A Displaced Polar Vortex and Its Causes

Mitchell et al. 2011 – Click the pic to view at source

By WUWT Regular “Just The Facts”

If you aren’t familiar with Stratospheric Polar Vortexes, you can get acquainted here, here and here.

“A strong link exists between stratospheric variability and anomalous weather patterns at the earth’s surface. Specifically, during extreme variability of the Arctic polar vortex termed a “weak vortex event,” anomalies can descend from the upper stratosphere to the surface on time scales of weeks. Subsequently the outbreak of cold-air events have been noted in high northern latitudes, as well as a quadrupole pattern in surface temperature over the Atlantic and western European sectors, but it is currently not understood why certain events descend to the surface while others do not. This study compares a new classification technique of weak vortex events, based on the distribution of potential vorticity, with that of an existing technique and demonstrates that the subdivision of such events into vortex displacements and vortex splits has important implications for tropospheric weather patterns on weekly to monthly time scales. Using reanalysis data it is found that vortex splitting events are correlated with surface weather and lead to positive temperature anomalies over eastern North America of more than 1.5 K, and negative anomalies over Eurasia of up to −3 K. Associated with this is an increase in high-latitude blocking in both the Atlantic and Pacific sectors and a decrease in European blocking. The corresponding signals are weaker during displacement events, although ultimately they are shown to be related to cold-air outbreaks over North America. Because of the importance of stratosphere–troposphere coupling for seasonal climate predictability, identifying the type of stratospheric variability in order to capture the correct surface response will be necessary.” Mitchell et al. 2012 – Paywalled

During January 2014 the Northern Stratospheric Polar Vortex appears to have experienced a weak vortex event and displacement, i.e. here is a 10 hPa/mb – Approximately 31,000 meters (101,700 feet) Height Analysis showing the low pressure area of the Stratospheric Polar Vortex being displaced (squeezed) on January 7th;

NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source

and this Northern Hemisphere Temperature Analysis at 10 hPa/mb shows the Northern Stratospheric Polar Vortex apparently with two lobes on January 11th, 2014:

NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source

Northern Polar Wind at 10 hPa/mb also shows the Stratospheric Polar Vortex still displaced at present (if you click on the picture it will link to an animated version):

Cameron Beccario – Global Forecast System
– NCEP / National Weather Service / NOAA – Click the pic to view animated at source

and when Polar Wind is overlaid with Temperature, you can clearly see the cold “air from very high altitudes” that descends “through the center of the vortex, moving air to lower altitudes over several months,” “NASA” (Click the pic to animate):

Cameron Beccario – Global Forecast System – NCEP / National Weather Service / NOAA – Click the pic to view animated at source

“Large regions in northern Asia, Europe and North America have been found to cool during the mature and late stages of weak vortex events in the stratosphere. A substantial part of the temperature changes are associated with changes in the Northern Annular Mode (NAM) and North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) pressure patterns in the troposphere. The apparent coupling between the stratosphere and the troposphere may be of relevance for weather forecasting, but only if the temporal and spatial nature of the coupling is known. Using 51 winters of reanalysis data, we show that the development of the lower-tropospheric temperature relative to stratospheric weak polar vortex events goes through a series of well-defined stages, including the formation of geographically distinct cold air outbreaks. At the inception of weak vortex events, a precursor signal in the form of a strong high-pressure anomaly over north west Eurasia is associated with long-lived and robust cold anomalies over Asia and Europe. A few weeks later, near the mature stage of the weak vortex events, a shorter-lived cold anomaly emerges off the east coast of North America. The probability of cold air outbreaks increases by more than 50% in one or more of these regions during all phases of the weak vortex events. This shows that the stratospheric polar vortex contains information that can be used to enhance forecasts of cold air outbreaks. As large changes in the frequency of extremes are involved, this process is important for the medium-range and seasonal prediction of extreme cold winter days.” Kolstad et al. 2010

Here is Northern Hemisphere – Vertical Cross Section of Geopotential Height Anomalies and the Northern Annular Mode (NAM) or Arctic Oscillation (AO) Index, which shows large positive Height Anomalies and the AO swinging negative in January:

NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source

And here is North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) Index for the prior 4 Months, showing a positive swing in mid-January:

NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source

So what caused the weak vortex event, displacement of the Northern Stratospheric Polar Vortex and cold air outbreaks?

