Claim: a connection between U.S. tornado activity and Arctic sea ice

From the University of Illinois and the “correlation is not causation” department comes this claim.

Study finds possible connection between U.S. tornado activity, Arctic sea ice

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — The effects of global climate change taking place in the Arctic may influence weather much closer to home for millions of Americans, researchers report.

The United States has experienced many changes in severe-weather behavior over the past decade, including fewer tornado touchdowns than in the past. A new study suggests that atmospheric circulation changes that coincide with a loss of Arctic sea ice may be partly to blame.

Atmospheric scientists from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Purdue University report their findings in the journal Climate and Atmospheric Science.

“A relationship between Arctic sea ice and tornadoes in the U.S. may seem unlikely,” said (Robert) Jeff Trapp, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the U. of I. and a co-author. “But it is hard to ignore the mounting evidence in support of the connection.”

University of Illinois atmospheric sciences professor (Robert) Jeff Trapp is a co-author of a new study that has identified the possible links between global climate change, Arctic sea ice retreat and tornadoes.
Photo by L. Brian Stauffer

The researchers performed statistical analyses of nearly three decades of historical weather and climate data and found significant correlations between tornado activity and the extent of Arctic sea ice – especially during the month July.

The team believes that the reduction in tornado activity boils down to how the diminishing Arctic sea ice controls the path of the jet stream. As Arctic sea ice retreats, the jet stream migrates from its traditional summer path over states like Montana and South Dakota to areas farther north, and the atmospheric conditions that are favorable for tornado formation follow suit.

“Tornadoes and their parent thunderstorms are fueled by wind shear and moisture,” Trapp said. “When the jet stream migrates north, it takes the wind shear along for the ride, but not always the moisture. So, even though thunderstorms may still develop, they tend not to generate tornadoes because one of the essential ingredients for tornado formation is now missing.”

The team believes that the correlation between Arctic ice retreat and jet stream migration may lead to advances in seasonal severe weather prediction.

“One of the reasons that we focused on sea ice is because, like the ocean and land, it is relatively slow to evolve,” Trapp said. “Because sea ice and the atmosphere are coupled, the response of the atmosphere is also relatively slow. We can use this property to help make long-term predictions for tornadoes and hail, similar to the way predictions are made for hurricane seasons.”

But before doing so, Trapp said they still need to understand the drivers of the sea ice changes and what role the tropics may be playing.

It remains unclear as to why this correlation is particularly dominant during the month of July, the researchers said, and they admit that they are only at the tip of the iceberg in terms of understanding the overall effects of climate change, and climate variability, on severe weather.


 

The paper:

The paper “Exploring a possible connection between U.S. tornado activity and Arctic sea ice” is available online and from the U. of I. News Bureau.

DOI: 10.1038/s41612-018-0025-9

Advertisements

246 thoughts on “Claim: a connection between U.S. tornado activity and Arctic sea ice

  1. As they say in show business “You gotta have a gimmick.” Every climate researcher is looking for a new angle, something to make a name and cement their position long enough to retire on the public weal. Think he’s not happy? Just look at that grin.

      • From the figure it is clearly seen that upward peak followed downward peak followed by no change period followed by upward peak followed by downward peak followed by current no change. Don’t you think there is a rhythmic pattern.

        Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

        • Nope. There’s no pattern that will pass statistical analysis. People see The Virgin Mary in clouds, too.

          • Yep, that kind of a single “repetition” of such a loosely defined “cycle” is like finding two faces in the clouds that don’t resemble each other apart from both being faces.

            On the subject of the article, warmer winters; less ice; greener deserts and LESS tornadoes …. sounds like climate is changing for the better. Plus we get to profit from fossil fuels: win-win.

            No wonder Prof. Clap Trapp has a big grin.

        • If someone does a knock-knock on your door , how long do you expect that rhythmic pattern to continue?

          The cycles of this rhythmic pattern do not even resemble each other. Remind us what field you gained your doctorate in , please.

          • resemble each other — cut and superpose them you find the rhytmic pattern. I got my Ph.D. in agricultural meteorology from a reputed university and my first book of 1993 is the reference book for post-graduate level in agricultural meteorology in several universities.

            Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

      • This graph shows monthly data and starts around 1998 and ends before 2016, which was warmer than 1998. IOW, looks like cherry-picked data.

        What data set is used? Why is the line through 0.25 C? Why does it say anything about 1750 if only the last 18 years, 9 months are on it? Monckton1.png – is this a Monckton product?

        Highly suspicious, says little about anything. Gimmick, indeed.

        • Kristi,

          It’s not a gimmick, but merely the well established, valid mathematical function known as a linear regression.

          You start where we are now and go back as far as you can without finding an uptrend.

          Done statistics much?

          I thought not.

