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.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 30, 2011 at 1:45 pm
rbateman:
Here you go:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20011206/
—————————————
Good find but you are reading into the results. They are not about current climate or weather. The article talks about low solar output a during the LIA. In the early 20th century increased solar activity is generally acknowledged to have contributed to warming. Now the sun is less active, but no where a close to as low as during the LIA, and the Earth is still warming. The paper does not support rbateman’s claims. They even state plainly:
“The period of low solar activity in the middle ages led to atmospheric changes that seem to have brought on the Little Ice Age. However, we need to keep in mind that variations in solar output have had far less impact on the Earth’s recent climate than human actions,…The biggest catalyst for climate change today are greenhouse gases.”
You cannot just pik as choose the results you like.
Stephen Wilde said on Pielke Sr. The Westerlies Explain The Recent Extreme Winter Weather, Not “Global Warming”
January 30, 2011 at 2:17 pm
Stephen,
I like your analogy as applied to the CAGW hypothesis. They think the molecule activates the microbe, that activates the flee to bite the elephant into a stampede. If we generously apply a 0.1 probability to each assumption, the overall probability is 0.1^3 or 0.001. The probability that we can control global climate by not burning fossil fuel is somewhere around 0.0000001.
I heard this morning that Pyong Yang has not had a maximum over -5C for the last month. The report said it was the coldest winter since records began in 1945. While this news is off topic, the news report made the point that the concern is planting spring time crops will be delayed and there is again the distinct possibility of famine in North Korea.
A direct correlation between cold and human suffering.
Smokey says:
January 30, 2011 at 1:51 pm
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.
—————————————–
Gates did not say anything about GAGW. Stephen Wilde made a specific claim and Gates is asking for a reference for the claim.
As for the scientific method, it cuts both ways. If I say AGW is real and serious then the onus is on me to present evidence of this. If you say AGW is trivial if it exists at all, then the onus is on you to present evidence. If someone says, gosh I just don’t know, then they do not have to present evidence; they are off the hook. Now if I present evidence for my view and then someone does not agree they should be able to state why and back up any specific claims they make along the way.
Debate is not a game of dodge ball.
Mike,
The reversal has only recently begun. If GHGs were in control the recent changes just should not have happened and with the jets approaching Western Europe diving to Gibraltar instead of Iceland, with cold in the South eastern USA we are a good way back towards what happened in the LIA.
The only question is how long this phase will last. Either way GHGs are rapidly leaving the park.
It just takes a while for ocean heat content to respond.
Anyway, why would they assert that GHGs are in control when the observations were exactly what one would expect from a period of active sun in light of the LIA example of what happens with an inactive sun.
What was the basis for their decision ? What made them ignore the modern solar maximum ?
Stephen Wilde says:
January 30, 2011 at 2:00 pm
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
______
Interesting “guess”. So do you reject the notion that if we were to completely take away the CO2 from our atmosphere that we’d see a return to a ice-house world? (i.e. the fact that CO2 is a noncondensing GHG whereas water vapor isn’t). This assumption that the direct and indirect effects of CO2 are minor in terms of the dynamics of our atmosphere is a article of faith, not science. For you the ahere to the notion that the 40% rise in CO2 since the 1700’s, to levels not seen on our planet in hundreds of thousands of years could play such a minor role seems beyond illogical.
Now, I am not denying in any way the role of other climate factors, but let’s look at them individually, and not en masse, so as to clarify their roles. The oceans don’t produce any heating on their own, but only essentially act as a buffer or large heat reservoir for heat, as it all comes from the sun, to be distributed around the planet through ocean currents and released back to the atmosphere through natural cycles such as ENSO through evaporation. I completely agree in the role of the sun as a significant driver of climate as it is the source of all energy on earth, and it stands to reason that solar cycles affect climate, both on the shorter term, medium term, and longer term. Exactly what to what level and through what means remains to be completely discovered. But all that aside, to categorically reject a signficant role for CO2 in climate dyanamics, both through and direct and indirect effects, can only be akin to a religious belief and not based on science.
