From California Institute of Technology:
Warm water causes extra-cold winters in northeastern North America and northeastern Asia

PASADENA, Calif.—If you’re sitting on a bench in New York City’s Central Park in winter, you’re probably freezing. After all, the average temperature in January is 32 degrees Fahrenheit. But if you were just across the pond in Porto, Portugal, which shares New York’s latitude, you’d be much warmer—the average temperature is a balmy 48 degrees Fahrenheit.
Throughout northern Europe, average winter temperatures are at least 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than similar latitudes on the northeastern coast of the United States and the eastern coast of Canada. The same phenomenon happens over the Pacific, where winters on the northeastern coast of Asia are colder than in the Pacific Northwest.
Researchers at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) have now found a mechanism that helps explain these chillier winters—and the culprit is warm water off the eastern coasts of these continents.
“These warm ocean waters off the eastern coast actually make it cold in winter—it’s counterintuitive,” says Tapio Schneider, the Frank J. Gilloon Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering.
Schneider and Yohai Kaspi, a postdoctoral fellow at Caltech, describe their work in a paper published in the March 31 issue of the journal Nature.
Using computer simulations of the atmosphere, the researchers found that the warm water off an eastern coast will heat the air above it and lead to the formation of atmospheric waves, drawing cold air from the northern polar region. The cold air forms a plume just to the west of the warm water. In the case of the Atlantic Ocean, this means the frigid air ends up right over the northeastern United States and eastern Canada.
For decades, the conventional explanation for the cross-oceanic temperature difference was that the Gulf Stream delivers warm water from the Gulf of Mexico to northern Europe. But in 2002, research showed that ocean currents aren’t capable of transporting that much heat, instead contributing only up to 10 percent of the warming.

Kaspi’s and Schneider’s work reveals a mechanism that helps create a temperature contrast not by warming Europe, but by cooling the eastern United States. Surprisingly, it’s the Gulf Stream that causes this cooling.
In the northern hemisphere, the subtropical ocean currents circulate in a clockwise direction, bringing an influx of warm water from low latitudes into the western part of the ocean. These warm waters heat the air above it.
“It’s not that the warm Gulf Stream waters substantially heat up Europe,” Kaspi says. “But the existence of the Gulf Stream near the U.S. coast is causing the cooling of the northeastern United States.”
The researchers’ computer model simulates a simplified, ocean-covered Earth with a warm region to mimic the coastal reservoir of warm water in the Gulf Stream. The simulations show that such a warm spot produces so-called Rossby waves.
Generally speaking, Rossby waves are large atmospheric waves—with wavelengths that stretch for more than 1,000 miles. They form when the path of moving air is deflected due to Earth’s rotation, a phenomenon known as the Coriolis effect. In a way similar to how gravity is the force that produces water waves on the surface of a pond, the Coriolis force is responsible for Rossby waves.
In the simulations, the warm water produces stationary Rossby waves, in which the peaks and valleys of the waves don’t move, but the waves still transfer energy. In the northern hemisphere, the stationary Rossby waves cause air to circulate in a clockwise direction just to the west of the warm region. To the east of the warm region, the air swirls in the counterclockwise direction. These motions draw in cold air from the north, balancing the heating over the warm ocean waters.
To gain insight into the mechanisms that control the atmospheric dynamics, the researchers speed up Earth’s rotation in the simulations. In those cases, the plume of cold air gets bigger—which is consistent with it being a stationary Rossby-wave plume. Most other atmospheric features would get smaller if the planet were to spin faster.
Although it’s long been known that a heat source could produce Rossby waves, which can then form plumes, this is the first time anyone has shown how the mechanism causes cooling that extends west of the heat source. According to the researchers, the cooling effect could account for 30 to 50 percent of the temperature difference across oceans.
This process also explains why the cold region is just as big for both North America and Asia, despite the continents being so different in topography and size. The Rossby-wave induced cooling depends on heating air over warm ocean water. Since the warm currents along western ocean boundaries in both the Pacific and Atlantic are similar, the resulting cold region to their west would be similar as well.
The next step, Schneider says, is to build simulations that more realistically reflect what happens on Earth. Future simulations would incorporate more complex features like continents and cloud feedbacks.
The research described in the Nature paper, “Winter cold of eastern continental boundaries induced by warm ocean waters,” was funded by the NOAA Climate and Global Change Postdoctoral Fellowship, administrated by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research; a David and Lucille Packard Fellowship; and the National Science Foundation.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If nobody else does it – I will: Why not consider the MPHs of the late Marcel Leroux?
