Cold snaps like the ones that hit the eastern United States in the past winters are not a consequence of climate change. Scientists at ETH Zurich and the California Institute of Technology have shown that global warming actually tends to reduce temperature variability.
Repeated cold snaps led to temperatures far below freezing across the eastern United States in the past two winters. Parts of the Niagara Falls froze, and ice floes formed on Lake Michigan. Such low temperatures had become rare in recent years. Pictures of icy, snow-covered cities made their way around the world, raising the question of whether climate change could be responsible for these extreme events.
It has been argued that the amplified warming of the Arctic relative to lower latitudes in recent decades has weakened the polar jet stream, a strong wind current several kilometres high in the atmosphere driven by temperature differences between the warm tropics and cold polar regions. One hypothesis is that a weaker jet stream may become more wavy, leading to greater fluctuations in temperature in mid-latitudes. Through a wavier jet stream, it has been suggested, amplified Arctic warming may have contributed to the cold snaps that hit the eastern United States.
Temperature range will decrease
Scientists at ETH Zurich and at the California Institute of Technology, led by Tapio Schneider, professor of climate dynamics at ETH Zurich, have come to a different conclusion. They used climate simulations and theoretical arguments to show that in most places, the range of temperature fluctuations will decrease as the climate warms. So not only will cold snaps become rarer simply because the climate is warming. Additionally, their frequency will be reduced because fluctuations about the warming mean temperature also become smaller, the scientists wrote in the latest issue of the Journal of Climate.
The study’s point of departure was that higher latitudes are indeed warming faster than lower ones, which means that the temperature difference between the equator and the poles is decreasing. Imagine for a moment that this temperature difference no longer exists. This would mean that air masses would have the same temperature, regardless of whether they flow from the south or north. In theory there would no longer be any temperature variability. Such an extreme scenario will not occur, but it illustrates the scientists’ theoretical approach.
Extremes will become rarer
Using a highly simplified climate model, they examined various climate scenarios to verify their theory. It showed that the temperature variability in mid-latitudes indeed decreases as the temperature difference between the poles and the equator diminishes. Climate model simulations by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) showed similar results: as the climate warms, temperature differences in mid-latitudes decrease, and so does temperature variability, especially in winter.
Temperature extremes will therefore become rarer as this variability is reduced. But this does not mean there will be no temperature extremes in the future. “Despite lower temperature variance, there will be more extreme warm periods in the future because the Earth is warming,” says Schneider. The researchers limited their work to temperature trends. Other extreme events, such as storms with heavy rain or snowfall, can still become more common as the climate warms, as other studies have shown.
North-south shift makes the difference
And the jet stream? Schneider shrugs off the idea: “The waviness of the jet stream that makes our day-to-day weather does not change much.” Changes in the north-south difference in temperatures play a greater role in modifying temperature variability.
Schneider wants to explore the implications these results have in further studies. In particular, he wants to pursue the question of whether heatwaves in Europe may become more common because the frequency of blocking highs may increase. And he wants to find why these high pressure systems become stationary and how they change with the climate.
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well then HOW do they explain the polar vortex / extreme winters we have been having? ‘Cause they sure as HELL are not ‘consistent with the models’!
But then, we knew that.
The climate IS changing…we are sliding towards another Ice Age. All this ‘we will roast to death’ garbage is ridiculous.
It’s all poppycock to use the colloquial.
The hotter you are, the greater is the “noise”. The sun has more temperature variability than does the earth. At absolute zero, there is no temperature variability.
But the issue here is different. The earth is in a special temperature/condition. We have lots of ice at the poles and next to none naturally elsewhere. Global warming’s end game is no or much less polar ice. This paper says that in the long term if things go in that direction at the rate they are going, then there should be less “force” because of the temperature differences.
However, in the interim, which could last for centuries but surely decades, we have a destabilizing situation. For example, the little understood polar vortex is moving around and leading to significant cold in some places and warm in others. Statistical analysis of modern weather does show increases in both cold and warm events. How long this increased variability will last before we end up with more plain weather (always hot by equator and plain cold at poles), who knows?
From a simplistic understanding of a Carnot engine, that makes sense.
But the current headline of this post does not.
Well, warming doesn’t reduce the differential in general, the sun has more temperature variability than something near absolute zero. But on earth we are in an interesting situation (lots of polar ice) and global warming here is indeed moving in the direction to decrease the differential. That said, in the interim we are seeing things like a destabilized polar vortex and resultant extreme highs and lows for many places. At least at a local level, we are seeing more extremes.
From here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150327132207.htm
“Temperature extremes will therefore become rarer as this variability is reduced. But this does not mean there will be no temperature extremes in the future. “Despite lower temperature variance, there will be more extreme warm periods in the future because the Earth is warming,” says Schneider. The researchers limited their work to temperature trends. Other extreme events, such as storms with heavy rain or snowfall, can still become more common as the climate warms, as other studies have shown.”
