From the University of Sheffield via Eurekalert:
Professor Edward Hanna and PhD student Richard Hall, from the University of Sheffield’s Department of Geography, are part of a select group of international climate scientists investigating links between Arctic climate change and extreme weather in the northern mid-latitudes.
They have found that while it is too soon to know for certain whether the Arctic played a role in persistent cold events during the extreme wet UK winter of 2013/14 and recent USA East Coast winters, new studies are adding to the growing weight of evidence linking increased Arctic temperatures with changes in mid-latitude weather patterns.
The research published in the Journal of Climate by Professor James Overland of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and authors from North America, Asia and Europe, including Professor Hanna and Richard Hall, paints a picture of links that vary by region and season.
Arctic temperatures are increasing two to three times faster than those at the mid-latitudes. Some scientists have suggested that warming Arctic temperatures contribute to weaker upper level westerly winds and a wavier jet stream. This wavier path may have caused cold weather conditions to stall over the eastern seaboard and midwest United States during recent winters, according to these theories.
Professor Hanna and Richard Hall note increased variability of the jet stream in winter and high pressure over Greenland, which has given more variable UK winters in the last few years. This includes the exceptionally stormy winter of 2013/14 which could have been partly influenced by climate change in the Arctic.
Professor Hanna said: “Our work presents tantalising new evidence of links between global warming, which is enhanced in high northern latitudes, and recent extreme winter weather events in the UK and further afield, as well as a timely review of much recent literature which has appeared in this important field of research. However, since the climate system is highly complex, many missing parts of the puzzle remain and much further work needs to be done.”
Professor Overland, lead author of the paper The melting Arctic and mid-latitude weather patterns: Are they connected? added: “We are in the pre-consensus stage of a theory that links continued warming of the Arctic with some severe weather events.”
A way to advance research from a pre-consensus stage is to further investigate the meandering jet stream and the connection between the warmer Arctic and the negative phase of an index showing the dominant pattern of sea level air pressure in the Arctic.
“We are where other major theories such as plate tectonics and El Niño were before they were widely accepted,” said Professor Overland.
“We need a Grand Science Challenge to advance weather forecasting abilities and climate change prediction.”
New studies on the changing Arctic together with additional Arctic observations will improve the ability to make forecasts for the mid-latitudes, helping millions of people better plan for the future and take steps to be more resilient in the face of extreme weather.
###
NOTE: The press release is rather poor, not giving the name of the paper nor the DOI, something very basic. And, I don’t see it in the early releases at JoC. Anyone have a link to it?
UPDATE: Thanks to OKS – http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00822.1
“We are in the pre-consensus stage of a theory that links continued warming of the Arctic with some severe weather events.” Is this a new part of the scientific method I’m currently unaware of?
“pre-consensus stage of a theory”
Sounds like the new dictionary definition of “confirmation bias”.
Rounding up people who will agree to tell the same lie ?
so there must be a 1) pre-consensus, which is tentative, then 2) consensus, where it’s accepted, and 3) a post-consensus, where it’s replaced by real science. I move to fast forward this to phase 3, do I have a second to the motion?
Seconded!
“we are at the pre-consensus stage” is the northern US version of the southern US phrase “we are fixin’ to get ready to”
Thank you for elucidating; perfect sense. You have a second, is there a show of hands?
Mark ftMw.
I’m afraid it’s 3) a post-consensus, where…THESCIENCEISSETTLEDSHUTUP!! Kind of bypasses the messy real science step.
If you do that you will miss the increased funding opportunities!
Gobbledygook posted as a press release, forcing qualified competent (NOT) reporters to convert what they fail to understand into English that no-one can understand. This conversion resulting is a waffling bizarre summation; a classic example of ‘garbage in, garbage out.
Bolding provided by myself to highlight the total lack of decisive research.
There is not a single decisive research finding in the entire abstract.
The only message extracted from this mess is that the authors want more money, time and supported.
Pre-consensus? Long before definitive scientific findings that anyone might replicate?
Nah!? It really means they want us to sign a consensual agreement not to prosecute after we’re thoroughly screwed without a kiss.
Does “pre-consensus” mean that nobody agrees with them?
