From the WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE and the “Where were the storms during the medieval warm period?” department.
Off track: How storms will veer in a warmer world
Weizmann Institute of Science research uncovers the internal mechanisms driving storms toward the poles
Under global climate change, the Earth’s climatic zones will shift toward the poles. This is not just a future prediction; it is a trend that has already been observed in the past decades. The dry, semi-arid regions are expanding into higher latitudes, and temperate, rainy regions are migrating poleward. In a paper that that was recently published in Nature Geoscience, Weizmann Institute of Science researchers provide new insight into this phenomenon by discovering that mid-latitude storms are steered further toward the poles in a warmer climate. Their analysis, which also revealed the physical mechanisms controlling this phenomenon, involved a unique approach that traced the progression of low-pressure weather systems both from the outside – in their movement around the globe – and from the inside – analyzing the storms’ dynamics.
Prof. Yohai Kaspi of the Institute’s Earth and Planetary Sciences Department explains that the Earth’s climatic zones roughly follow latitudinal bands. Storms mostly move around the globe in preferred regions called “storm tracks,” forming over the ocean and generally traveling eastward and somewhat poleward along these paths. Thus, a storm that forms in the Atlantic off the East Coast of the US at a latitude of around 40N will reach Europe in the region of latitude 50N. Until recently, however, this inclination to move in the direction of the nearest pole was not really understood. Dr. Talia Tamarin in Kaspi’s group solved this fundamental question in her doctoral research.
Kaspi:
“From the existing climate models, one can observe the average storm tracks, but it is hard to prove cause and effect from these. They only show us where there are relatively more or fewer storms. Another approach is following individual storms; however, we must deal with chaotic, noisy systems that are heavily dependent on the initial conditions, meaning no storm is exactly like another. Talia developed a method that combines these two approaches. She applied a storm-tracking algorithm to simplified atmospheric circulation models in which thousands of storms are generated, thus eliminating the dependence on initial conditions. This allowed her to understand how such storms develop over time and space, and what controls their movement.”
Even such simplified models involve calculations that require several days of computation in one of the Weizmann Institute’s powerful computer clusters.
In the present study, to understand how the movement of storms may change in a warmer world, Tamarin and Kaspi applied the same method to full-complexity simulations of climate change predictions. Their analysis showed that the tendency of storm tracks to veer in the direction of the poles intensifies in warmer conditions. They discovered that two processes are responsible for this phenomenon. One is connected to the vertical structure and circulation near the tops of these weather systems. A certain type of flow that is necessary for them to grow also steers the storms toward the pole, and these flows are expected to become stronger when average temperatures rise.
The second process is connected to the energy tied up in the water vapor in such storms. In global warming, the hotter air will contain more water vapor, and thus more energy will be released when the vapor condenses to drops. “The hottest, wettest air is circulating up the eastern flank of the storm – to the northern side – and releasing energy there,” says Tamarin. “This process pushes the storm northward (or southward in the southern hemisphere), and this effect will also be stronger in a warmer climate.”

The models of climate change predict that if average global temperatures rise by four degrees over the next 100 years, storms will deviate poleward from their present tracks by two degrees of latitude. The research performed at the Weizmann Institute of Science shows that part of this will be due to the mechanism they demonstrated, and the other part is tied to the fact that storms are born at a higher latitude in a warmer world. “The model Talia developed gives us both qualitative information on the mechanisms that steer storms toward the poles and quantitative means to predict how these will change in the future,” says Kaspi. “Although two degrees may not sound like a lot, the resulting deviation in temperature and rain patterns will have a significant effect on climate zones,” he adds.
###
“She applied a storm-tracking algorithm to simplified atmospheric circulation models in which thousands of storms are generated, thus eliminating the dependence on initial conditions.”
Seriously?
Alan Turing is rolling over in his grave. To think that his universal machine could be used to create abominations of science like this.