          • Linear regression does not answer the question of causality.
            Take the relationship of CO2 and temperature, with temperature as the dependent variable – lo and behold you find CO2 causes temperature increases.
            Use vector autoregression (which considers time offsets) and the relationship vanishes.
            Clearly the 800 year time lag is problematical – if you add CO2 to the atmosphere today you will be making it warmer on the day the Magna Carter was signed.
            Equally clearly vector autoregression is the more correct statistical approach when offsets are present.
            But of course the thermogeddonists won’t use it as it destroys their narrative.
            How to lie with statistics 101.
            I used to lecture statistics.

          • Crispin,
            Since the Industrial Revolution spanning 165 years the current amount of co2 that has been added is 126 ppm/v, which should be 0.33 C, at this point 0.3 C in a muti variable environment falls within error bars over 165 years. In another 100 years, assuming that’s true, we won’t be at 1 C. That falls well below 2 C.

            The current level is 410 ppm/v. Pre industrial times was 285 ppm/v. Adding 375 ppm/v is 660 ppm/v. In the next 100 years we have to burn twice as much fossil fuels as we did in the last 165 years and we will barely get to 1 C ?

            If you mean 375 ppm/v total atmospheric co2 is different than the amount to raise the temp 1 C. Then the total co2 to raise the temp 1 C is 90 ppm/v. By that definition, the temperature should have been 0.5 C warmer in 1975. At least by 1958 the temps should have been where they are right now 0.3 C. Not occasionally where the temp spikes, constant. Before 1958 the temp should have spiked above 0.3 C then fallen back down to 0.3 C, not below it. There hasn’t been a time when more co2 wasn’t being added. The temps should have been getting warmer and warmer. The temp record is not even linear, and non existent below exponential which the IPCC is calling for.

            90 ppm/v to raise the temp by 1 C is not a correct number nor is 375 ppm/v.

            Under the rise of temp by 1 C by 90 ppm/v, the 285 ppm/v pre Industrial level, co2 was responsible for only 10% of the warming. You can’t have it both ways. It was either a lot less or a lot more. That means that currently if the temp was actually 1 C warmer, co2 has only contributed 0.1 C or it should be a lot warmer about 14 C warmer.

          • I should clarify: the general claim corrected for the feedback error is that from a base of 375 ppm, adding another 375 will increase average temperature by one degree C.

            That is not my claim, as I identified another error which is that the calculations done by the IPCC and Monckton refer only to the radiative heating, ignoring convective heating at low concentrations of GHG. The true ECS is much lower, possibly negative under some conditions.

          • Crispin,
            375 ppm/v? If that’s true, it’d be impossible to calculate the impact of 285 ppm/v from the black body radiation to the greenhouse effect of 33 C. Doubling co2 from pre industrial times would result in a temp rise of no more 0.75 C. Temperature gains in this particular system is no more than background noise.
            Which leaves the MWA ( MWP ) and LIA a mystery in terms of AGW. A temp drop or increase of 1 C, negates any effect co2 has. A temp drop of 1 C would in effect wipe out all co2 at the 285 ppm/v level.
            I can’t tell if you believe AGW or your a critic.

          • Why do so many persist in their silly “circular reasoning” commentaries specifically concerning “atmospheric CO2 quantities … verses … near-surface air temperatures” when the only per se “evidence” is a fuzzy math calculated multiplier “constant” which has never been proven or disproven via a simple experiment conducted in an outdoor environment?

        • I have to agree. Don’t use that plot. If you do use it, add a trendline with the same start date and the most recent data for an end point.

      • That is a dishonest graph, starting with one super el nino and cutting off before another. About as chery-picked as is possible.

    • Brian,

      Just curious – how do you know about “every climate researcher” and what motivates them? Are you in the field, and is that what you do? Or is this just another denigrating assumption based on the assertions of those who want to discredit climate science?

      • Kristi Silber

        Just curious – how do you know about “every climate researcher” and what motivates them?

        Well, we do know absolutely that every self-called “Climate scientist” accepted by the CAGW publicity community worldwide is paid by the same governments and academic bureaucracies that will themselves benefit from the proposed 3 trillion in carbon taxes that can only be generated by a successful CAGW campaign; and every “accepted” climate scientist has their labs, their travel, their vacations, their research, their buildings and their publicity benefiting the international bankers and financiers who expect their share of ENRON’s projected 30 trillions in annual carbon futures trading.

        But of course, all skeptics are bought and paid by the evil rich oil companies, right?

          • No, she didn’t. Otherwise she would have looked for herself. But she just believe such so self-called “climate scientists”.

        • The usual conspiracy ideation, re the motivated reasoning/actions of the world’s researchers into climate and related Earth sciences.