I think I’ll accept this concensus.
They “prove” increasing temperatures in the Artic create more severe weather events in the NH.
Other data show the frequency of severe weather events is decreasing.
Therefore the Artic must have cooled.
QED.
It can’t be much of a “select group” if it contacts phd students in it!
It can’t be much of a “select group” if it has phd students in it!
That was the first thing that struck me. However, if you define “select” as hand/cherry picked…as opposed to the best, that fits the climatastrophic scene perfectly.
What can I say? It is worse than we thought. The study of climate science, that is.
Professor Overland, lead author of the paper The melting Arctic and mid-latitude weather patterns are they connected he ask?
The answer is no!.
if one looks at the weather patterns in the past such as the 1970’s Arctic Sea Ice was at very high levels and the atmospheric circulation (ACI INDEX) was not much different then today.
Data in the past shows this idea about declining Arctic Sea Ice, thus a different atmospheric circulation pattern as a result is bogus.
Solar activity, ozone concentration changes are likely the factor behind atmospheric circulation pattern changes.
more certainty from the skeptics.
basically their argument is that some evidence points that way,, but its not certain.
you adopt a non skeptical approach and claim that is it certain.
funny how skeptics only believe their science is settled
Mosher, are you drinking again?
Mosher: While ‘climate scientists’ come out with cant like this:
it is hardly surprising that skeptics appear to be certain about their skepticism. How can you build a theory – or even an hypothesis – based on uncertainty? Or is that they needed the grants in order to stay in post?
Why confirm your stupidity by opening your mouth.
Stephen Richards: I hope I am right in assuming your comment was aimed at Mosher. 🙂
Anthony: Do you have any evidence that he ever stopped?
You have this back-asswards. Skeptics do not have to prove anything, they do not require certainty. Atheists do not have to prove there is not a a god. Defense attorneys do not have to prove their client innocent. The party making the affirmative claim carries the burden of certainty. Skeptics only have to show the affirmative claim has either weak evidence or argument or other possible explanations.
The defense can offer multiple theories on how a crime was committed. It does not have to prove the alternate theories to show the prosecution case weak, only that they are plausible theories. How does science go so far off the road, that it only requires some evidence to point some way in order to conclude that way is the only way.
The term in ill-repute is “settled science” not “settled skepticism”.
Alx,
I guess I’m still confused … I thought the atheists claim was that there is no god (or gods, or God). I thought it was the agnostics that didn’t need to prove anything.
Contrary to my usual crap,
Respectfully,
Don M.
“Skeptics do not have to prove anything, they do not require certainty. Atheists do not have to prove there is not a a god. Defense attorneys do not have to prove their client innocent. The party making the affirmative claim carries the burden of certainty.”
In science, ANY fact which goes against a given theory is a reason to consider the theory invalid. Otherwise, why was so much money spent on finding the Higgs Boson, which in itself is a fairly insignificant particle but without which the mathematical models of the universe would be called into question, since they predict that it must exist.
In terms of religions, the postulate of an omnipotent and benevolent god existing would seem to be at odds with the observable fact that good people suffer needlessly. The preachers will no doubt come up with all kinds of contorted explanations for this situation existing, but none are very plausible. It is more plausible to accept that the original postulate is untrue, and that either no god exists, or else that any who exist cannot be both omnipotent and benevolent.
Try relating this situation to that of climate science, and I think we see that the alarmists are acting very like those preachers who have too much to lose by accepting the most rational explanation for what we observe around us.
Steve: Isn’t the best name for a “pre-consensus theory” a “hypothesis”?
“Our work presents tantalising new evidence of links between global warming… and recent extreme winter weather events in the UK and further afield, as well as a timely review of much recent literature which has appeared in this important field of research.”
Translated: We don’t have enough “tantalising new evidence” for a separate new paper. Nor do we have a effective rebuttal for our critics.
Investigation weather patterns “during several unusually warm Arctic winters since 2007” – without comparing them to weather at other times or to the predictions of climate models – tells us nothing about the nature of recent weather (chance or forced) and what there is a cause that is linked to GHGs. This paper advances public concern about AGW, but not science.
