Desperate Claim: Greenland's 2015 melt records consistent with 'Arctic amplification'

From Columbia University and the “any weather event is now proof of global warming” department comes this reach of a paper trying to claim that a northern jet stream excursion is a signature of “Arctic amplification”. I don’t put much stock in it especially when Nature had an editorial a few years ago that said:

Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming.

And in this case, they are citing a single event to claim “Arctic amplification” has set in. I’m sorry, I just don’t buy it. We are told by climate alarmists that any cold event, such as a cold winter, or a string of record low temperatures don’t mean anything in the context of climate, that it is the trends of events that matter, not the individual events. Now, we are asked to believe that one event, a cut-off high pressure system in summer of 2015 is the signature of an Arctic-scale climate change. Forecasters are well aware of this sort of blocking high.

thegreenlandblock

Even the IPCC AR4 suggests that the high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere were likely as warm, or warmer, than present in the past:

IPCC-AR4-greenland
Timing and intensity of temperature deviations from pre-industrial levels during the past 12,000 years. Note that Greenland and most of the high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere were likely as warm, or warmer, than present for multi-millennial periods since the end of the last Ice Age Source: IPCC, AR4, Chapter 6, page 462

Plus, they make the claim:

Jet stream reached northern latitudes never before recorded

We don’t have reliable weather maps that can accurately portray the position of the jet stream over Greenland prior to World War II, when the phenomenon was observed, as this reference in Wikipedia notes:

Many sources credit real understanding of the nature of jet streams to regular and repeated flight-path traversals during World War II. Flyers consistently noticed westerly tailwinds in excess of 100 mph (160 km/h) in flights, for example, from the US to the UK.[11] Similarly in 1944 a team of American meteorologists in Guam, including Reid Bryson, had enough observations to forecast very high west winds that would slow bombers going to Japan.[12]

It wasn’t until around 1950, that it began to be tracked regularly, so the “never before recorded” claim really doesn’t mean much in the scope of weather patterns for Greenland when you only have about 60 years of data.

The recent conditions in Greenland likely do not represent an aberrant fluctuation in the region’s climate or the beginning of “Arctic amplification”. Instead, events like the summer of 2015 lie within the known limits of natural variations that just haven’t been seen in the 60+ years of jet stream position data we are aware of.

Also, lead author Tedesco has made some baseless claims in the past regarding Greenland:  Ridiculous claim by Marco Tedesco: ‘Darkening of the Greenland Ice Sheet is projected to continue as a consequence of continued climate warming’ where he completely ignored the contribution of soot to the changing albedo of the Greenland ice sheet.

 

So, I don’t think the claim about Arctic amplification they are making is all that credible; the claim from a single event is a big stretch.

Here’s the PR via Eurekalert:


Greenland’s 2015 melt records consistent with ‘Arctic amplification’

Jet stream reached northern latitudes never before recorded

THE EARTH INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

Following record-high temperatures and melting records that affected northwest Greenland in summer 2015, a new study provides the first evidence linking melting in Greenland to the anticipated effects of a phenomenon known as Arctic amplification.

Arctic amplification, in the simplest terms, is the faster warming of the Arctic compared to the rest of the Northern Hemisphere as sea ice disappears. It is fueled by a feedback loop: rising global temperatures are melting Arctic sea ice, leaving dark open water that absorbs more solar radiation, and that warms the Arctic even more. Arctic amplification is well documented, but its effects on the atmosphere are more widely debated. One hypothesis suggests that the shrinking temperature difference between the Arctic and the mid-latitudes will lead to a slowing of the jet stream, which circles the northern latitudes and normally keeps frigid polar air sharply separated from warmer air in the south. Slower winds could create wilder swings of the jet stream, allowing warm, moist air to penetrate farther north.

The new study, published this week in Nature Communications, shows that those anticipated effects occurred over northern Greenland during the summer of 2015, including a northern swing of the jet stream that reached latitudes never before recorded in Greenland at that time of year.