Ulric Lyons says:
March 30, 2011 at 5:35 pm
I have been watching this all winter, and I would say the warmer water in the N.W Pacific was at times splitting the jet stream and a narrow atmospheric river passed over Alaska and then headed towards the N.E. bringing the Arctic air with it.
Hi Ulric
I agree about N.W. Pacific’s role. As an exercise I wrote an article considering the Kamchatka’s volcanoes critical role on the sudden stratospheric warming and consequently the jet stream interruptions:
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/56/34/77/PDF/SSW.pdf
The effect is an essential component of the North hemispheres winter’s temperatures trends.
@ur momisugly Jenny Sixpack
It doesn’t matter which one it is, the unholy trinity of Camoron, (Buff)huhne and Millipede will conspire to devise some more taxes “to pay for it”.
Isn’t it more likely that the landmasses influence the position of the Rossby waves, which then affects air pressure distribution and then the prevailing winds on the Eastern side of large continents drive warm water currents poleward and eastward by interacting with a combination of equator to pole thermal gradient and the Earth’s rotation?
That produces exactly the same observed outcome, fits a wider range of observations, fits in with established physics and represents what I learned about the Earth’s climate some 50 years ago.
Apart from all that isn’t it pretty obvious that, given that the Earth’s rotation sets the prevailing wind direction, warmer air will always be found downwind (to the east) of warm water with colder air upwind (to the west) of warm water.
Dublin, Ireland, and Stanley, Falklands Isles, are both ~52deg from the Equator, Ave Annual temp is 6 degF higher for Dublin, so perhaps we can allocate that at least for the Gulf Stream ? 😉
I learned about continental climates compared to west coastal climates when in school aged 15. I am 70 now so this is not new science.
Just a naive question.
If warmer water causes colder winters then possibly we should look out for colder then average winters as a proof of global warming? That would mean that the warm winters of the ninties contradict AGW?
Now that would be “surprising and non-intuitive” indeed.
Or is it (much as I suspect) that cold winters are a proof of AGW only when the winter is colder then average, otherwise warm winters are proofs of the AGW?
Dave Wendt quoted the figure: “Water between 0 and ‑15 degrees Celsius is in pink, while water between ‑15 and ‑28 degrees Celsius is in purple.”
I believe they missed some decimal points. The values are probably 0 and -1.5 degrees Celsius and -1.5 and -2.8 degrees Celsius.
What’s wrong with a bit of leg work and go out and measure? Maybe they did but the simulations put me right off.
@vukcevic says:
March 31, 2011 at 1:31 am
The warmer sea in the NW Atlantic through winter initially pushed the jet stream south, but once beyond the warm region, the jet stream then compensated by moving in a more northerly direction, heading for the Arctic west of the British Isles, bumped into the Arctic high pressure, and created the anti-cyclonic loops that brought the cold air to W Europe in December. The same loops could be seen early in winter west of Alasksa when the SST anomaly in the NW Pacific was further north, and occurred simultaneously in both regions, driven by short term solar factors.
I have noted that if the AO and NAO are already negative in early Autumn, a solar driven warm blast in November will drive them even more negative, and suspect that such solar driven temperature profiles are responsible for the accumulation of warm sea water in the said regions in the first place.
bla,bla,bla,bla”computer simulations of the atmosphere”bla,bla,bla,bla
@Dave Wendt says:
March 30, 2011 at 12:41 pm
“Water between 0 and ‑15 degrees Celsius is in pink, while water between ‑15 and ‑28 degrees Celsius is in purple.”
Water?
—————————
That is pretty funny. But water need not mean liquid water, it just means H2O. Ice is solid water. But they probably should say that if they want to better communicate with the public.
“Water is a chemical substance with the chemical formula H2O. Its molecule contains one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms connected by covalent bonds. Water is a liquid at ambient conditions, but it often co-exists on Earth with its solid state, ice, and gaseous state (water vapor or steam). Water also exists in a liquid crystal state near hydrophilic surfaces.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water
I wonder if they have ever heard of the Labrador Current … lol
Finally the reason for Ice Ages. Boiling oceans.
Most of us seem to be agreed that topography and the land/sea distribution set up the basic air flow patterns in the atmosphere. In the absence of any land there would be very little in the way of jetstream excursions latitudinally as they ran around the planet along the lines of latitude.
There also seems to be much support for bottom up oceanic effects and top down solar effects both competing to disturb those basic air flow patterns. The details of both mechanisms yet to be resolved.
Add to that the concept that more meridional or more equatorward jets produce more clouds which change global albedo and the rate of energy input to the oceans (to fuel internal ocean variability/ ocean cycles) and there we pretty much have a complete workable scenario for climate changes large enough to get us from MWP to LIA to date without any other forcing factor required.