If the variability becomes “rarer” then the temperature differences between air masses which lead to “storminess” should also then be reduced shouldn’t they?
Yes. On average.
But there will always be the rare occasions when the variability hits the unlikely point, and then “storminess” would still occur.
Weather (not climate) will always happen.
So we should seek he wealth to cope with that.
This is what alarmists do not seem to grasp. There will always be “more”. https://www.facebook.com/fourtimesayear/photos/pb.360297500785985.-2207520000.1427526077./375122379303497/?type=3&theater
The reference to increased rain or snowfall may simply be based upon increased moisture rather than increased “strength” of storms.
This is certainly compatible with something the CAWG crowd insist upon, which is that the poles will warm faster than tropics, which will reduce not only equator to pole contrasts, but the contrasts across frontal interfaces. Reduce Delta T and efficiency of heat engines declines.
Guess what. next winter will have extremes on the cold side also, most likely in the east or plains.. Nemias papers have to be read and why all mets and climo people dont know this is beyond me. But here they are
http://www.calcofi.org/publications/calcofireports/v07/Vol_07_Namias.pdf
http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/mfr415-6/mfr415-63.pdf
this is not me being arrogant, its me giving credit to where credit is due, to people who saw things like this before hand and enabled people like Joe D aleo and myself to have a fighting chance as much as 9 months in advance this year, 6 months last year, to be able to put out ideas of the extremities that were on the way. Again we are not perfect, but by understanding the past, we have a chance.. and thats all it is, a chance to have an inkling of the future. The most baffling thing to me is how many people know very little about Nemias and the work he has done.. The most egregious example is with the AGW agenda people who if they do know about him, do not want it revealed ,but most likely dont given their methodology.
You know the mark of greatness.. when what someone did before like a Nemias or Bill Gray, grows bigger as time goes by.
With each passing day, I am more awed by the people that came before me
There were three papers in the late 70s or early 80s debunking Steve Schneider’s contention that climate would be more variable in a cooling atmosphere. They showed that cooling or warming made np difference to the variability. They were by DeBoer in Canada, van Loon in the USA, and by the climatologist in Arizona, whose name escapes me.
Joe, maybe you should write a post on this. I never heard of them and I’m sure most of those not in meteorology haven’t either. Maybe even those in climatology are ignorant of their work.
Nice forecast on the return of winter you made several weeks ago.
Ballsy on-the-money call.
Joe Bastardi thanks for the Namias link great reading!! To this laymen, his 50 year old paper seems contemporary!
Interesting Joe. The 2014 summer in the east US was the coolest in many decades because the winter-like jetstream pattern continued (mostly) from the 2014 winter. Then it continued mostly this winter (relaxed a bit in Dec). Seems like the warm water in the eastern N Pacific has alot to do w/the jetstream pattern over N America, so unless that changes….
I will back that up Joe. My solar based forecast has super cold hits from early November 2015 into December, and returning February and through March 2016.
My Pine Trees in So Cal are showing to me that we will have above normal rainfall for the 2015/2016 rainfall season.
I still don’t get it.
CO2 has increased because of man.
CO2 is a well mixed gas.
CO2 is trapping reflected energy/heat.
Shouldn’t the heat go up the same, everywhere?
Same CO2.
Same energy.
What gives?
I used to wonder the same thing. The explanation I got has to do with absorption of IR by water vapor.
Suppose you are a photon with the right wavelength to be absorbed by CO2. If you tried to take off from the equator and make it into outer space, you’d be much more likely to bump into a molecule of water vapor (which absorbs at most of the same wavelengths) than a molecule of CO2.
But at the poles, where it is cold, the air does not contain much water vapor, so now with higher CO2 you can perhaps bump into a CO2 molecule. Ergo, greater warming at the poles if CO2 increases (not that a person notice, because he would have frozen to death).
That’s the theory as it has been explained to me. Whether any of that is true is a separate question.
That’s one. Ice and snow albedo feedbacks are the commonly cited biggies. It’s thought that even those aren’t necessary due to atmospheric and oceanic heat transport to the poles from lower latitudes. The extreme example is Venus, which is essentially isothermal, day, night, polar or equatorial latitude. Here on Earth it’s less of a no-brainer and therefore far from settled.
The cold winters of the last two seasons were cold…but wasn’t it three years ago we were biking in Feb and had a drought in the midwest? I think even with GWing were will still be winter.
trafamadore,
That makes about as much sense as the rest of your comments.
I love autocorrect. There will still be winter.
“I think even with GWing were will still be winter.”