This animation shows changes in the polar jet stream from June 1, 2015 to July 31, 2015. The jet stream is approximated by crosses. The northerly shift of the jet stream may be linked to a warming arctic, and record melt of the Greenland ice sheet in 2015. CREDIT Marco Tedesco/Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

“How much and where Greenland melts can change depending on how things change elsewhere on earth,” said lead author Marco Tedesco, a research professor at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and adjunct scientist at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “If loss of sea ice is driving changes in the jet stream, the jet stream is changing Greenland, and this, in turn, has an impact on the Arctic system as well as the climate. It’s a system, it is strongly interconnected and we have to approach it as such.”

The Greenland ice sheet, earth’s second largest after Antarctica, holds enough ice that, if it were to melt entirely, it would raise average global sea level by about seven meters. Understanding the drivers of melting is critical to understanding how quickly and by how much sea level will rise in the future and how Greenland’s freshwater runoff will affect ocean circulation and ecology.

Northwest Greenland’s summer of melt started in June 2015, when a high-pressure ridge squeezed off from the jet stream, the study shows. It moved westward over Greenland until it sat over the Arctic Ocean and affected weather across the island through mid-July.

That high-pressure system, called a cut-off high, brought clear skies and warmed northern Greenland, helping set records for surface temperature and meltwater runoff in the northwest, the study shows. With less summer snow falling and melting underway, northern Greenland’s albedo, or reflectivity, also decreased. A less-reflective surface absorbs more solar energy, which feeds more melting, as Tedesco illustrated in a study earlier this year on the darkening of Greenland.

Northern Greenland also set an unusual July record for wind: the winds blew east to west on average, rather the usual west to east; only two other years on record show easterly winds on average in July, both slower. At the same time, the jet stream’s northernmost ridge swung farther north than ever recorded for that month, passing 76 degrees North latitude, nearly 2 degrees farther north than the previous July record, set in 2009, the authors write.

The same atmospheric pattern had a different impact on southern Greenland, where new melting records have been set over the past decade. The south saw more snow during summer of 2015 and less melting than previous years.

The authors stop short of confirming Arctic amplification as the cause of the warming, but they say the results fit the anticipated effects of Arctic amplification described by Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University and Stephan Vavrus of the University of Wisconsin in a 2012 paper.

Recent studies exploring the potential effects of Arctic amplification have showed that high-pressure blocks connected to northward swings of the jet stream have become more common near Greenland. Edward Hanna of the University of Sheffield, a co-author of the new Nature Communications paper, released a study in May using the Greenland Blocking Index to measure the strength of stationary high-pressure systems over the past 165 years and found that seven of the top 11 systems had occurred since 2007.

“The significant increase in Greenland high-pressure blocking that has occurred in the last 20 to 30 years is clearly related to recent record warming over the region, as well as jet-stream changes,” Hanna said. “This makes it more likely than not that within the next five to 10 years we will witness further record Greenland melt events like in 2012 and 2015.”

“The Arctic is full of climate surprises, and Greenland is a key player,” said James Overland, an oceanographer and climate scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who was not involved in the new study. “Climate models suggest a 4 degree Celsius Arctic temperature increase by mid-century, but such jet stream related surprises acting on Greenland as reported by Tedesco et al. can accelerate Arctic climate change.”

Whether the patterns seen in 2015 will continue in the future remains to be seen. This spring, Arctic sea ice set another record low for its maximum extent for the year. “Greenland also experienced early season melt in early April of this year comparable to April 2012. Record setting melt occurred later that summer, but it is too early to tell whether the same will hold true in 2016,” said co-author Thomas Mote of the University of Georgia.

“The conditions we saw in the past aren’t necessarily the conditions of the future,” Tedesco said. “If humans change the forcing, we are going into uncharted territory.”

###

The other co-authors of the newpaper are Xavier Fettweis of University of Liege; Jeyavinoth Jeyaratnam, James Booth, and Rajashree Datta of City College of New York; and Kate Briggs of University of Leeds. The study was supported by funding from NASA’s Interdisciplinary Data Science Program, NASA’s Cryosphere Program and the National Science Foundation.

The paper, “Arctic cut-off high drives the poleward shift of a new Greenland melting record,” is available from the author.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
91 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
James at 48
June 9, 2016 1:35 pm

Zonal Jet – Positive PDO and El Nino. Meridianal Jet – Negative PDO and La Nina. It’s not rocket science.