          Yet it didn’t come into it for the climate scientists (apparently) who worked for Exxon 50 years ago …

          https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

          “In their eight-month-long investigation, reporters at InsideClimate News interviewed former Exxon employees, scientists and federal officials and analyzed hundreds of pages of internal documents. They found that the company’s knowledge of climate change dates back to July 1977, when its senior scientist James Black delivered a sobering message on the topic. “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels,” Black told Exxon’s management committee. A year later he warned Exxon that doubling CO2 gases in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by two or three degrees—a number that is consistent with the scientific consensus today. He continued to warn that “present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.” In other words, Exxon needed to act.”

          Now why was that then?
          Are Exxon’s scientists morally superior?
          Are they not just as (more?) likely to lose their jobs if not coming up with the answers their employers require?

          The world does not work via conspiracy, rather via “cock-up”.

          • Considering the fact that there have been dozens of climate scientists who have either been fired, have had their careers ruined, or funding cut because they didn’t toe the CO2 causes warming meme, it is extremely disingenous of you alarmists to suggest that there is not a conspiracy especially in the light of 2 different climate gate email scandals. Every atmospheric science faculty in the world has been turned into a faculty of global warming. The government agencies of the US,Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand have all been caught faking the climate data. Every calamitous prediction of “scientists” like James Hansen has failed to materialize. I have been waiting for global warming for 30 years and haven’t seen it yet. The sea rise is NOT accelerating, the ice caps are still in their multi year cycles of melting and freezing ( no net change), and every database on extreme weather events shows no change. The world seas will not drown us and we won’t self immolate because of the heat. SO WHAT IN THE HELL DO YOU YOU BASE YOUR BEDWETTING SCARED OF YOUR OWN SHADOW CONCLUSIONS ON?

          • Alan says
            “Considering the fact that there have been dozens of climate scientists who have either been fired, have had their careers ruined, or funding cut because they didn’t toe the CO2 causes warming meme…”

            Name one dozen Alan or perhaps a just a half dozen if thats too hard.

            “The government agencies of the US,Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand have all been caught faking the climate data…”

            No they haven’t. Any evidence? otherwise you’re doing some A-grade arm-waving.

          • The Exxon scientists were reporting to the board the published research. They were not doing their own delving. They had a duty to the board of directors to give the worst case scenario so the board could plan. The fact that much of the published research was rubbish does not mean there was some “conspiracy” or even a “cock-up”. There is however no fame in stating that the status quo will mean some mild adaptations and there is no need for one-world totalitarian socialism to fix it.

          • Anthony, you really should lie about things that can be so easily checked.
            The scientists reported the temperature rise as a possibility, they also revealed that there was still a huge amount of uncertainty.

            PS: Not even the IPCC bothers to maintain the fictional claim of 3 to 4C anymore.

          • I got a check the other day. Unfortunately the fine print said that I had to buy a time share before I could cash the check.

      • “Or is this just another denigrating assumption based on the assertions of those who want to discredit climate science?”

        I think the warmanistas do that all by themselves very nicely!

      • Kristi, I happen to be the world’s foremost expert on my opinion, and I’ve never been proven wrong in the court of public opinion. (Incidentally, I am also a mathematician and computer scientist, so I have more than a passing acquaintance with computer models, upon which all so-called “settled science” about future climate is based.)

      • You don’t need to know every climate researcher. All you have to do is examine their work.
        Fraudulent work is produced by fraudulent researchers.
        Anyone who refuses to show his work and data might as well just have his forehead tattooed. I’m a fraud.

  2. Coincidence is NOT correlation and I see no correlation – yet. And then one has to ask; which is cause and which is effect. Even IF there is a statistically sound correlation.

    • Not only that they must have been using daily data correlations for the month of July. How unbelievably stupid is that.

    • Tornadoes occur when it’s warm in the summer. Sea ice declines when it’s warm in the summer. No surprise that there is some correlation. It’s called “common cause”. The surprise is that the correlations are so poor – R- Values virtually all less than 0.5. Nothing of any significance in this paper.

    • July was the month that data correlated. None of the other months did, if they had they would have reported it. That should inform the intelligent scientist that the correlation is likely just spurious.

    • The authors also use linear regressions, in which there is an independent and dependent variable. It is a stronger test of causal relationships, but still doesn’t NECESSARILY mean the factors are cause and effect.

      It seems pretty darned unlikely that tornadoes are causing Arctic ice extents, but perhaps a third factor is influencing both.

      Have you tested for a correlation using the same data? I don’t understand your comment, “I see no correlation – yet.” The paper found a sig. association, why do you say “IF there is…”?

      • There is no correlation between sea ice and the other months in which tornadoes are historically common. Lack of correlation is proof of lack of causation. Sea ice minimizes in September each year. I see no logic in attributing the long term (40 year) decrease in tornado frequency to a change in July sea ice cover.

        There is a stronger correlation between divorces in Maine and the launch of a movie featuring Nicholas Cage – for real!

      • I find it fascinating the way you completely ignore the probability that two random events happened to correlate for a short period of time.

