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.
@ 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
Oh no. We are [snipped]. My old Alma Mater, was one of the best schools in the world. So sad. UQ is full of muppets, staff at QUT are just retarded, and now, Sheffield….DOOMED….
The pattern of weather in North America for the past two winters is the same pattern as the winter of 1976-1977. The December 1977 issue of National Geographic featured a story about that winter-weather pattern. The blame is put on what would generally be called weather: high and low pressure areas, prevailing winds, ocean currents, and varying water temperatures. But the story included the following assertion: “But a large body of experts believe it relates to a gradual cooling of the Northern Hemisphere….”
http://m4gw.com/1977-national-geographic-the-year-weather-went-wild/
ELcore,
The similarity between the pattern of 1976-1977 to our last 2 Winters in the US was great. 1977/78 also was very similar.
Huge ridge in the West up into the Northeast Pacific prevailing, with downstream teleconnection to deep troughing that at times develops into cutoff lows. The north to south component of air mass movement, driven by a strong northern stream in between the upper high and upper low, has at times carved out a cutoff low, resembling a Polar Vortex…….. this Winter in the Northeast, last Winter, farther west over the Great Lakes more often.
Steering currents, downstream from the northern latitude portion of the upper high have been able to tap into Arctic origin air frequently in this regime and travel very far south with it into the mid latitudes.
The term “Polar Vortex” last Winter became something that some folks connected to big incursions of this energy/cold as if they were extremely abnormal via the displaced upper level low that is “supposed to” be close to its average position near the pole.
This is wrong. In the Winter of 76/77 there were even more Polar Vortex events than in the past 2 Winters. 1977/78 featured a similar Winter pattern. This doesn’t happen very often but in certain Winters, the prevailing pattern, mostly dominated by a repeating natural cycle causes it to reoccur numerous times. In some Winters, it never happens.
We should be studying why this pattern occurred so frequently in the 1970’s(and previous decades), then less frequently during the following 2 decades and has returned recently.
If you want to pin it on increasing CO2(or less ice in the Arctic) , you first have to rule out the natural causes of the exact same thing happening naturally in the past.
Paul Homewood mentions (upthread) H.H. Lamb noting the
1914/15 (muddy trenches in WWI) and 1876/7 were also analogous with 2014/15. 1929/30 has been covered by Paul Homewood The similarities to the recent winter are striking.
Arctic air masses advancing far to the south, in the North Atlantic. (Think – jet stream!)
An open and clear airway.
Depressions accompanied by heavy rain and high winds followed one another in quick succession along this open pathway.
Disastrous floods and storms. https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/04/22/1929-the-year-the-met-office-tried-to-cover-up/
Thanks for your reply. (And thanks to Wayne Delbeke, May 21, 2015 at 10:09 am, below.) I remember the winters of 76-78 very well. I was going to college in Pennsylvania, an undergraduate in Math & Computer Science, and spent those winters commuting to school and walking the campus from building to building.
One big difference between those years in the 70’s, and the past few years, is the extent of cold air intruding into the deep south, and especially South Florida.
In the 70’s, a series of polar outbreaks began which continued into the 1980’s. Very large and very old groves of avocados and limes in the Homestead area, as well as citrus in Central and South Florida, were heavily damaged in the 1977 freeze, and several other severe freeze events during the 1980’s virtually wiped out citrus production north of the I-4 corridor.
The past few so called Polar Vortex years (We used to just call them polar outbreaks, or dips in the jet, digging troughs…etc) are notable for the lack of severe impact on Florida growers.
In the 1985 event, many groves consisting of trees 50 years old or more were destroyed in the areas around Orlando and Tampa.
I am not exactly sure if and how such polar outbreaks into Florida, and other relatively low latitudes, correlates with global climate patterns, but the cyclical nature of such events can be easily documented by researching the boom and bust cycle of growing citrus in the Sunshine State, going back well over a hundred years to the great freezes of 1894-1895, and beyond.
And my perspective may be somewhat skewed by being actively involved in agricultural pursuits in Florida in the 1980’s and 1990’s.
But I was also studying the relevant disciplines as an undergraduate at the time, and, although information was not as readily available in those days, my recollections and readings paint a somewhat different story.
It is stated that the so-called polar vortex events occurred more frequently in the 1970’s and decades prior, and less often in subsequent decades. If the history of severe and killing freezes in Florida is any indication of, though, the reverse is true.