#
#
Theo Goodwin says:
January 30, 2011 at 8:28 am
Tim Folkerts says:
January 30, 2011 at 7:13 am
“These large excursions of the westerlies explains why there have been several extreme snowstorms in the eastern USA and western Europe in recent months.”
“This seems a perfectly reasonable explanation (although I am no a meteorologist, so I don’t have any particular expertise in the field).”
“The next question, of course, is “why are we experiencing large excursions of westerlies?” Weather events don’t just happen on their own with no cause. If (and this is a large “if”) the change in westerlies can be attributed to “a global average surface temperature trend”, then both of these could be called a cause of the the event:
“A” causes “B” which causes “C”.”
This is an example of trying to reverse the burden of proof, aka “The Trenberth Gambit.” In science, the fact that some event B could be attributed to some cause A provides no reason for believing that A causes B. The reason is that science accepts only physical hypotheses in explanations and physical hypotheses must be reasonably well-confirmed through their use to predict events of the kind B. As is well known, there are no physical hypotheses about global average surface temperature trends that can be used to predict the large excursions of westerlies that we are now experiencing.
There is another way to say the same thing. The claim that “These large excursions of the westerlies explains why there have been several extreme snowstorms in the eastern USA and western Europe in recent months” could be more clearly written as “ONCE AGAIN these large excursions of the westerlies explains why there have been several extreme snowstorms in the eastern USA and western Europe in recent months.” In other words, this behavior of the westerlies and the resulting cold winters are things that have occurred many times before and, for that reason, are part of natural variation. What can be explained by natural variation has no need of explanation by appeal to AGW.
The shift in Westerlies has been shown by modeling to be a result of expanded cold air pockets in Siberia, which have warmed Canada and pushed polar air into the midwest of the US. This has shifted the prevailing Westerlies. This effect was predicted by Judah Cohen as a result of the warm water in the Arctic Ocean, which is thought to be an effect of Global Warming.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26cohen.html
“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.”
A microbe can kill an elephant. They multiply.
I read your essay. What you seem to miss is pretty basic. Small changes can add up over time. Small changes in CO2 add up. A small increase in energy stored each year adds up overtime. You gave no quantitative evidence to support your claim that, “In the unlikely event that it is still large enough to have any effect at all it may well take millennia for any warming of the oceans to become apparent by which time it would be dwarfed by natural changes anyway.”
You also fail to understand that a small positive trend will overwhelm any oscillation over time. Mainstream scientists have presented a lot of quantitative evidence that we are seeing this now in the temperature trends (surface and ocean) and some evidence that this may be effecting certain extreme weather events. See any of IPCC, NAS, EPA or Skeptical Science websites. So, now the onus is on you to show their estimates are incorrect.
R Gates said:
“to categorically reject a signficant role for CO2 in climate dyanamics, both through and direct and indirect effects, can only be akin to a religious belief and not based on science.”
And categorically assuming a significant role despite an observation that any pre 2000 effect on the air circulation has been reversed with ease by natural forces would not be akin to a religious belief ?
I’m judging on the basis of real world events. What do you do ?
Stephen Wilde says:
January 30, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Mike,
The reversal has only recently begun. If GHGs were in control the recent changes just should not have happened and with the jets approaching Western Europe diving to Gibraltar instead of Iceland, with cold in the South eastern USA we are a good way back towards what happened in the LIA.
2010 was the warmest year on record. The Arctic is very warm. That did not happen during the LIA as far as I know.
The only question is how long this phase will last. Either way GHGs are rapidly leaving the park.
It may happen that the sun will cool down substantially and save us for awhile. It seems foolish to bet the farm on this. When the sun warms up and we have increased GHG’s we will be cooked.
It just takes a while for ocean heat content to respond.
True. The amount of energy being stored in the oceans is increased by the GE but then comes back to the atmosphere non-linearly. So, the oceans won’t save us either.