There are several potential factors:

“A vortex displacement event is associated with anomalously high wavenumber-1 planetary wave activity entering the stratosphere and is characterized by a vortex with a comma-like shape that is shifting equatorward. Often this shifting occurs ‘‘top down’’ and the vortex has a baroclinic structure. Subsequently the Aleutian high, a weak anti- cyclone, encroaches over the pole and is especially dominant at lower levels.”

“A vortex splitting event is associated with anomalously high wavenumber-2 planetary wave activity entering the stratosphere. During such an event the vortex barotropically splits into two ‘‘daughter’’ vortices that tend to align along the 90°E – 90°W axis, with one centered over Siberia and the other centered over northeastern Canada (Matthewman et al. 2009, hereafter M09).”

“Analyses show that the most extreme vortex variability occurs most commonly in late January and early February, consistent with when most planetary wave driving from the troposphere is observed. Composites around sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) events reveal that the moment diagnostics evolve in statistically different ways between vortex splitting events and vortex displacement events, in contrast to the traditional diagnostics.” Mitchell et al. 2011

Planetary Wave 1 activity can be see on this Zonal Wave #1 Amplitude Jan, Feb, March Time Series;

Mitchell et al. 2011 – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source

and Planetary Wave 2 on this Zonal Wave #2 Amplitude Jan, Feb, March Time Series:

Mitchell et al. 2011 – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source

There was some Planetary Wave 2 activity in early January, however there was strong Planetary Wave 1 activity throughout much of the month.

A second likely factor in the weakening and displacement of the Polar Vortex is Eddy Heat, i.e. “strong negative fluxes indicate poleward flux of heat via eddies. Multiple strong poleward episodes will result in a smaller polar vortex, Sudden Stratospheric Warmings and an earlier transition from winter to summer circulations. Relatively small flux amplitudes will result in a more stable polar vortex and will extend the winter circulation well into the Spring.” NOAA

Here you can see that 10 day Averaged Eddy Heat Flux Towards The North Pole At 100mb neared a record daily maximum in early January:

NOAA – National Weather Service – Climate Prediction Center – Click the pic to view at source

A third potential factor in Polar Vortex behavior is that “geomagnetic activity (used as a measure of solar wind parameters)” plays a role in the “variability of large-scale climate patterns and on changes in the global temperature.”, i.e.: “We have found positive statistically significant correlations between global temperature and the distribution of surface temperature over Eurasia, the East and Equatorial Pacific and over the North Atlantic for the period 1966-2009 correspond to large-scale climate patterns defined by climate indices. We found very similar positive correlations between geomagnetic activity and the distribution of surface temperature in the mentioned regions. As an effect of geomagnetic storms, energetic particles penetrate from the magnetosphere into the region of the stratospheric polar vortex. The increase of temperature and pressure can be observed over northern Canada. The vortex shifts towards Europe, rotates counter-clockwise and the wind blows from the polar region over Greenland southwards. It diverts the warm flow proceeding northward over the Atlantic, eastward along the deep Icelandic low extending as far as the Barents Sea and takes part in warming Eurasia. The strengthened zonal flow from Siberia cools the western Pacific with the impact on the warming of the equatorial and eastern Pacific when also a distinct 1976-78 climate shift occurred. Processes in the Atlantic and Pacific play a significant role and a time delay (wind forcing over the previous 1-4 yr) appears to be the most important for the relocation of the oceanic gyres. Results showing statistically significant relations between time series for geomagnetic activity, for the sum of climate indices and for the global temperature help to verify findings concerning the chain of processes from the magnetosphere to the troposphere.” Studia Geophysica & Geodaetica, Bucha 2012

A Coronal Mass Ejection (CME); hit Earth around January 1st:

Ensemble WSA-ENLIL+Cone Model Evolution Movie for Median CME Input Parameters – Dynamic Pressure:

NOAA – Integrated Space Weather Analysis – Click the pic to view at source

and the Magnetosphere was rocking and rolling:

NOAA – Integrated Space Weather Analysis – Click the pic to view at source

However, potential influences of Solar activity on Polar Vorticity are speculative and in the past Leif Svalgaard has challenged the potential that Solar influences on the upper atmosphere could influence Earth’s climate.