        You are so invested in the notion that CO2 must be doing something bad that you have assumed that there must be some kind of correlation here.
        Either that or you know absolutely nothing about science and statistics.

    • Eventually those records pre-1940 will be revised downward because of “systematic bias”, if the pattern holds with present “adjustments”

      • Instrumentation was different, … measurement accountability was different, …. chain of handling measurements was different, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah, blah, blah, blah, … so we can’t use THOSE older measures along with the newer measures that support what we say.

        On a separate note, Claim: a connection between frequency of sneezing and crickets. … especially in July.

    • Adjustment alert, adjustment alert. Historical highs were being biased high. Adjustment alert. They must be reduced to reflect the reality before 1940.

      • Suppose they are adjusted down as much as 5%. Where does that leave most of them? Still all-time records in most cases. I mean, just look at those values.

    • Improvements in nutrition have increased the height of observers over the years. Reading a thermometer from a higher viewpoint will necessarily reduce the observed value, hence all temperatures from the past should be adjusted down to compensate.

  3. We may soon see. Arctic sea ice extent has been growing since 2012. If, as seems likely, that trend continues, this hypothesis can be tested.

    • If the logic is true, then 2004 Arctic Sea ice was among the highest. But it was lower compared to the 1990s and 2014 tornadoes was lowest this decade yet 2012 was lowest sea ice extent.

      • Assume you mean 2014 instead of 2004.

        Despite the record low of 2012, Arctic sea ice has been in an uptrend since 2007.

        Its cycle is about 30 years, so should get back to around 1979 extent in c. 2039. Or maybe a bit lower, since we are in the naturally occurring Modern Warm Period, coming out of the Little Ice Age Cool Period.

        Clearly, CO2 has no discernible impact, since Antarctic sea ice extent grew from 1979 to 2014, while Arctic fell.

    • “If, as seems likely, that trend continues, this hypothesis can be tested.”

      Well, it can be tested in July. There is nothing else correlating to test, right?

  4. of nearly three decades of historical weather and climate data

    Bzzzt. How did this pass peer review?

    • 3 decades of historical weather data = one single data point of climate data.

      Nearly 3 decades of historical weather data doesn’t even reach the status of being one single data point of climate data.

      File this under: “weather is not climate.”

      • About 50 yrs ago one of my statistics professors discussing correlation vs causality pointed out the old correlation between stock market rise and women’s hem lines. That probably applies here. Though one could make some interesting conjectures regarding potential cause and effect relationships for certain women.

          • There’s fewer tornadoes because the mass of metal in body piercings today impedes air flow in such a way that air currents no longer achieve the required formations to produce such storms.

        • My stats prof. told the story about a very strong correlation between the population of London and the annual census of swans on the Thames. When London’s overpopulation became a major concern in the 1700’s, the answer was obvious, kill swans.

        • The BBC, when it used to do excellent scientific programmes, made a Horizon science prog about the Sun & Sunspots. They found correlations in lots of things from the rise of Beatle-mania to as you say, the rise & fall of skirt hemlines depending on Solar activity!!!

        • At one time there was something called the SuperBowl Effect where a strong correlation existed between the market going up after a team from the “Old NFL” won the SuperBowl and the market going down after the team from the old AFL won. It lasted quite a few years…….until it didn’t.

    • 30 years or so is half the sine wave. It’s either going up or going down. Use 60-70 years and it would likely be back where it started on the y-axis. Full cycles don’t meet the narrative.

        • Sure it means something, Kristi – it means they have been data-dredging and found a spurious correlation. There is a better match between the launch of Nicholas Cage movies and the number of people who drowned by falling into a pool.

          The importance of the tornado frequency number is that there are thousands of invalid claims made each year saying that the tornado frequency is increasing because of global warming, when it has actually been decreasing since 1976. This shows that global warming correlates with a reduced the number of tornadoes. Not very scary, is it!

          If the mumbo-jumbo artists can’t get the simple facts straight, how on earth will they get something involving correlation coefficients right? People who cannot count are going to be unable to use =CORREL() properly.

          • “There is a better match between the launch of Nicholas Cage movies and the number of people who drowned by falling into a pool”

            There is at least a causality in that. People watching Cage movies drown themselves. !! 😉

        • Poor Kristi is just so desperate to defend her fellow religionists that she has found herself having to defend outright gibberish.

  5. “Arctic sea ice decline”?! The trend for Arctic ice volume 2006-2018 is slightly upwards! Please cut out all these nonsense correlations!

    • They cherry-picked the data which only covers 1990-2015, even though satellite data dates back to 1979.

        • You forgot to include the previous decades of the 20th century, cherry picker.

          Satellite observations began when Arctic sea ice was at its peak for the century.

          Now please show satellite observations for Antarctic sea ice, the peak year of which during the satellite era was 2014.

          • They are not my data, but NOAA’s:

            http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

            Surprised you haven’t seen them.