Anyway, why would they assert that GHGs are in control when the observations were exactly what one would expect from a period of active sun in light of the LIA example of what happens with an inactive sun.
They being the NASA article authors, Shindell el at? They say the sun was a major factor in the LIA but that it is not a major factor in the present climate changes. That’s what the evidence suggests. The sun has been cooling slightly and we are still warming. Some model studies – which should be taken with a grain of salt – show the GE warming will be large even if the sun stays cool – an event that seems unlikely but is possible. I apologize for not having a specific reference, but I want to go get dinner. Here however is something that people might find relevant:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/more-on-sun-climate-relations/
See especially the two links in the last paragraph.
What was the basis for their decision ? What made them ignore the modern solar maximum ?
It has not been ignored. The sun likely played a non-trivial role in early 20th century warming but has played no role since or may have slowed the warming a tiny bit.
Mike said:
“You also fail to understand that a small positive trend will overwhelm any oscillation over time. Mainstream scientists have presented a lot of quantitative evidence that we are seeing this now in the temperature trends (surface and ocean).”
Like this ? :
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/research-issues-on-the-missing-heat/
“Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2”
Another point is that if the changes are small enough not to be troublesome for a couple of hundred years then there is no emergency. The UN now expects an earlier global population peak than previously and then a decline. Japan’s age profile involves a loss of nearly a third of it’s population by 2055.
Then our technology will start to catch up and before we have a significant anthropogenic climate problem we may well have developed suitable systems to achieve sustainability without regressive controls in the meantime.
Furthermore if the oceans really are cooling then I would expect soon to see a decline in atmospheric CO2 anyway as the rate of oceanic absorption recovers. There is a hint of that already.
The Alarmists are in a quandry. For 2 decades they’ve projected warming temperatures globally. Most predicted a amplified Hadely Cell, which would push well into the Mid Latitudes from the subtropics. They predicted that polar air mass source regions would warm, and thier air masses would no longer penetrate the deep mid-latitudes. Dr Vinter from HadCrut et als predicted in 2000 that within a decade snowy/cold winters would be a thing of the past. From a weather standpoint, they all agreed that the strength and breadth of the polar jetstreams would weaken; droughts and heat waves would be the new norm. Mild winters would stretch through out the mid-latitudes as a result. Yes, there would still be winter storms they argued. But those storms would be mainly rain, and would lack the punch of major winter storms of old.
But, three of the last 4 winters in the NH (Northern Hemisphere) had copious amounts of snow fall. Larger sweeping areas of low pressure pulled cold air masses from the polar source regions, and even areas in the subtropics had below normal temps due to these outbreaks. The prevailing Westerlies in the NH of course are stronger due to cooler temps in the tropesphere. The PFH (polar front jet) is driven by differential heating between the poles and equator. And unlike the Subtropical Jet, the PFJ is determined more by global temp changes (a cooling globe leads to a stronger jet; a warming globe leads to a weaker one).
Something is afoot, alright. And it is not AGW. The Alarmists could be right. But the weather of recent years say something different.
Mike says:
“If I say AGW is real and serious then the onus is on me to present evidence of this. If you say AGW is trivial if it exists at all, then the onus is on you to present evidence.”
That’s not correct. The CO2=CAGW hypothesis is the basis for all climate alarmism. If I say it’s trivial or non-existent, the reason is that the null hypothesis remains un-falsified – which means that the alternative hypothesis must be discarded.
There is no measurable difference between the null and the alternative, which acts like a placebo in this instance.
Mike said:
“The sun has been cooling slightly and we are still warming.”
Someone has set up a bet on how long that will continue. I suggest you participate.
“The sun likely played a non-trivial role in early 20th century warming but has played no role since.”
Despite historically high solar cycles 17 through 23 ? The usual obfuscation is that the cycles peaked with 18 and 19 but eased off a bit afterwards. Still the jets went zonally poleward so there was obviously a significant solar role going by the reverse effect during the LIA.
