From Georgia Tech, the science press release that gave us the best-warming-headline-evah thanks to media spin, likely started by BBC’s Richard Black. It is worth noting that this study cites data from such a short time from 2009-2011. Surely if any skeptical paper used such a short time period for a climatic conclusion, the paper would be laughed at and derided as the the worst kind of cherry picking. But, there’s a difference here, this paper is about synoptic scale events, in seasonal time periods, so while on one hand Arctic sea ice decline is said to be a climatic scale event (which I and others believe is driven by Asian industrialization soot and wind patterns rather than temperature), synoptic effects leading to snowier winters in the northern hemisphere is a seasonal scale event. Still, as the maxim we are constantly reminded of goes, correlation does not necessarily equal causation. The circumpolar vortex is a complex thing, like a pulsating amoeba, the lobes of high and lows can be pushed around by regional effects, so the idea isn’t totally implausible. But, I’m reserving judgment on the synoptic effects of sea ice loss on NH winter weather patterns until I see more examples. – Anthony
Arctic Sea Ice Decline May be Driving Snowy Winters Seen in Recent Years
A new study led by the Georgia Institute of Technology provides further evidence of a relationship between melting ice in the Arctic regions and widespread cold outbreaks in the Northern Hemisphere. The study’s findings could be used to improve seasonal forecasting of snow and temperature anomalies across northern continents.
Since the level of Arctic sea ice set a new record low in 2007, significantly above-normal winter snow cover has been seen in large parts of the northern United States, northwestern and central Europe, and northern and central China. During the winters of 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, the Northern Hemisphere measured its second and third largest snow cover levels on record.
“Our study demonstrates that the decrease in Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation,” said Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech. “The circulation changes result in more frequent episodes of atmospheric blocking patterns, which lead to increased cold surges and snow over large parts of the northern continents.”
The study was published on Feb. 27, 2012 in the online early edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The research was supported by NASA and the National Science Foundation.
In this study, scientists from Georgia Tech, the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Columbia University expanded on previous research by combining observational data and model simulations to explore the link between unusually large snowfall amounts in the Northern Hemisphere in recent winters and diminishing Arctic sea ice.
The researchers analyzed observational data collected between 1979 and 2010 and found that a decrease in autumn Arctic sea ice of 1 million square kilometers — the size of the surface area of Egypt — corresponded to significantly above-normal winter snow cover in large parts of the northern United States, northwestern and central Europe, and northern and central China.
The analysis revealed two major factors that could be contributing to the unusually large snowfall in recent winters — changes in atmospheric circulation and changes in atmospheric water vapor content — which are both linked to diminishing Arctic sea ice. Strong warming in the Arctic through the late summer and autumn appears to be enhancing the melting of sea ice.
“We think the recent snowy winters could be caused by the retreating Arctic ice altering atmospheric circulation patterns by weakening westerly winds, increasing the amplitude of the jet stream and increasing the amount of moisture in the atmosphere,” explained Jiping Liu, a senior research scientist in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech. “These pattern changes enhance blocking patterns that favor more frequent movement of cold air masses to middle and lower latitudes, leading to increased heavy snowfall in Europe and the Northeast and Midwest regions of the United States.”
Diminishing Arctic sea ice can cause changes in atmospheric circulation that lead to a circulation pattern that is different than the “negative phase” of the Arctic Oscillation.
In addition to analyzing observational data, the researchers also assessed the impact of the diminishing Arctic sea ice on atmospheric circulation by comparing the results of model simulations run with different sea ice distribution. They ran one experiment that assumed seasonally varying Arctic sea ice and utilized sea ice concentration data collected between 1979 and 2010. Another simulation incorporated prescribed sea ice loss in autumn and winter based on satellite-derived Arctic sea ice concentrations.
The simulations showed that diminishing Arctic sea ice induced a significant surface warming in the Arctic Ocean and Greenland/northeastern Canada, and cooling over northern North America, Europe, Siberia and eastern Asia. The models also showed above-normal winter snowfall in large parts of the northern United States, central Europe, and northern and central China.
The consistent relationships seen in the model simulations and observational data illustrate that the rapid loss of sea ice in summer and delayed recovery of sea ice in autumn modulates snow cover, winter temperature and the frequency of cold air outbreaks in northern mid-latitudes.
Huijun Wang and Mirong Song of the Chinese Academy of Sciences Institute of Atmospheric Physics and Radley Horton from the Columbia University Center for Climate Systems Research also contributed to this work.
This project was supported by the NASA Energy and Water Cycle Study and the National Science Foundation (NSF) (Award No. ANT-0838920). The content is solely the responsibility of the principal investigators and does not necessarily represent the official views of NASA or the NSF.