            Last year was the first time since 1979 in which Arctic sea ice did not make a new, lower low within five years of the previous low.

            After the 2012 record, extent rebounded strongly in 2013 and 2014, then backed off a bit in the El Nino years of 2015-16, but grew again in 2017. This year is shaping up to be lower than 2013-14 but well above 2012.

            As always, September sea ice minimum will depend on the weather between now and then. The low years of 2012, 2007 and 2016 suffered cyclones which piled up the floes or scattered them, reducing the area with 15% coverage.

            And, despite the 2012 low, Arctic sea ice has been in an uptrend since 2007. But naturally the line is up more steeply since the record low year.

          • Ryan,

            Since June 15, Arctic sea ice extent has been above 2012. But months prior to minimum don’t count. Arctic sea ice extent minimum has been growing since 2012.

            The June, July and August extents have also been higher than some other years since 2007. As of yesterday, sea ice was above or tied with that date in 2007, 2011, 2012, 2016 and 2017.

            The minimum in years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 has been higher than in 2012. What part of “growing” don’t you understand?

          • Ryan,

            You remind me of the late lamented Griff, who assured us that, because 2017 was a low ice year in the spring, then it must perforce be a record low ice year in the fall.

          • It should be obvious that winter maximum doesn’t matter. Summer minimum does.

            Whether sea ice is 15.5 or 14.5 million sq km makes no difference in Earth’s albedo. In winter, there is either no sun at all or it’s low in the sky for a few hours a day.

            But during the summer, it’s high in the sky and shines all or most of the day. So an extent of only 3.5 million sq km v. 5.5 million makes a big difference.

            When it’s lower, the NW Passage is also open, as it isn’t at present, by any route.

          • Theo

            It should be obvious that winter maximum doesn’t matter. Summer minimum does.

            Whether sea ice is 15.5 or 14.5 million sq km makes no difference in Earth’s albedo. In winter, there is either no sun at all or it’s low in the sky for a few hours a day.

            But during the summer, it’s high in the sky and shines all or most of the day. So an extent of only 3.5 million sq km v. 5.5 million makes a big difference.

            Not exactly correct. The “winter maximum” occurs March-April every year – when the sun shines about 12 hours per day, but only at very low solar elevation angles in the sky. Summer melting doesn’t really start until May, when the arctic sea ice albedo begins decreasing from 0.83 down to its low of 0.43 – 0.46 in July. By now (Aug 12- Aug 15) the Arctic sea ice melt ponds freeze over each night.
            Your “summer sea ice minimum” doesn’t occur until mid-September – which is when the sun is (again!) shining only 12 hours a day, and (again!) only at very, very angles above the horizon.

            However, at Arctic sea ice minimum, the difference in daily absorbed energy between the open ocean and an ice-covered ocean is only a few watts/m^2. So, “minimum sea ice area” actually means the warm open ocean loses many hundreds of more watts/m^2 each hour than it gains from the sun. A natural negative feedback; NOT the Sereze much-hyped “arctic death spiral” of ever-increasing ice loss meaning a warmer ocean and even greater sea ice loss!

          • Ryan S (Quoting Theo)

            “Arctic sea ice extent has been growing since 2012″…you were saying?

            It would more accurate to merely state “Arctic Sea Ice Are/Extents have not substantially changed since 2006.” Yes, Spring 2018 Arctic Area/Extents were low this year; but, historically during the satellite era, low spring extents are most often followed by high September extents. Low September extents are most often immediately followed by a significant rebound the next spring. Daily Arctic sea ice extents during summer 2018 (June-July-Aug) have been higher than almost all the recent summers (2018-2008).

          • RA,

            I respectfully beg to differ. The record low of 2012 was substantially lower than any other year since 2007 (or any in the satellite record). The record compared to the two next lowest years in NSIDC data:

            2012: 3.387 million sq km
            2007: 4.155
            2016: 4.165

            The two highest of the past decade:

            2013: 5.054
            2014: 5.029

            Sorry, but 2013 was 49.2% higher than 2012. In my book, that is a significant difference. Even the next lowest year, 2007, was 22.7% above 2012.

            IMO the data clearly indicate that the Arctic sea ice worm has turned. Just as skeptics thought it would, ~30 years after the late ’70s high of the century.

          • I apologize: My terms were evidently confusing.
            Recognize that a spring maximum (March-April of year 00) follows a fall minimum (Sept of year -01) and is itself followed by a fall minimum in year 00, then a spring maximum in year +01. Historically, a “low” fall Arctic sea ice extents means MORE warm Arctic ocean (at +2 to +4 deg C) is exposed over the long October-Nov-Dec-Jan-Feb darkness to -35 deg C air. Thus, more heat loss over winter and more sea ice (a smaller negative anomaly) the next March-April.
            Conversely, the more sea ice in March-April-May of any given year means more insulation above the Arctic Ocean at the beginning of summer and less sea ice in the fall. Exactly opposite what the much-hyped “Arctic death spiral” predicts.
            For example, the last time there was a “positive” Arctic sea ice anomaly was May 2012 – Which yielded the smallest ever Sept sea ice minimum just 5 months later. And many other examples can be found.