“Independent of initial conditions”? The flawless logic of computers means the result was hard coded into the instructions which must have included algorithms that made storms move slightly north as the temperature increases. Running that 1000 times means getting the same basic result 1000 times.
How do we know there will be any storms? As the temperature rises, storm energy decreases and they also move less because 4 degrees of warming would mostly impact the Arctic, reducing the temperature difference between there and the equator. Antarctica might be heated from -32 to -24. Big deal. Still frozen harder than a Rocky Stallone poster’s 6-pack.
This resembles real science the way internet pr0n sites resemble real love making. That is why I call it mathematical onanism.
You got that right Crispin.
But we already knew…if you want to know what is going to happen with the climate, toss a coin, or break out the Ouija board
Those methods will occasionally yield correct results by random chance, which when stacked up against the zero percent chance a “climate scientist” will get anything right is a substantial improvement in forecasting ability.
Hmmm
So a 4C increase in temperature over the next 100 years equals a 2deg northward movement of the storm track.
if a doubling of CO2 equates to 1C increase, CO2 would need to crawl up to (400 – 800 – 1600 -) 3200ppm by 2100 to move the respective storm tracks (1deg lat = 66.6 miles) 132 miles north and south.
South Florida children might never know what a hurricane is.
The Deserts of Mexico might become verdent Rain Forests.
The lower 1/2 of the Sahara might become Green (again)
The poles might see more storms bringing more snows in their respective sunless winters.
Your suggestion the Sahara would be greener seems borne out by the archaeological record. There were apparently crocodiles and hippos and lakes, and vast stretches of savanna, and a culture based upon herding cattle, where it is now a sandy waste. One reason for the rise of ancient Egypt may well be the browning of those lush lands created a wave of refugees and a lot of cheap labor.
Also the Bible describes lusher landscapes for the Minoan and Roman Climate Optimums.
It seems this paper focuses on the northern storm track, and fails to consider a southern one we still see to this day, where lows cruise from west to east through the Mediterranean. Apparently this southern storm track is altered in some interesting way when temperatures are warmer. Unfortunately Alarmists miss fascinating history because they feel an urgent need to plug disaster in the present, even to a degree where they deemed it was politically correct to “erase the Medieval Warm Period.”
The Medieval Warm period was actually less warm than earlier climate optimums. It spoils the Alarmist narrative to look back and see a warmer climate made the deserts bloom.
?w=590&h=480
…and sea-levels will drop as snow builds up in Greenland and Antarctica.
She applied a storm-tracking algorithm to simplified atmospheric circulation models in which thousands of storms are generated, thus eliminating dependence on anything approaching reality.
Fifh. I hope she appreciates my hard work.
“The models of climate change predict that if average global temperatures rise by four degrees over the next 100 years . . . .”
This alone should discount their studies to background noise.
More importantly, if they want to test their ability to model storms, they should take their forecasts for a few test drives with actual storms. They should forecast storm tracks when storms are first formed, and see how well their system does. After a year or so of analysis they can publish where they said storms would go and where they ended up. Until they can document a valid system better than a monkey throwing darts, material like this should be ignored.
Your points are valid – but I have a small though untested suspicion that if a suitably calorific reward system was set up for target-hitting accuracy, monkeys may be better dart-throwers than you might otherwise think.
cephus — you get two points and cookie for that one.
Meh- reality is obviously wrong! The computer has spoken!
We’re all living in The Matrix anyway- so a truer statement was never spoken…..
I thought the problem was the GCMs were not fine enough, from using blocks that are too large to develop useful results for the real world. So she used a “simplified” model, making the resolution worse? Geez.
This tool might have some value……. in tracking the opposite outcome from long cycle solar changes and a long cycle ocean cooling as in AMO, as storms track lower from stronger jet stream in NH.
Resourceguy
That’s a bit rude, calling her a tool.
Best laugh of the day (so far).
Climate change is making the climate change.
Climate change is making what has always happened, keep on happening.
Climate change is making wind blow and oceans flow – that can’t be right.