Research News & Publications Office
Georgia Institute of Technology
75 Fifth Street, N.W., Suite 314
Atlanta, Georgia 30308 USA
EVERYTHING is consistent with “Global Warming” (meaning the earth’s recovery from the Little Ice Age, which seems to be continuing in fits and spurts): My garden’s success, the snowpack in the mountains, the amount of rainfall from a summer thunder storm–all these and everything else is a manifestation of the weather (integrated over a designated time span = “climate”). The only way to get paid for something so mundane is to ascribe CAGW characteristics to it, which contributes to our declining economy on a global basis. But hey, “climate scientists” need a job, don’t they?
Bart says:
February 28, 2012 at 12:54 pm
Just a perhaps interesting observation: the ~60 year temperature cycle waveform bears a strong resemblance to single sided limit cycles such as are established for East-West stationkeeping of geosynchronous satellites (Figure 3b inverted).
Perhaps there is a phenomenon whereby the Rossby wave propagates with westward group velocity, then rebounds upon landfall with eastward momentum, which gradually reverses back westward until it meets landfall again in an endlessly repeating cycle?
Diminishing Arctic sea ice can cause changes in atmospheric circulation that lead to a circulation pattern that is different than the “negative phase” of the Arctic Oscillation.
The jet stream changes over the past few years are evidence of this as the AO/AAO patterns now seem to be only affecting the position of the undulation and not the undulation itself. The authors need to look at solar atmospheric effects along with observing the southern jet stream which cannot be affected by their theory as the south is gaining in ice extent.
First there would have to be more open water….
…and there’s not
http://www.real-science.com/worse-thought-2
speaking of “wind”…
28 Feb: Bishop Hill: In The News
The Guardian reports on the vast risk-free profits made by wealthy titled landowners as a result of the windfarm revolution that the Guardian itself has done so much to bring about through its incessant harping on about the dangers of climate change….
Mike Post comments:
– According to the Guardian story, there are currently 4.5 GW of wind power installed in the UK. From the screenshot that I took of the neta website at 12.55 on the freezing cold 6 February 2012, wind power over the UK had provided a mere 45 MW over the half hour from 12.00 to 12.30. This electricity, produced by ALL the wind generators in the UK was sufficient to power just 15,000 3KW kettles. It was just 1% of the reported total UK installed wind capacity and 0.1% of the country’s requirement!
\”Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad\”
It is also noteworthy that the environmental editor makes the fundamental error of confusing power with energy –
Mike Post comments again:
– It is actually worse than I thought! The Guardian’s figure of 4.5 gigawatts of installed wind power capacity did not include off-shore. The total capacity including off-shore (according to Wikipedia) is 5.9 gigawatts. So at midday on 6 February the UK’s wind power stations were producing 0.763% of total installed wind capacity. –
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/2/28/in-the-news-today.html
Latitude says:
February 28, 2012 at 1:42 pm
First there would have to be more open water….
…and there’s not
http://www.real-science.com/worse-thought-2
=============================================
Exactly…. the decrease of NH sea ice isn’t as prominent during the winter months. So, are they positing that low September ice causes Dec and January snow? What happened in 06? Or what happened in 84….. and how come with a few outliers there isn’t really much of a discernible trend for the snow cover from Sep-Apr for 30 years?
I hope those guys did that free gratis…….
(which I and others believe is driven by Asian industrialization soot and wind patterns rather than temperature),
I have a different theory.
Aerosols (more precisely particulates such as black carbon) are deposited on the ice surface and change the albedo. When snow/ice is accumulating their effect is short lived because they are covered by the new snow/ice, but when there is net melting they accumulate on the surface, resulting in a much larger albedo change effect and accelerated ice melt.
Here is what I think happened in the Arctic.
Over many decades prior to the 1970s particulates from northern hemisphere primarily coal burning accumulated in multi-year sea ice.
From the 1970s particulates progressively reduced, a process that sharply accelerated with the fall of the Soviet Union.
This resulted in less ‘near horizon’ particulate haze and aerosol seeded clouds. In the Arctic summer the sun is near the horizon almost all the time and the reduced particulates would result in a marked increase in solar insolation (sunlight reaching the ground).
This increased solar insolation starts net ice melting (on an annual basis), which starts to bring the decades of particulates accumulated in the ice to the surface, reducing the albedo and accelerating the melt. A positive feedback that continues until the ice melts completely over several years. Obviously ice will be of different thickness, with different amounts of particulates and in different locations, so it doesn’t all melt at the same rate.
This theory predicts that once all the old ice melts we should start to see net ice accumulation, which has yet to occur to any significant degree. Although there are indications it has started.
=========================
MAVukcevic says:
February 28, 2012 at 11:17 am
There are some odd things about the Atlantic; while the North is well organised the South is a mess:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AOT.htm
(one idea: the north has a strong earth’s magnetic field holding under control currents, while in the south the field is the weakest anywhere on the globe (the SA anomaly), so the currents are less regulated)
The Equator-Arctic has a strong mutual coupling, while there is none in for the Equator-Antarctica.