Abstract: “The potential of recent Arctic changes to influence hemispheric weather is a complex and controversial topic with considerable uncertainty, as time series of potential linkages are short (<10 years) and understanding involves the relative contribution of direct forcing by Arctic changes on a chaotic climatic system. A way forward is through further investigation of atmospheric dynamic mechanisms. During several exceptionally warm Arctic winters since 2007, sea-ice loss in the Barents/Kara Seas initiated eastward-propagating wave trains of high and low pressure. Anomalous high pressure east of the Ural Mountains advected Arctic air over central and eastern Asia, resulting in persistent cold spells. Blocking near Greenland related to low-level temperature anomalies led to northerly flow into eastern North America, inducing persistent cold periods. Potential Arctic connections in Europe are less clear. Variability in the North Pacific can reinforce downstream Arctic changes, and Arctic amplification can accentuate the impact of Pacific variability. We emphasize multiple linkage mechanisms that are regional, episodic, and based on amplification of existing jet-stream wave patterns, which are the result of a combination of internal variability, lower-tropospheric temperature anomalies, and mid-latitude teleconnections. The quantitative impact of Arctic change on mid-latitude weather may not be resolved within the foreseeable future, yet new studies of the changing Arctic and subarctic low frequency dynamics, together with additional Arctic observations, can contribute to improved skill in extended-range forecasts as planned by the WMO Polar Prediction Program (PPP).
Steve: Among non-scientists and politically-motivated scientists, there is always too much certainty. Among scientists, some of evidence connecting reduced Arctic sea and recent extreme weather has been refuted. Based on the abstract of this paper, that status quo hasn’t changed.
See the blog of Cliff Mass, climate scientist who fully supports the IPCC: http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-origin-of-this-winters-weather.html http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-polar-vortex-myth-and-reality.html
Nothing but conjecture and opinion. More horse manure.
I like the term posted by another person in another thread…”bovine scatology”…
Horse exhaust
This … is the feces that is produced when shame eats too much stupidity! (Dale Gribble)
@Don- Atheism is the denial OR DISBELIEF in the existence of gods. The burden of proof is not on them when it’s a disbelief. Antitheists, on the other hand, need supporting evidence for their claims.
Thanks, I hadn’t seen the “antitheist” definition before (but it still leaves it a bit grey for me).
So, atheists deny OR disbelieve the existence of god(s)…
antitheists need supporting evidence of their claims because they (vehemently and without reservation?) deny the existence of god(s)…
If a atheist denies (AND disbelieves), does that make them a antitheist?
Does referring to an atheist, who simply disbelieves (but doesn’t deny), as an agnostic offend or irritate most atheists?
… wrong forum, I realize … and the above is not intended to be adversarial … I just don’t have a handle on the logic.
@ur momisugly Don (replying to your comment below) – Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
So, sure. An atheist who doesn’t deny the existence of a god or gods but just disbelieves doesn’t necessarily think nothing can be known of anything beyond material phenomena, but rather disbelieves this particular phenomenon. It implies that the person has examined the idea of this particular phenomena and doesn’t believe it. Agnosticism doesn’t necessarily imply that one has examined this particular phenomena.
OK. Your comment above, mean.
Ho hum. Theists always think themselves experts on atheism.
Here is a new word to add to your scientific lexicon; :”tantalizing”
Yup, and I appreciated how clearly they expressed the importance and quality of their work as I might otherwise not have noticed.
I am curious though about this
Just how much does the evidence weigh? How much does it need to weigh?
at some point it weighs so much that if you ignore it, folks will call you the D-word
Well that is your answer, when it weighs “so much”.
Which I guess is much more specific than being a “tantalizing weight” or “growing weight”.
In other words it is bull-houey, no amount of evidence is meaningful unless it is tied to a specific, discreet testable claim. The general claim that humanity is the only cause of warming which in turn is the primary cause of bad weather, species extinction and every possible unwelcome ecological event is about as non-specific and stupid a non-testable claim can be.
There is probably some very good science going on within climate science, but it is unfortunately hidden by this huge wrapper of activist stupidity and confirmation bias.
You beat me to it!