Finally, we have the Wobbly Jet Steam hypothesis put forth by Jennifer Francis, of Rutgers University and other, i.e.:

“The Arctic is heating faster than the rest of the world, hurried along by the disappearance of polar sea ice. Bright white ice reflects energy back into space; dark blue water absorbs it. Arctic temperatures are about 2 degrees Celsius warmer there than they were in the mid-1960s. (The average temperature increase for the Earth’s atmosphere overall is about 0.7 degree C, since 1900.)

In other words, the temperature difference between the Arctic and North America is shrinking. That’s one factor causing wobbliness in the jet stream, the west-east current that circles the Northern Hemisphere, according to Jennifer Francis, research professor at Rutgers University. Normally, that river of air keeps low-pressure cold air contained above the Arctic and holds higher-pressure warm air above the temperate regions, where most people live.

Scientists tend to call the jet stream a “polar vortex,” Francis says.

A slowing in the jet stream has caused it to zigzag, carrying warmer temperatures farther north than usual—and Arctic cold farther south. “The real story,” Francis says, is that the jet stream is “taking these big swings north and south and that’s causing unusual weather to occur in a number of places around the Northern Hemisphere.” Bloomberg Businessweek

I am not sure which scientists beyond Jennifer Francis “tend to call the jet stream a ‘polar vortex,'” as these are two distinct and separate climatic phenomena, i.e.:

“The jet stream consists of ribbons of very strong winds which move weather systems around the globe. Jet streams are found 9-16 km above the surface of the Earth, just below the tropopause, and can reach speeds of 200 mph.” Met Office  Whereas “the polar vortex extends from the tropopause (the dividing line between the stratosphere and troposphere) through the stratosphere and into the mesosphere (above 50 km). Low values of ozone and cold temperatures are associated with the air inside the vortex.” NASA

This graphic is helpful in seeing the height and location of the Polar Jet, one of the Jet Streams in relation to the Tropopause, down to which the Stratospheric Polar Vortex can extend:

ddata.over-blog.com – Click the pic to view at source

Additionally, in the following image the Stratospheric Polar Vortex is delineated by the “Arctic Front”, whereas the Jet Stream is delineated by the “Polar Front”:

clip_image006

Jennifer Francis’ comment that “Scientist tend to call the jet stream a ‘polar vortex'” reminds me of this graphic:

memegenerator.net – Click the pic to view at source

But I digress, there are two key weaknesses in the Wobbly Jet Steam hypothesis.  Firstly, there does not appear to be a correlation between Sea Ice Area and Extent and the Cold Air Outbreaks. Secondly, it seems highly suspect that the extent of Arctic Sea Ice in September and October could have a significant impact on Stratospheric Polar Vortex behavior in January.

From a correlation perspective, the prior most notable Polar Vortex associated Cold Air Outbreak was the January 1985 Arctic Outbreak:

“The January 1985 Arctic outbreak was the result of the shifting of the polar vortex further south than is normally seen. Blocked from its normal movement, polar air from the north pushed into nearly every section of the eastern half of the United States, shattering record lows in a number of states. The effects of the outbreak were damaging. At least 126 deaths were blamed on the cold snap and 90 percent of the citrus crop in Florida was destroyed in what the state called the “Freeze of the Century.” Florida’s citrus industry suffered $1.2 billion in losses ($2.3 billion in 2009 dollars) as a result of the inclement weather. The public inauguration of President Ronald Reagan for his second term was held in the Capitol Rotunda instead of outside due to the cold weather, canceling the inaugural parade in the process. (Because Inauguration Day fell on a Sunday, Reagan took a private oath on January 20 and the semi-public oath on January 21.)” NOAA

(An interesting aside, on January 12, 2014 “KinkyLipids” changed the Wikipedia January 1985 Arctic Outbreak page from ‘Arctic outbreak’ to ‘cold wave’, ‘Janaury’ to ‘Winter’ and “moved page Winter 1985 Arctic outbreak to Winter 1985 cold wave” because “Sources do not use the term ‘Arctic outbreak’. The term ‘cold wave’ matches other Wikipedia articles”. Not sure why one wouldn’t call “the outbreak of cold-air events” an “outbreak”, but you can visit the new Wikipedia “Winter 1985 cold wave” at the old January 1985 Arctic Outbreak link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_1985_Arctic_outbreak)