With zonal poleward jets lots more energy penetrated the oceans with reduced global cloudiness and albedo so we then had a run of El Nino dominance warming the troposphere.
And you put all that down to human CO2 ?
Well that would have been fine up to 2000. I went along with it up to then. However around 2000 I started to see the process go into reverse and now it is apparent to all.
The quiet sun has sent the jets equatorward again just as accepted by Shindell et al so clearly it was the sun that sent them poleward in the late 20th century and not CO2.
It is you chaps who are cherry picking.
R. Gates says:
January 30, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Please R. G., give me a “peer review” of these presentations. http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf, http://www.kidswincom.net/CO2OLR.pdf, and http://www.kidswincom.net/arcticseaice.pdf. If you wish to contact me directly, you can find that information on my website http://www.kidswincom.net.
Just got back from Puerto Vallarta. The overnight lows were 12 C / 53 F !! It was cold. Everyone was wearing coats in the restaurants while having dinner. When the wind was blowing it was brutal.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 30, 2011 at 1:45 pm
rbateman:
Here you go:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20011206/
Thanks Stephen and Robert for highlighting a mechanism recognized by NASA (and by those that might support AGW) that links AO/NAO changes with low solar output.
The authors (through their model) suggest a higher content of ozone in the stratosphere during a quiet Sun as being a possible cause. The current condition of solar output is below the first cycle of the Dalton Minimum along with modern EUV levels showing a dramatic drop over previous cycles that have also coincided with a very reduced thermosphere height.
A link to the NASA paper HERE.
We should be discussing the viability of the mechanisms proposed in this paper instead of wasting time on Co2.
I agree with some of the other posts in that one obviously can’t just blame the wind and leave the matter at that. Clearly the big weather event at the moment is La Nina. Clearly that large area of cool water is going to have some affect, skewing or shifting the Hadley Cells and jet streams.
I am an airline pilot operating in South East Asia. It was certainly suprsing to see an Easterly jet stream over Indonesia. Also, the usual Easterly jet that descends into Northen Vietnam never really materialised, instead staying further north that it usually does.
FWIW the temperatures in the region have been unusually cool and the dry season unusually short, starting very late and seems to be ending sooner too.
Children!
All go and sit in seperate corners and keep very quiet.
When you are quiet, please got to your desks and write out 100 times:
“All the wild weather we have had recently;
the highs and the lows,
be that temperature or moisture in its different forms;
by that I mean as rain or snow;
are but part of the natural cycle,
that has been observed many times before.”
When you have finished, please clear up your desks and go home in an orderly fashion.
Thank you.
Good night.
Re: TomRude
Thanks sincerely for sharing notes on Leroux.
Do you have any links to free online versions of his papers?
I was delighted to discover during the past week that a number of his ideas in the paper to which I linked here dovetail remarkably with the article I shared in December 2010:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/23/confirmation-of-solar-forcing-of-the-semi-annual-variation-of-length-of-day/
E.M. Smith, if you are around, have you read Leroux (1993)? (I remember your past comments; this is the piece of the puzzle you were craving.)
Paul, it looks as if most of his papers are in French. From the amazon review I gather three books have been translated into English. I have read all three and suggest the latest is a good overview of his work. Pity indeed that we have not heard of this author earlier…
Stephen Wilde says:
January 30, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Thank you for finding that priceless gem. I owe you.
Geoff Sharp says:
January 30, 2011 at 5:09 pm
I also have my eyes glued to the Neutron Monitor counts, as they remain elevated even higher than the 70’s run.
While it’s nice weather out here in N. Calif. the past month, it’s also been because of the storms riding up over the High Pressure Cell parked here and raining down icy cold and heaping snow from the Rockies to the East Coast.
Same thing happened in 76/77 (after an equal amount of time spent in High Neutron counts) before the solar cycle got going and brought the Neutron Counts down.
Check it out.
I’ve already taken the issue several steps further in my own work.
The problem for that old 2001 paper by Shindell et al is that they propose the cause of the LIA cooling to be a result of cooling in the stratosphere due to less uv effects on stratospheric ozone. Similarly they would then expect to see stratospheric warming when the sun is more active but of course we did not.