Certainly freezes which were caused by polar outbreaks in the 1890’s, 1910’s, and 1950’s were not related to human induced climate change.
Some links:
Response of Florida citrus growers to the freezes
of the 1980s:
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/1/c001p133.pdf
EFFECTS OF THE 1977 FREEZE ON AVOCADOS AND LIMES IN
SOUTH FLORIDA:
http://www.avocadosource.com/Journals/FSHSP/FSHSP_VOL_90_PG_247-251_1977.pdf
http://miami.about.com/b/2009/12/03/does-it-ever-snow-in-miami-2.htm
Some Notable Polar Outbreaks in US History:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cold_waves_in_the_United_States
“The cold wave brought human fatalities, deaths of wild and domesticated animals, crop losses, and infrastructure damage to homes, municipality and industrial sites. At least 126 deaths were blamed on the cold snap.[14] Some 90 percent of the citrus crop in Florida was destroyed in what the state called the “Freeze of the Century.”[15] Florida’s citrus industry suffered $1.2 billion in losses ($2.3 billion in 2009 dollars) as a result of the inclement weather, which killed nearly every citrus tree in central Florida, and forced the industry permanently into southern Florida”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_1985_cold_wave
An Old Event, So Bad and Memorable It is Simply Called The Great Freeze:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Freeze
http://www.palmsociety.org/members/english/chamaerops/032/032-12.shtml
The final nail in the coffin, ironic because it was the last severe freeze to hit Florida for the next 25 years and counting:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1990-01-12/news/9001124725_1_grapefruit-crop-citrus-crop-freeze
Just checked the Great Lakes Ice page – Superior is down to .5% coverage on May 21st. Last year, the last ice day was June 6.
The highest coverage this winter was in the 88-89% range vs. 92.5% last year. It will be interesting to see what next year brings to the Great Lakes.
summer melt season looks below average temps-
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Not only is it below average, but if you compare today with the past records this current depth of Arctic cold is unprecedented for this time of year.
The DMI 80N figure is strongly biased to the Pole itself, in fact the ice which is melting is nearer to 65ºN where record highs in the region of 70ºF are being experienced along the coast at Tuktoyaktuk Canada, Barrow etc..
Is finding a consensus in scientific terms like standing around and patting each other on the back and telling each other how “brilliant we all are” that we “maybe” found something we “might” be able to get money for… Especially relating to “Global Warming”?
ELCore – as many have noted from meteorologists and lay people from North America to China, the relatively consistent stationary high and low areas around the world wax and wane and affect the “flow” of our weather along with linkage to the rather long THC in the ocean.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00687.1
Climate changes. That we know. Why? Not sure it matters, we’ll adapt.
Speaking of which, I need to go seed my pastures so have a nice day all.
Perhaps they have it backwards. It is not the warming of the Arctic that is creating extreme cold elsewhere. It may be the cold going elsewhere that is warming the Arctic.
I’ve noticed that when the UK has high pressure and clear skies the ice tends to stay in the Arctic and when it’s wet and windy here, the ice pours down the side of Greenland draining the multi year ice away. Cause, effect or coincidence?
There seems to have been a link between the wide swings in the NH Sea Ice Anomaly and the run of poor summers in the UK between 2007 and 2012..
It’s not just the summer. You can see it in the winter too, although it’s not as obvious because the ice is building at the same time it is decreasing. Often a swift increase in ice area is actually bad news because it comes from a burst of Basin ice that is destined to melt in the Atlantic.
l think the thing to watch here is the persistence of blocking highs setting up over the NE Pacific.
Which drives warm air up into the Arctic over the northern Pacific as cold air floods down across eastern N America.This weather pattern seems to have become a increasing over the last two years or so. lf this continues over the last few years then l would expect to see climate cooling over the Atlantic side of the NH.
Above should have been “a increasing trend”
l think l will start again because l made a right “pigs ear” of my first post.
The feel thing to watch out for here is if the increasing trend of blocking highs forming over the NE Pacific that’s been happening over the last two years continues into the next few years. As this is highly likely to lead to climate cooling over the Atlantic side of the NH. Because l believe it was just the persistence of this type of regional weather pattern is what tipped the Atlantic side of the NH into the last ice age
How about linking the warming of the Arctic with the decline in hurricanes and tornadoes? That seems a stretch but, Hey!, this is climate science we are talking about. Right?
lts possible for there be a link between a warming Arctic and a decline in hurricanes. lf the warming of the Arctic is caused by cold air flooding down across N America and the northern Atlantic.