Could be a coincidence that up to 1980 Arctic was ‘inversely’ retracing its own steps from 62 years earlier?
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EAA.htm
but even stranger coincidence (if it is that) so it does the Equator (following the Arctic from 62 years earlier), except when the Arctic broke off in 1980 (possibly due to volcanic ash) the Equator carried on for the full stretch to the present time.
Could this be the Scafetta’s 60 year cycle?
60 years is far too long for a negative feedback, but the oceanic tide 60 year half-cycle is feasible.
Until these events are clearly understood, the climate scientists don’t stand a chance to separate natural cycles from other climatic drivers, whatever they may be.
===================================
A few of your commentators got in before me – but I would like to highlight – by repetition – the last paragraph of that quote: –
————
Until these events are clearly understood, the climate scientists don’t stand a chance to separate natural cycles from other climatic drivers, whatever they may be.
————
In the UK, we have perhaps 150 years of (reasonably) accurate weather records, and another century or more of tolerably accurate qualitative records.
IMHO, that is simply not enough to be dogmatic about multi-century cycles [if such do exist, of course!].
We have some causes. We have some effects. Do we have all of either. I seriously, severely, doubt that.
And do we understand all – that is ALL – the interlinkages and correlations?
ALL of them?
I suggest not.
But you may disagree. . . .
They have to show something for all their salaries and grants.
And if the snow cover continues to be below normal like it seems to be in the Midwest this year, what are we to make of that?
Anthony, I do remember you had a post up about a possible link between the Sun, I believe the stratosphere and milder winters. It was one of those posts I read around late summer thinking that’s a novel idea. There may have been an oscillation in there as well.
Goes to show you how much I remember.
But anyway I think the prediction was that this year the winter would be milder for the NH?
Auto says:
…………….
The ‘Equator-Arctic delayed negative coupling’ is more complex than just a cycle.
For clarity I have added second graph in the
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EAA.htm
As you can clearly see, the Equator anomaly values (1955 – 2011) are retracing (as close as it can be expected over such long period of time) the inverted Arctic anomaly of precisely 62 years earlier. I have no idea how that could happen unless there is tidal cycle.
RockyRoad says:
February 28, 2012 at 12:56 pm
EVERYTHING is consistent with “Global Warming” (meaning the earth’s recovery from the Little Ice Age, which seems to be continuing in fits and spurts): My garden’s success, the snowpack in the mountains, the amount of rainfall from a summer thunder storm–all these and everything else is a manifestation of the weather (integrated over a designated time span = “climate”). The only way to get paid for something so mundane is to ascribe CAGW characteristics to it, which contributes to our declining economy on a global basis. But hey, “climate scientists” need a job, don’t they? (emphasis, mine)
===================================================================
Rocky, I’m thinking taxpayers might be better off if they got paid to break shop windows. It’s still a waste of money but at least we’d have lots of shiny new windows, eh?
Intrusion of tepid Atlantic water into the Arctic probably precipitates each ice age by reducing sea ice, thereby providing increased humidity to prevailing winds to deposit vast snowfalls on North America. Leading climate scientists in the 1950’s held this view. Go to my blog for details:
http://strongasanoxandnearlyassmart.blogspot.com/2011/07/scientists-predict-another-ice-age-is.html
The study cited in my blog is by Drs. Maurice Ewing and William L. Donn. Dr. Ewing was as one of America’s leading oceanographers and geophysicists, its top authority on the world beneath the sea. He was President of the American Geophysical Union and director of Columbia University’s Lamont Geological Observatory, he had personally designed much of the equipment then used in underseas exploration.
His colleague, Dr. Donn, was Associate Professor of Geology, Brooklyn College, and Chief Scientist, U.S. Atlantic Island Observatories Program for the Inter- national Geophysical Year.
Whilst I sympathise with those in the scientific community wanting to explain the recent cold spells that saw chaos in the NH (eg Heathrow fiasco, no grit for roads etc), it fails to explain everything.
I have lived in Wellington New Zealand for nearly quarter of a century, and last winter (August time) saw only the second time I have ever seen snow down to sea-level, but not just snow to sea-level – this lot stayed on the ground and broke records throughout New Zealand – even Auckland saw snow
So, OK, northern jet-stream strays – but what of SH?
I am waiting to see if Wellington gets record snows again this coming winter (NH summer)
Andy
I ‘ve got to go with the rise in pirates causing global warming, Hat tip to original commentor. For sure this warm/cold conjecture has best headline ever. Whats next? Lying creates trust?Honesty is found in deliberate deceptions?I keep thinking these sellers of climatic certitude should never point a shotgun near their feet..
majormike1 says:
February 28, 2012 at 4:57 pm
That’s what I call negative feedback!