June 9, 2016 1:42 pm

This is a much more plausible explanation:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
since it draws together so many discrete observations into a coherent process.

Chris Hanley
June 9, 2016 1:48 pm

‘The recent conditions in Greenland likely do not represent an aberrant fluctuation in the region’s climate or the beginning of “Arctic amplification” …’.
==================================
In an overall warming climate, whatever the causes, the temperatures recorded in the ‘30s and ‘40s would need to be, or expected to be, exceeded.
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/RS_Greenland_files/image023.gif
And at the other extreme Antartica has recorded no warming in the 60 + years of Climate Change™.

Catcracking
June 9, 2016 2:28 pm
Reply to  Catcracking
June 9, 2016 3:00 pm

It appears that around 6th of April instrumentation electronics became unstable to completely cease working around 4th of May
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

Reply to  Catcracking
June 9, 2016 3:17 pm

Satellite’s electronics may have been damaged by solar activity, since on the 3rd of April there was a moderate geomagnetic storms followed by few more during following 30 days.
http://flux.phys.uit.no/cgi-bin/plotgeodata.cgi?GifOnly&Comps=dhz&tint=1mnt&block=0&day=5&mnt=04&year=2016&site=tro2a
see also
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

Reply to  vukcevic
June 10, 2016 6:05 am

If you want to follow Arctic ice extent while the NOAA satellite record is offline, there is always MASIE, the most accurate daily dataset:
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/06/01/so-so-arctic-melting-may-31/

June 9, 2016 2:39 pm

It’s consistent with arctic amplification then how come it hasn’t been amplified till now. They’ve been predicting arctic ice free in 2000, then 2007, 2013, 2017 now the IPCC says there may be some ice in the arctic in 2100. Why is amplification kicking in now? Did they predict that or is this new science again for the “settled science.” Do they have any reason for this or is it like all the heat from 57% of CO2 for 20 years has somehow snuck into the ocean below 1000 feet from 5000 feet in the atmosphere that they can’t explain?
Also, maybe they could explain those warm arctic conditions in the 1930s and 40s which exceed todays. Is that part of arctic amplification back then before we had put much co2 into the atmosphere? Or is that some other amplification?
By the way when you look back at the AMO/PDO cycles over the last 120 years at least you will notice that there is a large El Nino that occurs in both previous down phases of AMO/PDO about halfway into the downphase which happens to be right around this year/last year. It was almost predictable by looking at past AMO/PDO cycles. If the past is repeated we will go back to the rest of the down phase for another 15 years. If 5 years from now temperatures (unadjusted please) are up significantly from today then something has changed and maybe there is a leg they can stand on but as of today the climate is following the exact same cycle it has in past PDO/AMO cycles.

Editor
June 9, 2016 2:55 pm

The study does not show that Greenland temps are any higher now than back in the 1930s and 40s.
And for the very simple reason that they are not:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/09/19/dmi-show-greenland-was-warmer-in-1930s/
Both then and now are at the peak of the AMO.
BTW – these are the official DMI temperatures for Greenland, not the fraudulent GISS ones

Reply to  Paul Homewood
June 9, 2016 4:13 pm

Good post, and I liked the link a lot. I read it back then, but memory fails me often so thanks for the reminder.
The 30’s and 40’s were very warm times and the government data sets use very corrupt methods to hide that fact.

June 9, 2016 3:16 pm

“We don’t have reliable weather maps that can accurately portray the position of the jet stream over Greenland prior to World War II, when the phenomenon was observed, as this reference in Wikipedia notes:”
Wikipedia???
‘http://ascr-discovery.science.doe.gov/2009/09/past-blasts/”
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.20thC_ReanV2.html
http://www.met-acre.org/