Regardless of what it’s called, the January 1985 Cold Air Outbreak occurred during a time of slightly above average Northern Sea Ice Area, where the January 2014 Cold Air Outbreak occurred during a time of slightly below average Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area:

Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois – Click the pic to view at source

Also, Arctic Sea Ice Extent was within two standard deviations of the 1981 – 2010 average for the entirety of 2013:

National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) – Click the pic to view at source

and there was signifacantly more Sea Ice Area prior to the recent the strong Cold Air Outbreaks occurred, versus 2012 when the Cold Air Outbreaks weren’t as strong:

Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois – Click the pic to view at source

Aside from the apparent lack of correlation between Cold Air Outbreaks and Arctic Sea Area and Extend, there is another aspect of Arctic Sea Ice that makes the Wobbly Jet Stream hypothesis even wobblier. The Arctic is mostly land locked and freezes over quickly in the Fall. Thus by December Sea Ice Extent has reached across much of the Arctic:

National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) – Click the pic to view at source

For the Wobbly Jet Stream hypothesis to be correct, either the approximately 1 Million Sq. km Sea Ice Area Anomaly in September and October must have a long lasting residual effect that lingers into January to disrupt the vortex, or the approximately 500K Sq km anomalies in November and December around the periphery of the Arctic are what must weakened and displaces the Stratospheric Polar Vortex.

Even Kevin Trenberth thinks the melting sea ice, warming Arctic, Wobbly Jet Steam causes cold January weather hypothesis is weak, i.e. “So with regards to the Arctic, there are certainly major changes in the Arctic Sea Ice. And those are biggest in the fall. We’ve had record low Arctic Sea Ice, about 40% decline in Arctic Sea Ice overall, since the 1970’s, in September. But the Arctic fills up in the winter time.” “And so at those times of years the Arctic Sea Ice it seems to me plays a much lesser role. The area affected is a lot less, simply because the arctic is land locked.”

So Planetary Waves, Eddy Heat, Geomagnetic Storms or Sea Ice, what do you think caused the weakening and displacement the Northern Stratospheric Polar Vortex in January 2014?

For an array of real time Northern Stratospheric Polar Vortex graphs and graphics please visit the WUWT Northern Polar Vortex Reference Page.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

99 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
sabretruthtiger
February 1, 2014 1:45 pm

It’s the Sun stupid. And Leif Svalgaard is flat out wrong.

February 1, 2014 1:59 pm

Yes, It is the sun nice fellow!

R. de Haan
February 1, 2014 2:01 pm

Forget about headings the title and switch of the sound. Just watch:

February 1, 2014 2:02 pm

That’s a lot of factors affecting the polar vortex.
Whatever it is, I wonder how those factors can be distinguished and evaluated.
Add enough indistinguishable factors and anything can be explained… after it happens.
Unless one factor can be shown to be overwhelming; over to you Solar Guys.

sabretruthtiger
February 1, 2014 2:03 pm

Ha! I was a little too absolute with my comment but I believe the evidence for solar-induced stratospheric warmings is a fair bit weightier than ‘speculative’ and the article is slightly misleading in this respect adding undue weight to the fact that Svalgaard has challenged the link. He has invalidly challenged it of course.

sabretruthtiger
February 1, 2014 2:22 pm

It’s complex with Rossby waves, phenomena like the Quasi-biennial Oscillation and many other factors but Solar activity is definitely one of them, not so much TSI but periods of inactivity punctuated by coronal and sunspot events that correlate with these SSWs. There seems to be a move to dismiss the sun amongst alarmists as anything else can be linked to CO2.