            But you have to look “across” Dec 31.

          • And yet Ryan S apparently believes that lower sea ice in March 2018 than March 2012 shows that Arctic sea ice is in a death spiral.

          • Stop cherry-picking that anomalously high extent of 1979 as your starting point

            Its well above the MWP and most of the time before it.

            Only been higher than now for around 500 year out of the last 10,000 years.

          • The fact that sea ice has been increasing for the most recent 6 years is what matters.
            According the warminsts, that’s impossible.

          • Ryan,

            Yesterday, Arctic sea ice was above Aug 11 of 2017, 2016, 2012, 2011 and 2007. It was below that date in 2015, 2014, 2013, 2010, 2009 and 2008. Unless there be a cyclone between now and the low point, this year’s minimum is liable to be between 2007 and 2013’s. Very unlikely to be lower than 2007, and almost certainly not 2012. That would take two cyclones.

            Comparing with the record low year of 2012 isn’t a cherry pick. It’s simply a fact that extent hasn’t yet made a new, lower low, as it did at least every five years from 1979-2012. And it’s unlikely to do so. Hence, sea ice has been growing since the Sept minimum of 2012.

            Also, the trend since 2007 has been up.

            No surprise that Arctic sea ice fell from its near century high in 1979 until 2012. Yet all that time, Antarctic sea ice grew (high in 2014). Thus, CO2 can’t be the cause of Arctic decline, nor of its recent reversal.

          • As should be obvious, because that wasn’t a record low. Arctic sea ice has not made a new low for five years. This year will probably make it six.

            The trend is up since 2007. There’s no way around it. Arctic sea ice is growing.

            Meanwhile, Antarctic sea ice grew dramatically from 1979 to 2014. Thus, there is no basis for imagining that increasing CO2, supposedly well mixed, has anything to do with sea ice extent.

          • For example, the five years 2013-2017 averaged higher than the previous five years, 2008-12. The lustrum 2014-18 is liable also to beat the prior lustrum 2009-2013.

            The fifth decade in the satellite record, 2019-28, will probably average higher than the fourth, 2009-18.

        • You miss the point the paper is about the correlation of Arctic ice extent and tornado activity, not just ice extent.

          They use the term “nearly thirty years of data” to try and sound like their analysis is comprehensive. Ignoring the fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, the “nearly thirty” is actually 26 years out of a total of 38 years of satellite data.

          Why did they choose to exclude “nearly a third” ( 32% ) of the available data. The paper never explains why, so I am left to believe the correlation is much weaker in the other years.

  6. We were told that by now the Arctic would be ice free, coastal cities would be flooded, polar bears would be going extinct, mega-tornadoes would be tearing across the landscape, and millions of people would be dying from “climate change.”

    • Cascadian

      Get serious man. We had our first hot summer in the UK since 1976!

      Of course it’s climate change!

      (Can’t find the /sark switch on my keyboard)

    • I saw that movie! Very entertaining… The Day After 2012 vs the Core… a classic.

      /Sarc

  7. “they still need to understand the drivers of the sea ice changes and what role the tropics may be playing.” I thought that was Settled Science – Global Warming caused by CO2.

  8. Interesting conjecture.
    The authors deserve credit for a few reasons.
    They acknowledge right up front that the work is highly speculative at this point.
    No p-value mining, or at least not obvious to me.
    All data sets are properly archived, and are freely available. This point in particular is one people have been banging on about for quite some time around here.

    Anybody with the time and interest can fire up their trusty R-Studio and run the data through their statistical mill and see what they get.

  9. I have no trouble believing there’s a connection between Arctic sea ice extent and the global climate.

    The sea ice extent will influence the way heat is transferred to the Arctic and then to outer space. At a first glance you would predict that a warming Arctic would lead to less heat transfer from the equator and, therefore, a decrease in violent weather. By the same token, you would expect more violent weather during the Little Ice Age, and there’s evidence for that.

  10. My fourth daughter was born in 2007. I think it’s far, far more likely – since I live in the Midwest – that bringing my fourth daughter into the world a decade ago is the cause of decreased tornadic activity.

    • wait a min…wasn’t there some other recent study that said with less ice there would be more loops in the jet stream…and that would make more tornadoes?

    • I don’t know about the jet stream hypothesis but I would not be surprised to find a correlation between colder Arctic temperatures during the spring and summer months and increased tornadic activity. Seems to me that all weather requires contrasts in temperatures, pressures, dew points, etc. The greater the contrasts between colliding air masses the more potential there is for severe weather. Am I wrong?