IWTWTWMAN
(Its worse than we thought we must act now).
Let’s see, 2 deg lat is about 120 miles and that’s with a 4 deg (!) increase. The tracks on the image appear to cover about 1200 mile about a 10% shift. So a storm that would be centered over Washington DC would be somewhere around Philadelphia. Yeah, real bid deal /sarc.
So if they have already noticed it moving north already with only .8 degree C increase since 1880, then the storm track has moved north by less than a 1/2 deg lat, or about 30 miles. Sort of in the margin of error of a big storm. I think the storm track is going to generate storms whenever the conditions are ripe for doing so, and that will be spread over an area of tens to hundreds of thousands of square miles and will rely on a dozen other changing factors as well. In theory maybe, but in practise will be indistinguishable as to effect since the heat is radiating away anyway.
Thanks for the latitude vs. miles info, I was going to figure it out myself since it seemed unlikely to be a big deal.
1 degree is exactly 60 nautical miles. Land miles do not enter the equation.
Wiki says it is 1.1508 lane miles, or one minute of latitude.
Mikey Mann says Atlantic storm tracks are moving and will move more eastward, away from places like NYC. This paper suggests something quite different.
Michael Jankowski
FIGHT!
Who ya going to believe? Da Man or da Mann?
…da Womann !
I’m not as hostile to the report. They aren’t predicting storm tracks WILL move north (in the northern hemisphere), merely that temperature affects the average storm track. I like that they didn’t posture the report to assume that warming is a) a future fact, and b) that it is caused by humans. Just that IF there is a temperature increase of 4 degrees in the next century, storm tracks will shift north by 2 degrees of latitude.
However, we know that others will take this report and apply their biases that temperatures WILL rise, the rise is caused by human activity (including Trump, though they don’t consider Trump to be human), and that therefore, there will be CATASTROPHE, DISASTER, DEATH and RUIN.
If we can get 4 degrees of warming in 200 years I will be impressed, in my grave. Four degrees would put us back in 8000 BC and by then the Sahara was grassland, filled with farmers and herds of wild animals like unicorns and trilobites, right? Tunisia will once again be a breadbasket but Egypt, sadly, still the basket case.
If, between now and then, the lithosphere tilts 10 or 20 degrees due to off-centre ice masses in Antarctica and Greenland, it will change the ocean currents and we could get much more warming or cooling, depending on how the ocean currents are affected. A lot of land would be exposed around Indonesia if it suddenly moves north. For those who want to do the math, sea level at 45 degree latitude will change 1000 ft per 1/2 degree change in tilt.
Vain imaginings and idle speculation are good, cheap, clean, wholesome sports you can play in your armchair. No game controller required.
“Under global climate change, the Earth’s climatic zones will shift toward the poles.”
This is an example of why substituting “climate change” for “warming” is nonsensical. In a warming climate it makes sense that climate zones will shift towards the poles. In a cooling climate the opposite will happen. Using the term climate change is meaningless in this case.
Good point. Scotese has a nice diagram showing that when the world has been warmer, equatorial zones stay the same while mid and higher latitudes warm up to become less cold.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/02/02/fact-future-climate-will-be-flatter-not-hotter/
BTW, despite some warming since the LIA, we are still living in “Severe Icehouse.” If our use of fossil fuels has any warming effect, then we should stay the course.
How about doing historic research on where storms were during the Medieval Warm? BTW, if she is mentioning the Medieval Warm, she is disagreeing with His Holiness Michael Mann and his revelation that the Medieval Warm did not exist.
Ffs, talk about living within a “special” reality, it makes you wonder if they received their degrees from a blue-light special at K-Mart.
“It’s already occurring” means that they modeled it. And they only modeled it for one storm tract, the North Atlantic. Apparently they aren’t aware of basic meteorology. Storms vere towards the North Pole in this storm tract because of geography. And oh look, the storms vere around Greenland too, it must mean that Greenland is warmer than we thought!
Publish or perish I suppose, even if it means publishing laughable garbage.