February 1, 2014 2:24 pm

sabretruthtiger says:
February 1, 2014 at 2:03 pm
I believe the evidence for solar-induced stratospheric warmings is a fair bit weightier
Indeed, they only occur during winter [and generally only in the Northern Hemisphere] when there is no sunlight at the pole, so there you have clear evidence that the Sun [or perhaps the lack of Sun] is involved. For more see: https://www.eiscat3d.se/sites/default/files/EISCAT_3D_Fifth_User_Meeting/28-Khosrawi.pdf

sabretruthtiger
February 1, 2014 2:29 pm

I find the article to be strangely contradictory
“A third potential factor in Polar Vortex behavior is that “geomagnetic activity (used as a measure of solar wind parameters)”
and
“However, potential influences of Solar activity on Polar Vorticity are speculative”
It slyly references all influence by the solar wind as ‘geomagnetic activity’ throughout the article, slightly misleading, despite not being incorrect.
Here’s an interesting paper:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/4670901_The_sun-weather_connection_-_Sudden_stratospheric_warmings_correlated_with_sudden_commencements_and_solar_proton_events

Tom in Florida
February 1, 2014 2:30 pm

sabretruthtiger says:
February 1, 2014 at 1:45 pm
“It’s the Sun stupid. And Leif Svalgaard is flat out wrong.”
Thank you Barack Obama. You just forgot to add “that’s a fact”.

February 1, 2014 2:43 pm

Disagreement is fine.
But to substantiate the position of “It’s the Sun, stupid” all that is required is the following:
1 Evidence of a correlation between solar changes and the climate.
And
2 Proof that the correlation is not caused by another common cause.
Otherwise, “It’s the Sun and a lot of other things, stupid” seems more reasonable.

February 1, 2014 3:48 pm

I suspect the polar air has, en masse, regions of electrostatic charge, and further, that the jet stream is driven by a positive ion electrical current (at all latitudes). Changes in solar output would result in a change of the Sun’s total electrostatic field, which would have an unbalancing effect on the Earth’s many electrostatic atmospheric regions. Actually, it is the interaction of the Moon’s electrostatic charge relative to the Sun that is causing the unbalanced electrostatic regions of Earth’s atmosphere. I have noticed that cold air sinking typically, but now always, occurs just prior to the Full Moon, such that Full Moon nights are typically the coldest of the month.
Also, changes in solar wind amplitude and magnetic field strength reduce the Sun’s magnetic induction effect of the Earth’s overall magnetic field, and hence it slows down the ion currents in the upper atmosphere and hence the atmosphere’s angular momentum around the poles.
The reduce angular momentum and the unbalanced electrostatic forces on the polar air are causing the upper atmosphere to sink and follow the wobbly path it has been taken. I would agree that ocean temperatures could help steer the polar jet stream as it takes its new course.
This is just my anecdotal observations and is not based upon hard data.

February 1, 2014 3:59 pm

If solar activity were a primary factor in Stratospheric Warmings [SSW] one would expect that to occur in both the northern and the southern polar caps as solar-induced geomagnetic activity occurs equally in both hemispheres [being global and occurring at the same time in both polar caps]. However, SSW are almost exclusively a Northern Hemisphere phenomenon [I know of only one case of a southern SSW].

Mycroft
February 1, 2014 4:04 pm

Lief Svalgaard said:
Indeed, they only occur during winter [and generally only in the Northern Hemisphere] when there is no sunlight at the pole, so there you have clear evidence that the Sun [or perhaps the lack of Sun] is involved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But isn’t winter also the period when the Northern Lights are at their highest activity?
which is caused by the solar wind is it not?? Which is at its highest speed between September and March, so the sun has some influence in even in winter when sunlight is not directly involved, If Ozone can affect weather patterns why can’t Plasma (ionized gas)

pochas
February 1, 2014 4:05 pm

The various well known climate cycles (Hallstedt, Bond Events, DeVries/Seuss, Gleissberg, PDO/AMO) beg for an explanation, all of which cannot be found in internal variability. One must look to the only external power source, the Sun, and the orbital properties of its satellites including the earth’s moon. Once these connections are understood, a foundation for climate science will be at hand. Until then, we’re just guessing. And, trying to generate large cash flows.