Paul Vaughan… except they are putting the cart before the horses…
Bill Illis says:
March 30, 2011 at 6:34 pm
I haven’t seen the paper but I am now using the Gulf Stream in my reconstructions (or I’m using the location where the Gulf Stream turns west and provides its biggest impact on temperatures).
I see the complete opposite effect for the US.
The Gulf Stream has a very unusual peak in (you guessed it, 1937, the hottest year in the US in the actual measurements – nice peaks in 1988 and 1998 as well, two other hot years – a big decline in the last few years as the US cooled of – warmer this winter again but has dropped sharply in the last few months).
Your graphic of the gulf stream strength over the last century
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/7135/gulfstream.png
is interesting, it seems in agreement with measured Barents sea 100-150 m water temperatures in the last 100 years:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/08/new-paper-barents-sea-temperature-correlated-to-the-amo-as-much-as-4%C2%B0c/
and also I guess with the AMO. I have interpreted the Barents sea data by Levitus et al as meaning that the Barents gets the tail end of the north Atlantic drift. (The fact that radioisotopes from Sellafield, UK are found in the Barents suggests this is true.)
cedarhill: “Finally the reason for Ice Ages. Boiling oceans.”
IMO the best comment prize!
mycroft says:
March 30, 2011 at 2:07 pm
“So if the gulf stream is not the reason that the uk/north western europe warm in winter? what is!”
The gulf stream warming Western Europe is one of those urban myths that is taken as true simply because it is repeated so often – the same meme is recycled over and over and nobody has any idea where it came from.
The reason Western Europe is warmer than Eastern USA is because both areas have predominately Westerly or South Westerly winds. In the case of Europe, that takes air masses from the Atlantic, which because it is made of water, never drops below zero degrees. It’s as simple as that.
“It’s not that the warm Gulf Stream waters substantially heat up Europe,” Kaspi says. “But the existence of the Gulf Stream near the U.S. coast is causing the cooling of the northeastern United States.”
This should had been posted on April 1st, science doesn’t get spun much worse than this. I can see why they have gone down this route with the awful science of warm causing cool, as the new thing in climate non science at this moment. Increasing the energy doesn’t lower the energy as warm causing cool implies.
The NE cooling is substantial (called a continental Winter), so the warm Gulf Stream waters can’t substantially heat up Europe, yet they can substantially cool the NE. (talk about cherry picking)
The cooling North Atlantic ocean keeps Europe relative mild because it warms the atmosphere of very cold air coming down from the Arctic very quickly. This is why the UK can often get rain in Winter from a NWly, yet anywhere in the USA apart from the West coast is snow. Siberia and Canada are so cold because this warm water from the oceans almost never reach them during Winter. (Southerns areas can have exceptions of course)
(There must be some even hotter water going up in those areas to cause even colder Winters then the NE of USA. -sarc)
The NE USA gets these colder Winters because this cooling body of water that warms the atmosphere rarely is blown West, thanks to the spinning direction of the globe.(Coriolis effect) Weather systems move West to East because of this and are modified by the oceans as they pass over them. Cold Arctic air moving South over the USA can’t be modifed by the warm oceans so it is freezing cold. Over Western Europe the same very cold Arctic air is modified greatly over relatively warm North Atlantic ocean and North sea. Why are they trying to invent the wheel again, but getting it awfully wrong?
The warming effect of the Gulf Stream on Europe is evident. You just have to look at an temperature map, e.g.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Annual_Average_Temperature_Map.jpg
Nowhere else do the isothermals swing as far north as over Western Europe and its coastal waters. They are bent to the point that they run north-south instead of east west over much of Europe. In some regions they’re even inverted, meaning they go northeast to southwest, i.e. it gets warmer when you go north, such as over western Norway. That can only be explained by a heat source just west of it.
****
Stephen Wilde says:
March 31, 2011 at 6:12 am
Add to that the concept that more meridional or more equatorward jets produce more clouds which change global albedo and the rate of energy input to the oceans (to fuel internal ocean variability/ ocean cycles) and there we pretty much have a complete workable scenario for climate changes large enough to get us from MWP to LIA to date without any other forcing factor required.
****
Interesting. An equatorward movement of the mid-latitude jetstreams producing more clouds (area-wise) would be a regional positive-feedback — colder temps producing more clouds, making it alittle colder, etc. That could cause an inherent cyclic action of larger magnitude than the original forcing. Of course, a regional positive-feedback doesn’t mean the overall feedback is positive — plenty of evidence to show that the global, long-term feedback is negative.