    • The NRA is in a continuous fight against bogus correlations for gun possession and rights, https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180810/adventures-in-correlation , as climate skeptics are with climate alarmism. Maybe it is just my opinion, and I’d be very surprised if I was wrong, but people that hate guns and want to “Control” (means ban) them are the same people, or same kind of people, that believe mankind is causing “Global Warming”. They are lied to by liberals and the liberal media, and they apparently believe the lie. If they would only check the data for themselves…

    • When it comes to lying, the one-word lie “liberal” for someone who is the opposite of liberal ought to be the end of the road, but it won’t be.

      I’m looking forward to seeing what the post-modern equivalent of a guillotine looks like ….. I think.

  11. So, with arctic warming the jet stream moves north, gets wiggly, “polar vortices” head south to Miami, and the weather gets more extreme. Oh wait – the jet stream moves north, stays there, and the weather gets less extreme.
    Which is it, guys?

  12. In 1910, my grandfather was helping build the new Potlatch Co. lumber mill in Elk River, Idaho in the Clearwater Mountains. The largest single wildfire in US history, “The Big Burn”, destroyed 3 million acres of timber that summer in ID, MT, and WA, the size of Connecticut. Estimated $1 billion in lumber. So there’s a single wildfire event that consumed about 1/3 of the entire acreage burned in the US in 2017. It killed 87 people, most firefighters.

    Here is Ch 1 of a multi-part PBS series “The Big Burn”:

    https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/burn-chapter1/

  13. If nothing else, it’s mildly refreshing to see a scientist try to connect something widely decried (reduced sea ice) with something clearly beneficial (less tornadoes).

  14. Dr. Trapp may well be on to something (or not), but did they run any analysis vs ENSO, AMO, PDO, TNA states etc. to see if they also had a relationship to tornadoes?

    The Arctic no doubt has an influence on the Earth’s climate, but the Pacific is much bigger and contains much (much) more energy. A warm blob of water moving out of the tropics in the Gulf of Alaska has a tremendous effect on the Arctic and North America and by itself can influence Arctic sea ice.

    On the face of it, this seems a little too simplistic.

    • Example: “(although we do find that the statistical correlations between July TOR and July Oceanic Niño Index45 are small and insignificant during 1990–2015: Rp = −0.04, p = 0.865)”

      The authors make no bones about the fact that what they have is initial evidence in support of their hypothesis. Before suggesting it is “too simplistic,” you might want to ascertain what the authors themselves drew from their results in the original paper, and how they interpreted it in light of other research. Have you read it in its entirety?

      • So if it’s a BS paper then it’s someone else’s fault ’cause someone else wrote something that they read and liked it and it influenced their paper? LOL

  15. If there is a connection, it’s a very loose one. And as far as prediction goes, that’s a fantasy. They have no handle on what sea ice is going to do, year-to-year, or even decade-to-decade. And if they think CO2 is “driving” sea ice, then they are seriously deluded.

  16. The researchers performed statistical analyses of nearly three decades of historical weather and climate data and found significant correlations between tornado activity and the extent of Arctic sea ice – especially during the month July.

    My birthday’s in July. I’m putting together a statistical analysis of nearly three decades of historical weight gain and laziness around that day. So far, I’ve discovered a significant correlation between a lack of tornadic activity and an increase in my body weight and tendency toward laziness on that day.

    Who would’ve thought I had so much power.

    • sycomputing

      Me. I’m fat n’ lazy as well. But it was all because of when I was born, in February.

      Your hypothesis is therefore wrong, my statistical analysis demonstrates an unprecedented correlation between increased tornadic activity, my body weight and my predisposition to laziness.

      It’s my fault. But I’m only human.

      Besides, I used the terms unprecedented and predisposition so scientifically I must be correct.

      Nanny Nanny Boobie!

      🙂

  17. “A new study suggests that atmospheric circulation changes that coincide with a loss of Arctic sea ice may be partly to blame.”

    True or not, fewer tornado touchdowns seems to me like something to claim credit for, not blame.

  18. The researchers performed statistical analyses of …

    Inotherwords … no SCIENCE was performed to reach this declaration? I stopped reading after that statement. D’ya know the UNLIMITED nonsense I could SPEW from “correlating” data sets of completely unrelated measurements?

    When will we STOP funding$$$$ this utter GARBAGE … and start spending our limited resources to do good things for mankind … ?

    • Excellent way to evaluate a paper! Don’t read it, just make assumptions that it’s worthless.

      How do you know the variables are unrelated? Have you read the paper? How about the regressions? What would you consider “science”?

      What if 25 independent researchers found correlations between CO2 and trends in different climate and biological responses? Would that still just be 25 worthless studies, using wasted funding?