The arctic is cold or very cold or bloody cold. In your wildest dreams it will never be warm. The closer we get to the next ice age the colder it will get.
Stephen it should not be taken as a given fact that the Arctic is colder during a ice age.
Because the way the ice sheets spread over North America during the last ice age. Suggests in the NH at least that the last ice age started off as regional climate change in North America.
The conlcusions of this stuy were written long ago. This report is simply an update on how the data torturing and revisions are going.
I can imagine this future conversation between a dad and his son.
S “Dad, those people could send a satellite out of the solar system and into interstellar space, build aluminum tubes that could transport them at 600mph between continents, concentrate light into a cutting tool, carry conversations by light beams across optical fibers, build structures 1,500 feet tall, yet they were still superstitious enough to believe they had offended a weather god?”
D “Yep son, that was the consensus at the time.”
OK, TomJ, I’ll bite – Who makes up this group of believers that believe recent cold winters in the Eastern U.S., and rainy winters in U.K. were havoc rendered by an offended weather god? And what weather god has this consensus of belief? Or are you stating belief in the powers of CO2 have elevated that gas to god hood?
SR
Apparently NOAA is now claiming that sea levels are rising by more than 1 inch per decade.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
What part of the Arctic is still warming? According to NCDC, Alaska average temperature trends from 2001…
January–December —
North Slope: −1.2°/decade.
Central Interior: −1.3°/decade
Northeast Interior: −1.7°/decade
Statewide: −1.2°/decade
October–March —
North Slope: −1.3°/decade.
Central Interior: −1.9°/decade
Northeast Interior: −2.3°/decade
Statewide: −1.7°/decade
The more I look at this the more I begin to recognize that these guys aren’t even very good weasels.
Phillip Bratby
May 21, 2015 at 11:40 am
Your are clearly not drinking the same brew as mosher
Anomalies stratospheric polar vortex caused declines in solar activity are the cause of the temperature rise in the Arctic.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=08&startyear=2014&starttime=00%3A00&endday=20&endmonth=05&endyear=2015&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_NH_2015.gif
Faster melting of ice was caused by the peak of the positive phase of the AMO.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1980
We need a big fat grant because we say the right words.
Well on a positive note, physicists have yet to claim humans are causing the universe to expand too quickly and we must take action to stop it.
Maybe climate science can get a clue from that.
“The Arctic is warming two to three times faster than mid latitudes”….. Which show zero warming. 3×0= ??
need to use the good math:
The rate of warming is currently negative (cooling).
The arctic rate of warming is therefore, reasonably, three times as fast (cooling at a rate that is 1/3 of mid latitudes).
Love to know where these people get their Arctic data. Canada isn’t sharing and neither is Russia. They take up most of the Arctic. I bet they’ve used figures from Alaska which is only a tiny part of the Arctic.
Even during the last ice age Alaska was largely free of ice:
Looks like a long term polar vortex at work.
And more bad news that keeps on coming from Climate Central, the Antarctic is melting. Seriously, they are saying that not only is there less ice (its worse than they thought) it’s thin ice as well. I suppose that record sea ice growth is an illusion and the thickness of it being much more than estimates as well. The epic drought in Colorado I think is history, maybe it will be back next week. Along with record warmth, they could have fooled me, day time highs have been in the low 40’s F. I know it’s counter intuitive, the cold is really caused by the record warmth. ( mostly sarc)
Sounds good, but we’ll have to wait until it warms again in the arctic to check it out.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
They are wondering if the arctic is responsible for cold winters to the south. My research is only anecdotal and observed over 3/4 of a century but I found cold weather is not coming from the south – especially since I’ve been spending more time in warmer southerly latitudes, probably one of the earlier climate refugees. Plus I remember that Winnipeg gets darned cold in January and February and when I went up to Snag River in the Yukon, in February it was even colder.
I’m beginning to come to the conclusion that the Brits should just shut down all of their universities and stop pretending they’re involved in education, never mind science. Sad really.
There is one problem with this report: It’s total Bull Shit, Trash it.