Gee. I thought the angle of the prevailing westerlies was a Coriolis force effect, storm or not. Who knew?
So, what this is saying is that as it warms, polar latitudes get more precip, which will be in the form of snow and thus more snow will accumulate, increasing albedo resulting in cooling.
“From the existing climate models, one can observe the average storm tracks.” Whaaat?
Indeed. How about, “From the existing climate models, one can fabricate the average storm tracks.”
“The dry, semi-arid regions are expanding into higher latitudes, and temperate, rainy regions are migrating poleward. ”
Name one.
All of them, in model land.
Another paper based on a mathematical model of some conditions in a hypothetical future scenario.
*sigh*
I miss the old WUWT which had some real science articles from time to time. Many of us learned a great deal from them.
What ever did happen to Bob Tisdale?
We used to have commenters like rgbatduke, now we get griff and crackers345,
It is an interesting model. Whether or not it is correct, we will eventually know. The thing is that historical data indicates that a warming trend is followed by a cooling trend, and we are attempting to understand how this happens, and most importantly how much natural variation there is over the long term trend. Time answers all questions, we hope.
Yep …… seems to me to yet another chicken and egg scenario.
If the storm tracks move north, then the temps will rise ….. or if the temps rise, the storms move north.
I think the former is more likely.
4°C causes… a shift of 2° Lat. Well their is no possible way there will be 4°C rise in 100yrs, having never happened before and, trust me, your error with the computer climate game will be far greater than this piddlingly shift, even if the method was of any value!
I’ve noted for some time and commented over a number of years that most the new climate grads are women in a previously very mannly pursuit. It suggests that men have been abandoning ship since Climategate. Don’t expect social scientists to touch this diversity development. It would be an interesting trend to study, though. This might explain the impossible 4C/100 yrs stuff that men also abandoned- a sort of right of passage.
I heard on the radio today that university women studies purport that climate change affects women more than men.
“Well their is no possible way there will be 4°C rise in 100yrs, having never happened before”
It did happen, at the end of the Younger Dryas, and nobody has a clue why.
We know these were caused by huge changes in ocean circulation especially in the North Atlantic region. What caused these apart from a change in ocean salinity is less understood.
” . . how such storms develop over time and space . . ”
Ah, the ole space-time continuum.
I wonder if a TARDIS is involved in this process somewhere.
This has got to be the fairy story I think it is ?
The latest word has it that forces driving the pole- ward shift are in fact accelerating at an exponential rate and will cause the storms to overshoot the top and come halfway back down the other side of the planet.
This change is due to the tripling of global electric power consumption by Bitcoin miners and the arms race for the latest “world’s fastest” mining rigs, built under the auspices of shaky governments and third- rate universities, deceptively touted as “save the planet” climate- modelling supercomputers.
Soon they will turn so northward that they will turn inward on themselves and open the dimension to where these researchers came from.
As for the captioned photo, it says “This is a Google earth storm track.” No, those are storm tracks, the ones that form in the North Atlantic storm tract. — Signed, Captain Pedantic
The models of climate change predict that if …
I am far from being an English professor but this, “……… that mid-latitude storms are steered further toward the poles in a warmer climate.” makes me want to scream. What is wrong with writing “nearer” instead of “further towards?”
Which strums the heart strings the loudest?
“They” were driven further from their homes…
“They” were steered nearer to…
Poor things, after all. (sob)
It’s all so unfair! Someone needs to stick up for them.
hmmmm “Storms mostly move around the globe in preferred regions called “storm tracks,” forming over the ocean and generally traveling eastward and somewhat poleward along these paths.” this seems to miss the fact that the damaging hurricanes/storms that hit the US and others started over the ocean and moved north and west and not to the east…… guess this fact will be attributed to man made gorebull warming too? though the weasel word “mostly” probably lets that one slip by too. Would be interesting to see what direction the most damaging storms go on their way to damaging landfall.
Cheers!
Joe