February 1, 2014 4:13 pm

“But I digress, there are two key weaknesses in the Wobbly Jet Steam hypothesis. Firstly, there does not appear to be a correlation between Sea Ice Area and Extent and the Cold Air Outbreaks. Secondly, it seems highly suspect that the extent of Arctic Sea Ice in September and October could have a significant impact on Stratospheric Polar Vortex behavior in January.”
The second reason is sound. Also remember there is no cause and effect in weather. Solar is a key potential factor, but not a cause. Weather leads to weather in the troposphere and stratosphere. Stratospheric weather affects tropospheric and vice versa. An “extreme” weather event like the polar vortex elongation and subsequent surface cold blast requires a month or more of setup followed by a particular coincidence of weather events. The potential solar contribution, labeled “speculative” in the head post, is a coincident factor to the rest of the weather factors, possibly not necessary, definitely not sufficient, but it also cannot be ignored.
Contrary to Francis, the stratospheric polar vortex is likely to speed up due to enhanced contrast between the troposphere and stratosphere in the Arctic in fall and early winter. That is the positive AO predicted by most long run climate models (again contrary to Francis). See http://yly-mac.gps.caltech.edu/Reprintsyly/z%20Yung%202012%20biblio%20Irene%20%20copy/N173Limpasuvan_2005.pdf for this explanation “The gross behavior of the composite VI event is similar in shape but opposite in sign to that associated with sudden stratospheric warming events (SSWs).”
Essentially what happens is a month or more of positive AO (see chart in head post) building up momentum in the polar vortex and also building up surface cold air. Second, there was a persistent eastern pacific ridge that pumped cold air down into central Canada which built up snow cover froze over lakes. That was the primer for the cold surface air.
Then there was a partial SSW (technically not called an SSW in that case). That elongated the polar vortex and pushed it into the upper midwest. Remember that the vortex had built up momentum during December leading to a stronger push which it finally pushed south. Remember too that the cold air had built up in December in central Canada so the low level air masses had no chance of moderating on their way south.
Then there was the coincident surface weather, 100% necessary but not sufficient for this event to happen. One was a deepening trough, but obviously causing surface weather effects deepening from feedback from that same surface weather. There was a upper strong shortwave rounding the base of the trough. There was a surface low spawned in the lee of the Rockies that dipped down into Texas then came up through the eastern plains. The surface low met up with and helped pinch off an upper low in Ontario. That stacked low then pulled the surface air south in tandem with the vortex. The intrusion of the vortex is not uncommon but does not often align with the tropospheric weather as perfectly.
Finally, I come full circle to the comment that I quoted. The temperature of the Arctic this past January was not warmer in winter due to “Arctic amplification”. It was warmer overall due to weather (with a possible minor contribution by some of the worldwide warming) and some regions were colder due to weather. It is weather (mainly the jet stream) that controls the temperature of the arctic not the other way around.

February 1, 2014 4:30 pm

Mycroft,
You just made the relevant point. Solar or magnetic field induced responses many miles above the stratosphere are indisputable in the Winter. …….even when the surface of our planet is in darkness.
If it was based on a direct relationship to how much sun was reaching the surface, we would have had it figured out a long time ago.

February 1, 2014 4:39 pm

SO what caused the wobbly polar vortex in 85? 73? 78?
Was the polar ice hiding deep in the ocean then?

February 1, 2014 4:44 pm

not going to pretend I understand it all but last week or so wasn’t there indications the vortex “drop” could happen again in first week or so of Feb?
I may have misunderstood what I was seeing and if so would appreciate someone letting me know.
in Maine so Feb usually very cold for me anyways, a -15 to -20 F night not unusual, but the added cold air mass may be an issue if so.