One more set of ignoramuses who did not do their homework. In my 2011 paper [1], which they paid no attention to, I explained exactly how and when Arctic warming got started, what happened before it began, why it proceeds faster than their worthless models predict, and why greenhouse warming as a cause is ruled out by laws of physics. To summarize my findings: Arctic warming started at the turn of the twentieth century after two thousand years of slow, linear cooling. It cannot be greenhouse warming because there was no increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide when it started. In case you did not know, laws of physics demand that in order to start greenhouse warming you must simultaneously increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This did not happen as the Keeling curve shows. Arctic warming began as a result of a change in the pattern of North Atlantic Ocean currents at the turn of the century that started to carry warm Gulf Stream water into the Arctic Ocean. It is an oceanic process that is much faster and quite impossible to simulate with worthless climate models set up to explain an imaginary greenhouse warming. The warming was not steady but was interrupted in mid-century by a thirty year cooling period. We din’t know its cause but whar has happened in nature cab gappen again, A repeat cooling like that can werack havoc with Arctuc transportation abd development. There was alsoi an ubusual warm period in 2007 that was caused by nirthward winds carrying warm water north across the Bering Strait.
[1] Arno Arrak, “Arctic Warming Is Not Greenhouse Warming” E&E 22(8):1069-1083 (2011)
In he mean time a massive offensive is going on to turn the Paris Climate meeting into a success.
Initiative go from forcing pension funds to stop investments in fossil fuel related stocks and hit their capital into “green funds (good luck with that) to a relentless relentless media campaign with news clips, documentaries, talk, dog and pony shows, all recycling the alarmist climate clap trap we already have seen passing by over the past 30 years.
The problem we have today is the fact that Dr. Goebels, Hitler’s Propaganda minister hit the nail on the head with a least one claim: If you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes the truth.
Now even the Pope swapped his religion and has become the latest animist three huger to join the troops.
I tell you that this is not boding well and I won’t be surprised if they make unexpected progress at the Paris Meeting.
We really need to find an effective treatment for this collective madness before we find ourselves in a Green Nazi state.
Critical blogs will not stop the zealots.
We have to start thinking out of the box.
The only light in the tunnels I can see is the current state of our economies.
Nothing has been learned from the financial crises of 2007/8 and the Quantitive Easing policies in Japan, the US and now in Europe have completely failed to kick start our economies.
Over the past years 60 million jobs have been lost and 3.6 trillion in GDP has been destroyed.
Rising debt and shrinking economic performance is a bad combination.
Prepare for the roof coming down.
It is an inevitable unstoppable process that will wipe out banks but also bankrupt entire nations.
The positive not is that It will also wreck the gravy train funding the Eco Maniacs.
The other positive is that we have mother nature on our side.
There is nothing more hilarious than a bunch of Global Warming Zealots protesting against fossil fuels in two feet of snow freezing their asses off.
“There is nothing more hilarious than a bunch of Global Warming Zealots protesting against fossil fuels in two feet of snow freezing their asses off.”
Well, maybe one thing more hilarious…
http://www.synthstuff.com/mt/archives/2013/12/20131229-ship-stuck-ice.jpg
Many good points.
My greatest fear is that the “Climate Crisis” will be leveraged by a strong man, just as the “Economic Crisis” was leveraged by the Nazis. History does repeat and it does rhyme. Just like the climate….
Two graphics here:
http://research.noaa.gov/News/NewsArchive/LatestNews/TabId/684/ArtMID/1768/ArticleID/11184/Research-needed-to-resolve-connections-between-Arctic-warming-and-severe-weather.aspx
With one of them, does it explain the Pacific Blob?
The jet stream is an interest issue because before WWII we did nit even know it existed. Now its hard to believe something what could have large impact could be unknown for so long , but is not that usual when it comes to weather.
Often the science has to catch up with observations from the public . And to give you idea of how much is still ‘problematic’ you still cannot , despite the vast resources throw at it and many years of research, get a weather forecast worth dam for more than 72 hours ahead .
And yet on this sea of the poorly know they managed to build a mountain of ‘settled science’ using approaches little better than ‘head you lose tails I win ‘ and models which have the predictive ability of pine cones. They should be congratulated .
While there may be a link between arctic temps and the extreme flooding the UK had last year, why was there no link between artic temps and the lack of extreme flooding the previous year, or the extreme snowfall in 2009/2010/2011 that was actively predicted to never happen again due to AGW?
