the energy simply is not being retained as a result of more GHGs.
Then the best explanation in my view is cloudiness and albedo changes as a result of jetstream shifts responding to a top down solar effect as I have explained here and elsewhere.
Whatever thermal properties GHGs have they appear to be as nothing compared to variations in the natural energy fluxes imposed by solar and oceanic variability working together on the air circulation distribution.
R Gates says:
“If you are going to make the claim that ‘it now appears that circulation changes are substantially independent of CO2 levels…’ please cite the peer-reviewed research that draws this conclusion.”
Got the scientific method backwards again. The conjecture is that CO2 will cause climate catastrophe [CO2=CAGW]. The onus is on those promoting that conjecture, not on those skeptical of it.
R Gates said:
“Without CO2 our planet would become an ice house world, so why would one assume that it does not affect global circulation patterns?”
The operative word is ‘significant’. Natural solar and oceanic variability can now be readily seen to shift the jets 1000 miles or more latitudinally. Just compare the late 20th century patterns to those now prevailing and those prevailing in the LIA. No need for peer review, just observe.
I’d guess that the effect of CO2 might be to shift the jets less than a mile latitudinally.
It would have been quite different if we were still seeing the late 20th century pattern despite the quiet sun but we are not.
As I pointed out above Schmidt et al in 2001 accepted that the sun caused all the features we are now seeing but back during the Maunder Minimum. However they proposed a permanent disruption of the solar effects by GHGs.
But now we are hardly past the peak of the modern solar maximum yet we immediately see a shift in the air circulation systems away from that of the late 20th century and a good portion of the way back to LIA conditions.
On that basis any effect from our GHGs is clearly negligible and most likely wholly unmeasurable in the face of natural variability.
As regards the thermal effect of CO2 as compared to the thermal effects of the oceans I think it is a good time to remind readers of this:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1487&linkbox=true&position=4
“The Hot Water Bottle Effect”
and elsewhere I described the effects of human GHGs thus:
“The atmospheric greenhouse effect is a flea on the back of an oceanic elephant and the influence of CO2 but a microbe on the back of the flea and the influence of anthropogenic CO2 but a molecule on the back of the microbe.”
from here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1562&linkbox=true&position=5
“Greenhouse Confusion Resolved”
There are portions of those articles that I would now amend but the substance is being adequately demonstrated to be true by ongoing climate changes.