June 9, 2016 3:34 pm

Another so-called “climate scientist” who turns out to be a non-reader. Had he bothered to read my Arctic paper in Energy and Environment [1] he would know that Arctic amplification was put to rest by Polyakov. There is Arctic warming, yes, but it is neither greenhouse warming nor Arctic amplification. Its cause is warm water from the Gulf Stream directed at the Arctic as a result of a major rearrangement of the North Atlantic current system at the turn of the twentieth century. Prior to this there was nothing there except for thousand years of slow cooling. The warming started suddenly but was then interrupted by a thirty year cold spell. It resumed in 1970 and is still active. Most observations of Arctic warming start around 1980 and miss the entire history of how it got started.
[1] Arno Arrak “Arctic Warming is not greenhouse warming” E&E(22)8:1069-1083(2011)

Reply to  Arno Arrak (@ArnoArrak)
June 9, 2016 4:16 pm

A post of a synopsis of your work here would be appreciated by me and possibly many other people as well. Please consider a submission.

Reply to  Arno Arrak (@ArnoArrak)
June 15, 2016 5:09 pm

Mosher is not a “scientist” unless self appointed titles qualifies one to be? http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/06/who-is-steven-mosher.html

emsnews
June 9, 2016 4:45 pm

Yikes! Greenland being warmer while Hudson Bay persistently frozen is…WHAT CAUSES ICE AGES.
That is, when Hudson Bay is colder and icier than Greenland or Alaska, this is exactly what causes most of Canada and the Northeast/Great Lakes region to stay frozen, too. This is very scary stuff.

Reply to  emsnews
June 9, 2016 9:29 pm

If the temps stay like this through the summer, then look out for next winter…https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-92.91,51.58,819

skeohane
Reply to  emsnews
June 10, 2016 12:00 pm

I know, just seeing the map of the blocking highs reminds me of the placement of the ice cap during the last glaciation.

angech
June 9, 2016 5:29 pm

Posted elsewhere as a rebuttal
“I don’t think Anthony knows what Arctic amplification is”
Polar amplification is the expected warming at both poles [repeat both poles] expected of GHG increased warming of the world.
Arctic amplification is a phenomenon at one pole only.
It can occur as part of Polar amplification [expected], but as the graph you provide [elsewhere] shows is not occurring.
Arctic amplification can also occur from local factors otherwise known as weather or natural variation.
A third possibility is that the arctic amplification is real but the Antarctic disamplification is occurring from local factors otherwise known as weather or natural variation.
Either way, until we have a bipolar agreement[funny/sad in medical terms] on what and which form of Arctic Amplification we are talking about, WUWT does have a legitimate point.