Only stands to reason that these pHd students need jobs. So they create a “Climate” so they can be gainfully employed.
“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,”
Well of course it was persistently mild and wet Jan-Feb 2014 in the UK. Primarily because of the warm “blob” in the northeast Pacific forcing the jet stream flow pattern to drop the Arctic cold in the northeast US when the Arctic Oscillation went negative, giving a simultaneous stormy mild and wet flow to the UK.
Negative AO&NAO episodes drive both the Arctic outbreaks and the Arctic warming, and are solar driven at down to near daily scales. I made long range solar based forecasts for negative Arctic Oscillation episodes and northeast US cold hits, from 7 Jan 2014 for 7-8 weeks, 10 Nov 2014 for 2 weeks, 26 Dec 2014 for 3 weeks, and 18 Mar 2015 for 3 weeks.
“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”
ROTFLOL, unless cold air comes from the Tropics… The Arctic does play a role during boreal winters… Funny how they avoid to mention Francis in the PR.
Holdren from the Whitehouse also weighed in on this topic when he said,
“A growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues,” Holdren asserts.
There is just one problem with this statement . There have been regular extreme cold periods throughout North American history and these were happening when global warming was not an issue . Holdren never explains these inconsistencies in his theory. There were similar cold periods 1900-1930 and again 1940 1980 . Matter of fact natural cyclic periods of cold and warm climate go back as far as our climate records go . So blaming every current weather event whether warm , cold or windy on global warming is just bad science and smells more of a political statement to support for the current president’s climate agenda than sound science that is supported with good research and climate history
Environment Canada reports that winters in the Canadian extreme Arctic including Arctic Tundra , Mountains and Fiords have been getting colder for 5 years in a row since 2010 . The 2015 winter was -0.2 C below normal and the temperature departure or anomaly was 6.2 C colder than 2010. Rather than being the warmest as was the case in 2010 , 2015 winter dropped dramatically to 40th warmest in 68 years , so the temperatures in this part of the Arctic are clearly dropping.. Cold Arctic means cold temperatures for North AMERICA and United States as was the case 1940-1980 and not due to global warming at all . That theory is just nonsense.
The current cooler weather in United States and most of North America has nothing to with global warming despite the politically tainted science that comes from the alarmists.
I believe that we could be headed for another natural cool phase like we had 1940-1980 and it seems to start in North America first. That last cool cycle started as follows:
• Arctic starts to cool after 1938
• PDO pattern starts to decline from mostly warm( positive ) phase pattern after 1941
• Cooler temperatures start in western North America after about 1935/1940
• PDO goes mostly negative 1944
• North Pacific SST still warm1940-1960 while PDO is negative or cool mode
• Cooler temperatures in Eastern North America after 1945/ 1950
• Eastern Canada starts to cool after 1950 ( almost 10 years after western Canada)
• AO goes mostly negative 1950
• Europe and Russia starts to cool by 1950 (except a brief cold period 1939/1942)
• Mexico temperatures start to decline after 1950
• AMO goes negative 1965-1995
• Cold temperatures trough in the 1970,s
• No net warming( A PAUSE) between 1940’s and 1980’s
http://www.usefulinfo.co.uk/climate_change_global_warming.php
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2015/05/22/4239285.htm
I am blaming oxygen. Who is it providing these people with oxygen? Perhaps it’s nitrous?
The first encountered pathology to increased incursions of extreme cold into more southern latitudes must be excluded before new theories are proposed.
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/weather_climate_patterns.html
There are lots of reports regarding natural influences on extreme weather. The indirect reference in the posted research above to anthropogenic Arctic warming is simply an example of biased-driven type 1 and 2 errors commonly made by climate scientists riding the gravy train.
http://srmo.sagepub.com/view/the-sage-dictionary-of-social-research-methods/n212.xml
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Farticle%2F10.1007%2Fs00376-013-2296-8&hl=en&sa=T&ct=res&cd=5&ei=YZZgVcnwFtGcqwHTnoC4Aw&scisig=AAGBfm0QzpWdC0iXyejRY2HTERMCZIejRQ&nossl=1&ws=1600×747
Here is a good explanation why US gets cold in the winter. It has little to with global warming
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/what-is-a-polar-vortex/21793077