‘Professor Hanna said: “Our work presents tantalising new evidence of links between global warming, which is enhanced in …”‘
To fully understand what the good professor means in the foregoing statement I decided to verify the definition of the verb, ‘tantalize.’ So, here’s the first definition from a Google search:
‘torment or tease (someone) with the sight or promise of something that is unobtainable.’
Yep, seems like an appropriate description.
Very good, apt.
” Our work presents tantalising new evidence that”… we can keep milking this cash cow of a grant process far into the future. Our ” work” is anything but, however the gravy train is a-rollin’, and we are shamelessly opportunistic frauds, so what the heck?”
There, fixed it for him.
So we had one wet winter in the UK, and suddenly that’s evidence of climate change. So where was the wet winter this year? It actually seemed quite dry. Or the wet winters in any of the preceding years since say 1997?
Though 2013/14 was extreme – I remember the “once in a 100 years” type quotes, the met office shows that winter rainfall has been mainly “average”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/summaries/actualmonthly
Anyone who has lived in the UK for decades and isn’t looking for a reason to panic can see that the weather is much the same variable muddle as it has always been and mostly not a problem at all by any reasonable global standard.
I’ve lived in the UK for decades and I’ve seen cold winters, mild winters, wet winters and dry winters. I’ve seen cold summers, warm summers, wet summers and dry summers. I’ve seen no pattern to the varying conditions.
“Image courtesy of the the British Antarctic Survey.” Perhaps they are bi-polar.
+1 Wayne.
Does this mean: “we can conclude that the antarctic has a strong less wavier jet stream as the temp there is cooling which explains the expansion of sea ice and the heat in australia”?
Good point. A meandering jet stream over the Arctic will bring moisture down to the continents. A meandering jet stream over the Antarctic wouldnt be picking moisture up from Antarctica, but rather the Southern oceans. If it’s cooling, it’s meandering less and speeding up, opposite of that of the northern hemisphere.
Lots of alarmists claim that ice is building only BECAUSE of the winds… Whatever forcing the confounding variable really is, it’s causing BOTH increased winds and cooling.
HH Lamb found the same jet stream meridionality in the 1960’s and 70’s and found it was caused by a cooling Arctic.
Attribute causation to taste.
Exactly Paul.
In fact, it seems many, if not all, of the supposed horrors due to global warming are strikingly similar to those attributed to global cooling in decades past, including the grave threats posed to national security.
Oddly, the causes and the solutions to both then cooling and now warming are also strikingly similar: It is all our own evil fault, and only government spending can save us.
Which of course begs the question – what caused the cooling of the arctic? If this was known then, why would it not be the same cause now?
Indeed, what exactly is a ” select group of international climate scientists “. is it something special, unique, never ever before seen?
Self-selected perhaps.
Not just anyone gets to go on an Article adventure. Well not one funded by the Taxpayer anyway.
Science Daily has this to say:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00822.1
And
This is so far removed from science that it makes astrology and ufology look respectable. It is laughable.
I’d say more like the theories of “Phlogiston” in combustion and “Vital Force” in organic synthesis before they were shown to be wrong.
Bears some resemblance to the methods of Kirlian photography, and the study of “auras” as well.
Climate Science ( cue the air quotes) is now as definitive as a Rorschach Test.
I think they are at about the stage where Ponzi was before the whole thing collapsed.
Mother nature taunts man,
She tricks and she teases;
Man tries to understand,
But she does what she pleases!
http://wp.me/p3KQlH-cq
I wonder how many other theories have been at that so called stage. Yet he likens his to only the few that have survived. This is the stuff if press-releases. I hope it’s not from the actual paper.
This is what they are teaching to many scientists now, how to go after the dollars. Notice how many times they push the need for more studying? Here is just part of their begging for more money. this is sickening. They don’t know what they are talking about, but they are sure it needs more money and it is worse than anyone things it is.
A way to advance research from a pre-consensus stage is to further investigate the meandering jet stream and the connection between the warmer Arctic and the negative phase of an index showing the dominant pattern of sea level air pressure in the Arctic.
“We are where other major theories such as plate tectonics and El Niño were before they were widely accepted,” said Professor Overland.