In fact the stratosphere actually cooled when the sun was more active and I expect that that was why they plumped for the proposition that human influences were overriding the natural processes.
What they failed to realise was that LIA type (equatorward/meridional) jetstream shifts require stratospheric warming towards the poles and not cooling so they should have realised that something was amiss with the basic assumption about the atmospheric response to changes in solar activity.
I first became aware of the problem some years ago and have been trying to resolve it.
Hence this article:
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/irishweather/how-the-sun-could-control-earths-temperature.html
which is an updated version of one first published at climaterealists.com.
The recent findings that when the sun was quiet between 2004 and 2007 ozone levels above 45km actually rose is exactly what I would have expected yet it potentially reverses the established views as regards the solar effects on the atmosphere. Jo Haigh and Gavin Schmidt have admitted as much.
If the stratosphere has continued to warm even if only a little since 2007 then my propositions are home and dry in principle even if some refinement of detail is required.
What seems to have been lacking from climate theory until now is any appreciation of just how much the jets can shift from natural multidecadal (and longer) influences and of course that equatorward/meridional jets require a warming stratosphere whilst poleward/zonal jets require a cooling stratosphere.
Nor does there seem to have been adequate thought given as to what that jetstream shifting actually achieves. Clearly it is an energy budget balancing mechanism between solar effects from above and oceanic effects from below.
NASA was on the verge of getting it right in 2001 but threw it all in the bin by simply assuming that the observational discrepancy regarding stratospheric temperature trends was all our fault.
The same principles apply to the ozone hole. It seems to grow naturally when the sun is more active and shrink naturally when the sun is less active.
Stephen Wilde says:
January 30, 2011 at 4:14 pm
“Mike said:
“You also fail to understand that a small positive trend will overwhelm any oscillation over time. Mainstream scientists have presented a lot of quantitative evidence that we are seeing this now in the temperature trends (surface and ocean).”
Like this ? :
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/research-issues-on-the-missing-heat/
“Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2″
Another point is that if the changes are small enough not to be troublesome for a couple of hundred years then there is no emergency. The UN now expects an earlier global population peak than previously and then a decline. Japan’s age profile involves a loss of nearly a third of it’s population by 2055.
Then our technology will start to catch up and before we have a significant anthropogenic climate problem we may well have developed suitable systems to achieve sustainability without regressive controls in the meantime.
Furthermore if the oceans really are cooling then I would expect soon to see a decline in atmospheric CO2 anyway as the rate of oceanic absorption recovers. There is a hint of that already.>/i>
Referring to Pielke Sr. and claiming this is mainstream is cherry picking. Pielke Sr is looking at one paper from NODC , which looks at some recent data, which is in the process of being studied and corrected, and points out that it sayconcludes the oceans have cooled slightly since 2003.
This is not the only paper on this subject; and looking at a collection of papers on this subject, it is clear that one should conclude that the oceans have been warming at an accelerating rate over the past 40 years.
Check out the graph in the following post which contains the results of 3 different studies on this subject.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/05/ocean-heat-content-increases-update/
The main problem has been that over time the network of XBT probes and CTD casts has been replaced by the Argo float network which has a much greater coverage and more homogeneous instrumentation. However, connecting up the old and new networks, and dealing with specific biases in the XBT probes is difficult. An XBT (eXpendable Bathy-Thermograph) is a probe that is thrown off the ship and whose temperature readings as a function of time are transferred to a profile in depth from knowledge of how fast the probe falls. Unfortunately, this function is a complicated one that depends on the temperature of the water, the depth, the manufacturer of the probe etc. Various groups – working with the same basic data – have shown that there were biases in the XBT associated with incorrect calibrations and have attempted to make better corrections.
eadler,
I’m sure you would not be so negative about the accuracy of the probes if the result had been different.
Anyway time should soon resolve the issue now that less solar energy is getting into the oceans.