February 1, 2014 6:12 pm

Some people never learn or have they never had to learn basic knowledge about for example our Earth and normal laws of physics, chemistry nor mathematic statistic….
The Earth’s circumference at the equator is about 40 076,592 km. Nearly 40 009 km if we measure the circumference from pole to pole. Hence, it is flattened at the poles due to centrifugal force, the water cycle, erosion of various kinds from vulcanos on land and in sea needs to be taken into consideration when calculating the impact of each periods saltination in sea especially in areas south and south east of Alaska.
One other important factor is that Earth’s axis tilt, oblikvidity varies in relation to our Earth’s rotation between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees. A factor forgotten (?) by many scholars still believing in human caused Global warming….
A third important factor never taken into consideration in any of the so called computermodels is that Vulcanos on land due to the fact mentioned above, in other words that our globe isn’t an ideal sphere, has had large impacts on stofts in ‘air’ and athmosphere.
For more reading on impacts such as large numbers (millions) of deaths from Iceland to China as well as impact on photosyntesis in plants causing crop failure in other words bad harvest, please read: Alexandra Witze & Jeff Kanipe, An Island on Fire: The extraordinary story of Laki, the vulcano that turned eighteen century Europe dark, Profile Books 2014.
Our Earth has a complexed weather system especially observed in the Arctic. One need to take all windfactors as well as eruptions, erosions of different kind, seastreams into consideration,
not forgetting that the main factor behind all observed correct data as well as the so called temperature changes observed by satelites into consideration, the later never ever gives correct information of temperatures 1 meter above surface nor 1 meter under. Reflexion isn’t the same as correct temperature. Never been and never will be.
* More than 70% of Earth’s surface is water. Oceans, lakes, rivers, rivers, streams, etc.
* Impacts on landrise and sea levels still is seen caused by the last ice age. Please remember that Archimedes principle applies whether we are dealing with glaciers (which weigh down the land under) same goes for ice in the Arctic (floating in the ‘sea’) or ice and glaciers in the example Antarctica where there are both ice as ice on land.
* Sea surface NEVER can be presented as a fixed figure. When science talks about sea level we are dealing with averages over a long period, at least one year, comparing the highest and lowest value during the day. Never ever forget the moon’s attraction on the water!
Facts about Earth, swedish text
Important knowledge:
Working with sediment cores extracted from Lower Murray Lake, Ellesmere Island, Nunavut, Canada (81°21′N, 69°32′W) in 2005 and 2006, the authors calculated annual mass accumulation rate (MAR) for the past five millennia, which they used to derive a relationship between MAR and July temperature at the two nearest permanent weather stations over the period of instrumental measurements. This work revealed there were several periods over the past 5000 years when the temperature of the region exceeded the peak temperature of the 20th century, the most recent of which was during the Medieval Warm Period, which we have delineated on the following figure as occurring between about AD 930 and 1400, and where the peak temperature of that period can be seen to have been about 0.6°C higher than the peak temperature of the Current Warm Period.
Source:
Cook, Bradley, Stoner and Francus, P. 2009. Five thousand years of sediment transfer in a high arctic watershed recorded in annually laminated sediments from Lower Murray Lake, Ellesmere Island, Nunavut, Canada. Journal of Paleolimnology 41: 77-94.

February 1, 2014 6:14 pm

Yes, I think they have that one pretty much backwards. It is much more likely that SSW’s are one of the causes and not an effect of increased snow cover. Most likely there other factors causing both. That said, there is always feedback from weather in the troposphere to every stratospheric event and snow cover affects the weather to some extent.
But like most manmade warming / cooling / whatever causes “Extreme XYZ” theories, it falls on its face because most of the effects of CO2 are static, e.g. a bit of extra warming here and there. But most extreme events are dynamic, not in the sense of energetic (an incorrect warmist meme) but in the sense that all the dynamical weather has to line up, mostly by coincidence, to cause the extreme event.

February 1, 2014 6:22 pm

There are some fascinating ideas here. I personally think there are several different factors involved. If you place all your money on any single factor, a situation may arise where the other factors out-weigh the factor your money is on, and you will suffer the chagrin (which all of us who love weather have suffered) called, “a botched forecast.”
Among other factors, I don’t think thinkers should ignore the fact the AMO is warm as the PDO is cold. While it might not be correct to call this situation an “imbalance,” it may lead to the jet stream wobbling more.
Dr. Tim Ball would likely know more about this than I do, but apparently one of the most extreme jet stream wobbles resulted in a huge amount of Arctic Sea ice getting flushed down through Fram Strait. So much ice was flushed south that it was coming ashore on the beaches of Ireland, and it may have so cooled the North Atlantic that it contributed to “The Year Without A Summer.”
The “factor” involved in that wobble of the jet stream may have something to do with the unbelievably huge eruption of Tambora in 1815. (It made Krakatoa look small.)
It would be totally cool to be able to picture what the upper troposphere and stratosphere looked like during and after that event, but I don’t suppose we’ll ever know. My main point is that more than one factor may be involved.

February 1, 2014 6:52 pm

Funny how that polar vortex looks a lot like spiral galaxy. Maybe there’s a connection, like electricity.

1 2 3 4