Well worth a read. Thanks.
“During the winters of 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, the Northern Hemisphere measured its second and third largest snow cover levels on record.”
On record? Would thumbing through a European history book be too much trouble? Has the taxpayer really been forced to fund these wild fairy stories picked out of the blue. They can come back when they have attempted to demonstrate with physical evidence and hindcast in their computer models how the Arctic Ice melting caused the Thames to freeze over for months, or caused Napoleon’s or Germany’s invading armies to freeze.
“The study’s findings could be used to improve seasonal forecasting of snow and temperature anomalies across northern continents.”
Adding insult to injury as over 500 Europeans freeze to death, the study is now “useful” for seasonal forecasting of snow “anomalies” and temperature “anomalies.” What Europeans need are coal plants to keep people alive in the record freezing weather, and during heat waves. But offering to predict more “anomalies” is the ploy of disgusting con artists who are convincing Europeans that they need to change the weather, rather than simply power their homes with legitimate uninterupted power sources.
It would appear that whatever mechanism that brought warm air to the arctic and melted the ice is now bringing moist air to the Northern parts of the globe. The sun is not a factor since it is Arctic night. The view to space is now refreezing the ice with the rate dependent on humidity and cloud cover. Normally the humidity is very low in the polar regions and the heat loss is high. As quickly as the ice froze solid the mechanism described was no longer active. I would think that only early snowfalls would be candidates.
Anthony –
You say that you believe Asian industrialization soot is a component of Arctic sea-ice decline. What proportion and what sort of radiative equivalent power do you give to the soot?
Soot on new ice disappears with each melt but accumulates on multi-year ice. I’ve seen the effect of minor dirt on glaciers and winter snow in the Rockies, so I know the effect is real. I am more than surprised that the Asian soot would have much of an effect, however. If so, simple ice-cores of still existing multi-year ice would settle the matter. Do these exist with the data to show the effect is real, or is it in modelling that the effect is significant?
I’m afflicted with the Nullius In Verba problem.
Snow Depth Climatology Animation:
http://i39.tinypic.com/2yywnlh.png
Without having yet read all the comments, it appears to me that many people on here who like to call themselves scientists haven’t correctly read what Judith Curry actually said.
“Our study demonstrates that the decrease in Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation,” said Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech. “The circulation changes result in more frequent episodes of atmospheric blocking patterns, which lead to increased cold surges and snow over large parts of the northern continents.”
Note that the effects of “decrease in Arctic sea ice area” and “changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation” are linked. She has not suggested that one causes the other. Now go to the sea ice page availble on the site and look at the ice circulation. It is obvious that the changed circulation pattern is associated with less ice in northern europe and more ice in the Bearing sea.
I haven’t seen any claim in that paper that less ice is due to global warming or to anthropogenic causes.
So the larger sea ice amount of the 1970’s caused the the big winters of the 1970’s? That would be the opposite of the conclusion of this study, wouldn’t it? Those folk at the Georgia Institute of Technology shoulda thunka that. But then if they had brought that up they might have thrown a wrench into the NASA money they got.
Global warming causing cooling isn’t as nonsensical as it sounds.
It’s possible that under certain circumstances negative feedbacks could exceed the original forcing. Resulting in a period of cooing following a period of warming.
Warming causes Arctic ice melt, causing increased evaporation from the Arctic ocean, which causes more cloud and snowfall at lower latitudes like Europe. The clouds and snow result in increased albedo and cooling. This effect could extent over several years, or perhaps much longer. In effect, a period of warming triggers a cooling period.
Note, as I explained earlier I think Arctic ice melt results primarily from decreased aerosols/articulates and not warming. But the above mechanism would work irrespective of the cause of ice melt.
Earlier I commented:
“Intrusion of tepid Atlantic water into the Arctic probably precipitates each ice age by reducing sea ice, thereby providing increased humidity to prevailing winds to deposit vast snowfalls on North America. Leading climate scientists in the 1950′s held this view. Go to my blog for details:
http://strongasanoxandnearlyassmart.blogspot.com/2011/07/scientists-predict-another-ice-age-is.html”
As the ice cap increased, the sea level fell about 120 meters until the relatively shallow Arctic Ocean blocked the intrusion of the tepid Atlantic currents, and the ice age ended. Rapid warming ensued, sea levels rose, and the stage was set for the onset of the next ice age.
It’s nice to have a theory that doesn’t present one set of conditions in the 2000’s, and an opposite set in the 1970’s.
if true, presumably one could work the conclusion backwards. Snowy winters in the NH are an indicator of artic sea ice extent. Therfore, if we want to know if artic melting before 1979 was equal to or less then current melting all we need to do is find a snowier winter.
Perhaps this will “prove” that current melting is not unprecedented. Try this line on the authors and see if they backtrack from there conclusion.