Repent or ye shall be sent back to the lower dimensions. Repeat after me: Children Won’t Know What Snow Is. Thus spake the Mighty Climate Scientists.
Its obvious, if warmer means that we have less of a difference, then the fact that its more extreme must mean that its getting colder.
So is that the end of Global warming come climate change come extreme weather. Of course not, its a nice money spinner as per the taxpayers money, so no way will they admit defeat.
The circus will continue, with all or at least most of the worlds politicians going to Paris this year. After all they must appear to be green, its votes for them, nothing else.
That simply cannot be true. I have it on full authority, from on high, that climate change causes EVERYTHING.
Even prostitution according to Congresswoman Lee of California.
Let me guess: a warming planet will cause colder temperatures even though it’s warmer, because science. As a result, there will be more ‘snuggle time’ between a client and a prostitute.
So while the prostitute earns the same money, she will have fewer clients, but they will buy double sessions instead of the usual single session. This will lead to an increased demand for prostitutes, because while the client base will not shrink (heh), the time spend per client will expand.
Therefore, more prostitutes.
Karim D. Ghantous
Um, I’m sorry to say but your analysis is not robust. My research is very robust and it tells me that most prostitutes are employed as streetwalkers. In cities such as Boston, New York, Chicago, and Minneapolis that experience winter the winter cold tends to diminish this outdoor solicitation. However, the milder winters associated with global warming will extend the length of time that streetwalkers can spend soliciting business. The increased income from this increased business provides additional funds for the prostitutes to pay off the police. Thus, police enforcement of prostitution laws will diminish so that the effects of milder winters will be amplified. My co-investigators and myself call this the amplification erect; oops, I meant ‘effect.’ Believe me, the computer models I’ve been staring … I mean looking at, have indicated that this research is very robust.
@Nancy, Bruce and Tom . and here I thought I had a headache after reading the article. (but thanks for the laugh) AGW causing prostitution!!! I read that a few days ago and just about lost another keyboard!
There has always been prostitution (oldest profession).
There has always been Climate Change.
These two are co-related.
So next we add some CAGW alarmist logic and we know: Co-relation means causation.
But, I think The Congresswoman has it wrong.
It should be.
Prostitution causes Climate Change.
As Grandma would toast in her thick yet svelte brogue “To the CAGW! …not to the kind that burns down shacks & shanties, let’s drink to the heat that pulls down slacks and panties!
“Cold snaps like the ones that hit the eastern United States in the past winters are not a consequence of climate change”. I agree with he authors . These global warming alarmists are talking as if cold weather in United States is brand new phenomena that has never happened before , We are having cold winters like we used to have back in the 1950-1979 and again 1895–1920. Global warming was not the cause then nor is it now .Also how can global warming be behind the winter cooling when the annual temperatures have actually been falling since 1998 . Winter temperatures have been declining since 1995 in United States and Northern Hemisphere for 20 years or since 1995. This is another example of the bad science coming from the alarmists who first said that the winters were going get warmer with global warming and when that did not happen they invent these ridiculous claims that the even the public does not buy into..
It depends on the type of warming. If it’s longer term warming from a real increase in forcing of the climate, then cold winters will be reduced. But if the warming were predominately a negative feedback to a decline in forcing, such as the sharp AMO warming signal from 1995, then cold winters would increase, as the forcing is lower, and continental interior regions would be drier.
http://snag.gy/HxdKY.jpg
This is how global warming “science” works. As long as every possible outcome is covered by at least one global warming scientist, SOMEBODY is bound to be right, thereby “proving” global warming.
Psychics operate the same way. As long as at least one psychic out there has predicted the next major world event (Putin will be assassinated/a Hollywood couple will split/an earthquake will hit Costa Rica, etc.) some psychic will have predicted it, thereby “proving” that psychics are for real.
Physics works the same way. Neutrinos are predicted to be massless/with mass/with negative / imaginary mass and then experimenting provides a solution.
/joking
There is really a big difference.
In a sane would such a study wouldn’t be needed. It would be like doing a study to find out that most humans, but not all have ten fingers.
I’ve only got 8 fingers and two thumbs.
These two following statements carry much significance: “Changes in the north-south difference in temperatures play a greater role in modifying…”, and “…he wants to find why these high pressure systems become stationary and how they change with the climate.”
The first statement, if viewed from the perspective of a greater temperature gradient, would mean the chances would increase for south/eastward moving Arctic cold high pressure systems causing increasing incidents of lower pressure, warmer moisture laden air to be advected northward. The opposite would be in effect for a lower pole/equator temperature gradient.
The second statement – wow, that is the million dollar question, but I would assume it is related to SST’s.