Matt G
June 9, 2016 6:26 pm

Arctic amplification behaves different to the alarmists have always claimed. High pressure around Greenland and Iceland region has lead to warmer climate there with negative AO and NAO. The climate cools in the very same region during long phases of positive AO and NAO. This is opposite to the alarmist view that a positive NAO/AO will lead to Arctic warming when the opposite actually happens.
This is shown below using a Central England Temperature style for other parts of the North Atlantic region comparing global warming periods 1901-1930 and 1975-2004 compared with cooling period between 1931 and 1970. Representing the phases of the AMO and trends in AO and NAO.
The England Central Temperature below shows how winter months are particular affected. (all values are in degrees c) The winters warm during global warming period episodes, but cool during global cooling period episodes related to the AO and NAO.
—–CET——– Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
1901-1930 4.2 4.2 5.5 7.6 11.3 13.8 15.8 15.2 13.1 9.8 5.8 4.5 9.3
1931-1970 3.4 3.8 5.8 8.4 11.4 14.6 16.0 15.8 13.7 10.3 6.6 4.4 9.5
1975-2004 4.2 4.3 6.4 8.2 11.5 14.3 16.6 16.5 13.9 10.6 7.1 4.9 9.9
Areas near or in the Arctic circle show warmer temperatures during global cooling episodes and colder temperatures during global warming episodes.
Southern Greenland
1901-1930—– -8.5 -8.9 -7.1 -3.7 1.2 4.8 6.8 6.3 3.4 -0.9 -4.5 -6.9 -1.5
1931-1970—– -7.1 -7.2 -6.3 -3.2 1.8 5.3 7.2 6.7 3.9 -0.2 -3.4 -5.9 -0.7
1975-2004—– -7.7 -8.3 -8.1 -3.7 0.6 4.1 6.4 6.1 3.5 -0.4 -3.5 -6.1 -1.4
Iceland
1901-1930—– -1.5 -1.1 -0.6 1.7 5.6 9.4 11.1 9.9 7.3 3.3 0.3 -1.0 3.7
1931-1970—– -0.7 -0.7 0.3 2.6 6.7 9.7 11.2 10.7 8.2 4.3 1.6 -0.1 4.5
1975-2004—– -1.3 -0.7 -0.3 2.3 6.0 9.1 10.9 10.6 7.3 3.7 1.0 -0.6 4.0
Regions in lower latitudes especially closest to Greenland/Iceland, where cold air is transferred from the Arctic during these negative AO and NAO phases show similar trends to the CET.
Norway
1901-1930—– -2.6 -2.6 -1.0 2.4 6.5 10.3 13.2 12.0 8.8 4.2 0.5 -1.6 4.2
1931-1970—– -2.8 -3.1 -1.0 2.5 6.9 10.7 13.2 12.7 9.4 5.1 1.5 -1.1 4.5
1975-2004—– -2.3 -2.2 -0.2 2.9 7.5 10.9 13.3 12.9 9.2 5.1 1.2 -1.5 4.7
Sweden
1901-1930—– -8.3 -8.5 -4.8 1.2 7.2 13.1 16.2 14.2 9.3 3.3 -2.0 -6.4 2.9
1931-1970—– -9.0 -9.0 -5.3 1.5 7.9 13.8 16.8 15.2 9.9 4.1 -1.1 -5.6 3.3
1975-2004—– -8.5 -8.1 -3.3 2.2 8.6 13.9 16.5 14.5 9.5 3.8 -1.9 -6.5 3.4
Scotland
1901-1930—– 3.9 3.7 4.3 6.1 9.0 11.6 13.3 12.9 11.2 8.5 5.4 4.2 7.9
1931-1970—– 3.0 3.2 4.8 6.8 9.4 12.4 13.7 13.6 11.8 9.1 5.7 4.0 8.1
1975-2004—– 3.4 3.6 5.1 6.9 9.7 12.3 14.2 14.1 11.8 9.0 6.0 4.1 8.3
Winters are warmer in this Arctic region when the NAO and AO are negative, but cooler in the countries in lower latitudes. The opposite also applies to when the NAO and AO are positive with winters cooler in this Arctic region, but warmer in the countries in lower latitudes. The Arctic amplification has occurred in periods before and can be seen easily in past station temperature data sets.

Reply to  Matt G
June 10, 2016 6:14 am

Agreed. You are showing how the air circulation patterns cause changes, irrespective of any warming from radiative factors. There is also a natural amplification of temperatures (up and down) in the Arctic due to the extremely dry air there.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/08/24/arctic-amplification/

June 10, 2016 8:19 pm

Does “climate change” have anything to do with the UK wanting to leave the EU?

Chuck Wiese
June 11, 2016 7:53 pm

I had written an article concerning Arctic Amplification as the authors Francis and Vavrus claimed it was tied to causing amplification of planetary Rossby waves as these latest authors suggest. But my article with an application of atmospheric science demonstrates there is no theoretical basis for these authors or the new ones here to make such a claim. Anthony published it here on WUWT last March.
As usual, their “evidence” is nothing more than anecdotal with no proof offered for any of their claims. Like so many of the authors who publish in climate journals, the absence of any good theory is substituted with an act of faith that the authors have discovered something profound. The paper is more nonsense and no different than the flawed research paper submitted on AA by Francis and Vavrus in 2012.
If the arctic temperatures are indeed being amplified under GHG theory ( the records also show a weak case for this ) the associated dips and bends ( amplification of planetary Rossby waves ) in the jetstream waves according to the correct physics would have to DECREASE in amplitude, develop shorter wave lengths and migrate to a higher latitude. This is the OPPOSITE of what is claimed in both of these papers.
Apparently the desire to be dishonest about severe weather, floods and temperature extremes is important to the researchers here who want to be able to blame any sort of weather extreme on their phony “climate change” propaganda.