“We need a Grand Science Challenge to advance weather forecasting abilities and climate change prediction.”
New studies on the changing Arctic together with additional Arctic observations will improve the ability to make forecasts for the mid-latitudes, helping millions of people better plan for the future and take steps to be more resilient in the face of extreme weather.
When atmospheric flow is zonal during northern Winter, the Arctic becomes cold and temperatures in mid latitudes stay moderate. Alternately when flow becomes meridional during northern Winter, the Arctic can become warm and mid latitudes experience severe cold spells. The zonal index illustrates the tendency to shift back and forth between these states. Obviously if one observes winter cold spells, one is then likely to see Arctic warming; but one does not necessarily cause the other–they may both result from some other dynamic of the atmosphere.
I have a feeling but one would do just as well to try and draw sweeping conclusions by studying the “pattern” in the movements of blobs in a Lava Lamp.
Interestingly enough, there is a random number generator that uses a program with digital photos of a lava-lamp to create the numbers. Notice: random numbers.
Let me add that AGW theory predicted a more zonal atmospheric circulation due to global warming! Not a more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern.
They are so fool of it. I will send the study.
I think the way to defeat AGW based on what present data and past data is telling us should be the approach I have presented below.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/09/new-paper-finds-natural-ocean.html
CO2 levels do lead temperature already since at least 1900, as the increase in CO2 is (far) beyond what Henry’s law shows for the temperature increase.
That is a very good point Ferdinand.
This is why I approach the flaw in AGW on the two fronts I present below.
Front one is, as evidenced by the data I sent that natural forces correlate quite nicely with temperature trends. Look at hockeyschtick graph.
Front two is, I think more attention needs to be paid to the water vapor aspect of the GHG effect rather then increasing amounts of CO2.
Also the saturation factor in that increasing amounts of CO2 have a lesser effect upon temperature.
If a negative feedback is associated with upper atmospheric water vapor concentrations and an increase in CO2 concentrations then this theory(AGW) is in deep trouble.
Better yet if natural conditions are the controlling factor of water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere at all levels of the atmosphere this would also put AGW theory in deep trouble, especially if the climate should cool ( which I think it may) due to prolonged minimum solar conditions.
Evidence for the above assertions is the lack of a lower tropical tropospheric hot spot and the fact that OLR emissions from earth to space have yet to decrease in response to increasing CO2 concentrations.
If they made predictions that came true, that would be something at least.
Looking at the past and noting the correlations, which by the way are not in the slightest bit consistent from year to year, is hand waving and jaw flapping, at best. Deliberate fraud is probably more likely.
Sheffield was once a great city where the production of steel and manufactured steel products led the world.
It’s where I was born, but I’m ashamed to admit it now.
How low it has sunk.
from the making of steel to the making of spiel!
true, but it is spiel of the highest quality!
Goldminor: Brainless spiel?
forged spiel?
stainless spiel?
forged spiel
Forged carbon spiel
John Catley; Despair not your roots;
Professor of physics Dan Tovey of Sheffield University;
“And the best thing that could possibly happen is that we find something predicted at all. Something completely new and unexpected, which would set off a fresh programme of research for years to come”.
Mind you, he is not a climate scientist but works on the Large hadron Collider just about to recommence after refurbishment. Of course they might create a black hole which would resolve the issue of Global Warming.
Well Sheffield is in a valley. Perhaps it sunk due to climate change?
“They have found that while it is too soon to know for certain whether the Arctic played a role in persistent cold events during the extreme wet UK winter of 2013/14 and recent USA East Coast winters, new studies are adding to the growing weight of evidence linking increased Arctic temperatures with changes in mid-latitude weather patterns.”
Why not try “pattern recognition” as operational meteorologists like Joe B. and myself use.
I predicted the past 2 Winters by using 1976/77 and 1977/78 as analog years. Patterns repeat and there are recognizable clues in the atmosphere and oceans that can assist you.
Trying to find the answer by using the increase in CO2 and it’s effects is fine……………….if you give it the right amount of weighting, which should be very low and give much more weighting to these same things that happened just like this in the past.
EXACTLY!
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html
What AGW theory really predicted as far as the atmospheric circulation patterns.