I always find Joe’s comments cogent and intelligent. The East Coast being hit with big storms the last two seasons — I always wonder if he was basing his predictions on the La Niñas and the Arctic losing lots of heat the past few years due to less ice coverage. Keep up the good work Joe.
It was always obvious, and the extreme weather meme always was a transparent scare tactic at fundamental odds with the entire AGW hypothesis, tacked on solely for the purpose of swaying scientifically unengaged public opinion. But, kudos to the authors for laying it out in detail so that the panic merchants can be easily refuted.
Are you auditioning for a job as village idiot?
Taken.
Last thing I want to do is cut in on anyone’s action.
It all stands or falls together, Brandon. Either climate models are reliable, and you have to accept that there will be no increase in extreme weather, or they are unreliable, and you will have to concede there is no basis for any type of alarm over increasing atmospheric CO2. So, which is it?
Neither. I don’t buy into your dichotomy since not all models are equal. I will say with great confidence that they’re all wrong, and always will be. As to the specific issue at hand — as opposed to extreme weather in general — I have no opinion.
So, basically, you pick and choose which evidences you believe and which you do not, based on what you want to believe. Unfortunately, this is not a very good standard for the rest of us to adopt. For one thing, we have no way of knowing at all times and on all subjects precisely what it is you want to believe. Perhaps you could commission an app for that.
Bart,
I agree. That was my point.
If you think it’s relevant, which I find odd, all you need do is ask. My answer is already on file: I have no opinion on whether global warming will cause more extreme winters.
No amount of software will improve your reading skills by its very existence. You have to decide to improve them. Then the method becomes a matter of choice as to what you find works best.
Same goes for your intellectual dishonesty.
Well, if that isn’t the pot calling the silver tea service black, I don’t know what is.
Bart,
Oh goody, we’re at the pithy barbs phase of you losing the argument. Very well.
1) Shinola is not meant for polishing the tea service.
2) You only thought you were using Shinola.
Just another sack of climate hubris not worth the paper it’s printed on.
Simple climate models made by simple minds.
California has had three extreme winters in a row. Go ahead. Find a climate warmst that will so much as suggest these may not be climate related.
How’s this for a theory…
The jet stream stays zonal for a long period, allowing ice and snow to build in the northern climes (the Aussies are on their own).
The snow and ice just keeps building, and creeps further and further south.
Until the jets get meridional again. Then it melts.
Melting is good, no ?
They haven’t managed to separate climate change from global warming. They used climate change in the first sentence and global warming in the second, like they were the same thing. How strange. Makes me wonder who proof reads these press releases. The title and the first sentence are wrong. Climate change such as a cooling period or a new glaciation will cause extreme winters and cold snaps. The same climate change that has been happening as long as this planet has been here.
Ask any proponent of “Climate Change” whether the climate changes we are “already” experiencing are due to global warming or global cooling. They will answer “Global Warming”.
“Using a highly simplified climate model, they examined various climate scenarios to verify their theory. ”
Well those cave-dwelling simpletons. Tut tut. We real climate scientists use SOPHISTICATED climate models.
It is simply a matter of the sign of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations. Increased forcing of the climate by whatever means increases positive AO/NAO. While typically, extreme cold winter months occur during negative AO/NAO episodes. Trying to find an internal solution to the negative AO/NAO episodes will drive one crazy. It’s the Sun doing it at an event scale.
10.3.5.6 Annular Modes and Mid-Latitude Circulation Changes
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html
Such low temperatures had become rare in recent years……………… whether climate change could be responsible for these extreme events.
===
are these people on some drug that makes them totally disconnect from reality……….
You saw the map here on WUWT, the East of the US is 10-20 degrees belowo normal, and the western half is 10-220 degrees above normal.
So on average, things are normal.
Yeah, out west here I wondered why everything was charred and black – until I looked at the thermometer and it was pegged at 220 degrees.
Probably over-simplification will get me into trouble, but…..we hear that the arctic region is unusually “warm” these days. It seems logical to me that if cold air is leaving the arctic and covering central and eastern north America (as it has for so much of this winter), then that cold air must be replaced with air from the south. Which happens to be “warm”. Is this why temperatures in the arctic are “warmer” than usual, or is my over-simplifying working against me?
Ian M
I hear ya. Sort of reminded me of that Jack Black movie where he invented the aerosol spray for dog poop that when sprayed it would disappear. A “doomsdayer was running around the town yelling “where does it go, where does the Poo go?” So when the cold air comes, is warm air replacing it at the poles or is it just less cold air replacing it that quickly becomes colder air because of its location over the poles?
Whilst it’s always refreshing to see something that doesn’t blame global warming for events, the reliance on models shows this is just another example of pseudo scientists having guessing.
Guessing or having a guess, not having a guessing!
Clueless And Guessing Wildly?