Nice one Wayne!
As a long-standing (too long..) Brit who can remember weather patterns with clarity back to the early 1970s, I can only reiterate my response to an earlier article: “Does anyone who has actually lived in the UK for a few decades actually recognise what these people are referring to?” Don’t think so! Cherry-picked data or what? Yes, we had a wet and warm winter in 13/14. Was this unusual to the point of being described as “extreme”? No, of course not!
Why weren’t the very cold winters of either side of 5 years ago mentioned? I think we know the answer.
I can tell you I recall sunny days in the 1960’s were really really bright, bright like sunny days in New Zealand. The cold, dark damp winters of the 1970’s, bitterly cold, which looking back, I sort of enjoyed to a point. Nothing like a roring open fire on a cold dark night. That was around the Biggin Hill, South London area in the UK. I also recall the hot summer of 1976 too. I recall the damp and very very wet climate of southern Ireland in the late 1970’s (Thank you gulf stream). I recall the cold winters of the early 1980’s, in the Portsmouth (UK) area. So what I have learned over the last 40 or so years is that weather can and does change/vary alot, however climate is fairly stable and on the cool side predominantly in those latitudes. That sort of fits in with the downward trend from the Holocene optimum within the current Pleistocene ice age.
As I constantly tell warming alarmists, don’t sell your thermal underwear and overcoat you’re going to need them!
correction full of it not fool of it. lol. post at 9:31 am
They ARE fool of it! No need to correct.
I thought it was intentional!
What they FIRST NEED to do is to study and establish how much warming has been caused by Natural Variability so that this can be factored into the Models. Then reduce suspected CO2 warming signal within those models by 1/2. Then rerun ALL models with these new settings. Then they might have better agreement with actual measurements (or at least be closer to having a better toaster)
On the other hand, there is this article over at the referenced site – American Meteorological Society which discusses how models may be poor proxies:
How Climate Model Complexity Influences Sea Ice Stability
Till J. W. Wagner and Ian Eisenman
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California
Abstract
Record lows in Arctic sea ice extent have been making frequent headlines in recent years. The change in albedo when sea ice is replaced by open water introduces a nonlinearity that has sparked an ongoing debate about the stability of the Arctic sea ice cover and the possibility of Arctic “tipping points.” Previous studies identified instabilities for a shrinking ice cover in two types of idealized climate models: (i) annual-mean latitudinally varying diffusive energy balance models (EBMs) and (ii) seasonally varying single-column models (SCMs). The instabilities in these low-order models stand in contrast with results from comprehensive global climate models (GCMs), which typically do not simulate any such instability. To help bridge the gap between low-order models and GCMs, an idealized model is developed that includes both latitudinal and seasonal variations. The model reduces to a standard EBM or SCM as limiting cases in the parameter space, thus reconciling the two previous lines of research. It is found that the stability of the ice cover vastly increases with the inclusion of spatial communication via meridional heat transport or a seasonal cycle in solar forcing, being most stable when both are included. If the associated parameters are set to values that correspond to the current climate, the ice retreat is reversible and there is no instability when the climate is warmed. The two parameters have to be reduced by at least a factor of 3 for instability to occur. This implies that the sea ice cover may be substantially more stable than has been suggested in previous idealized modeling studies.
The title of that paper has to be one of the most stupid ever! The implication that a computer game can influence real life is beyond belief. Presumably they they forgot to add the words “guesses about” before Sea Ice.
I am a skeptic of global Warming because of human activity. I am less of a skeptic that masses of warm air visit upon the north polar region displacing the cold air southward. Eastern Canada suffered a short period (2 months) of very cold winter weather ( 4C below average) while at the same time a warm bubble was over the arctic. This happened these past 2 winters to my recollection. Is this Arctic oscillation? Two bubbles swapping position does not global warming make.
Warm air is lighter than cold. How does this displacement work?
The warm air rises to the top of the Earth, and pushes the cold air down into Canada.
Menicholas +10
Skip down to the graphs of Arctic Oscillation at: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/twenty-years-of-unprecedented-melting-has-left-arctic-sea-ice-unchanged/
They should confirm your observation.
Ian M