      • Kristi, Negative results are typically not publishable. If 20 groups study a similar type of drug and 19 of them give up because the results are not promising and 1 group out of 20 finds a correlation at the 95% level and publishes that does not prove anything. The 95% means that only 1 time in 20 will there be a false positive. Well, that false positive just got published. Now, say 400 groups see that and start there own studies of similar but not identical drugs and under similar but not identical conditions (as always occurs in science) and 380 have negative results and never report on it and 20 groups publish their 95% confidence level data. Now there are 21 reports of an effect but the other 399 negative results never got published. This is what studies like this (http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124) show and these are for the very best journals (i.e. Science, Nature, etc.) and for medical studies – not climate studies where there are many more variables, lots of computer model papers, and a clear possibility for bias for political and idealistic reasons.

  19. “The United States has experienced many changes in severe-weather behavior over the past decade, including fewer tornado touchdowns than in the past. A new study suggests that atmospheric circulation changes that coincide with a loss of Arctic sea ice may be partly to blame.” Blame? Blame? What, it didn’t conform to the bias so it’s a bad thing?

    • markl

      Too few extreme weather disasters is worse than too many in the alarmist lexicon. They can smugly enjoy the destruction of man with elevated weather extremes but they can’t explain a reduction in events, so they claim too few is worse than too many.

      My brain’s hurting now so I’ll stop.

    • Please note the: “The United States has experienced many changes in severe-weather behavior over the past decade,…” Just gotta throw in the CAGW scary stuff. Note they refer to a single decade; crap in a 70+ year cycle.

  20. Let’s review. Perhaps I am wrong and the good people commenting here will correct me.
    The position of the jet stream is the RESULT of the warmer southern air mass clashing with the colder northern air mass. The more powerful wins and the jet stream moves north or south as a result.
    Over the central plains of the U.S. if the jet stream is moved north it is because the southern air is winning but that brings the warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico right up along with it. It is the clash of warm moist gulf of Mexico air mass with the cold dry Canadian air mass that causes the thunderstorms and tornadoes.
    So it would seem logical that a warmer arctic makes the Canadian air mass warmer so that it is more easily driven north by the southern air mass and the jet stream track moves north. But I don’t see the connection to less thunderstorm activity and tornadoes unless the warm southern air mass cools as it flows north thus reducing the difference in air masses further resulting in more stable air.
    Did I just answer my own question?

    • The Gulf air also loses moisture as it cools, ie it rains.

      Nebraska has been cooler than usual this year.

    • Tom in Florida

      Tsk.

      It doesn’t work that way in alarmist climate science and you know it.

      Write out one hundred times “I am a climate automaton and will brook no contradiction”.

      There, feel better now?

    • The position of the jet stream is the RESULT of ….” and so on.

      Jet streams are formed in the atmosphere at altitudes of about 8 to 15 kilometers, and are planet spanning, or nearly so.
      You write of regional (limited) storms — the warmer (southern) air coming from the Gulf of Mexico is less dense than the cooler air farther north, and the less dense rides up (more or less) over the cooler. “Win” isn’t a term that fits. The phrase “more powerful” is better applied to muscle cars and pickup trucks.
      Other things involved: Baroclinic waves (eddies) in upper atmospheric circulations, land masses, and the physics of conservation of angular momentum.
      These are interrelated and complex, and why the patterns are so difficult to explain.

  21. I thought basic weather was generally understood. That heat around the Equator from the Sun mixing with the cold from the Poles creates high and low pressure turbulence. The more Ice at the Poles there is, the stronger the weather will become. Because of the difference between hot and cold mixing. Remove the Polar Ice and the whole Earth becomes a Tropical Weather Climate with more Atmospheric Water. Where more Ice at the Poles and Glacial conditions creates stronger storms globally, from the hot around the Equator from the Sun, and less Atmospheric Water that’s condensed to closer to the Equator.

    • johchi7

      Duh!

      It’s CO2 wotdunnit mate. Stick your science, I knows best!

      Quick, quick, sarc key…….Oh never mind, too late.

  22. I seriously cannot imagine any reputable Journal publishing this garbage. Things have really gone downhill drastically in the climate discipline.

  23. >>
    . . . they admit that they are only at the tip of the iceberg in terms of understanding the overall effects of climate change . . . .
    <<

    Sometimes the truth slips out. In other words, “They don’t have a clue!”

    Jim

  24. found significant correlations between tornado activity and the extent of Arctic sea ice – especially during the month July.

    A bit of googling suggests that July is the hottest month of the year (hence fastest rate of ice melting) and also the month of the year with the lowest incidence of major tornadoes.

    They found a correlation with summer.

    Duh.

  25. “…As Arctic sea ice retreats, the jet stream migrates from its traditional summer path over states like Montana and South Dakota to areas farther north…”

    Maybe a migrating jet stream is leading to sea ice retreat, not the other way around…

  26. ‘global climate change taking place in the Arctic’

    I don’t think that has any actual meaning.

    • Yes. Surely any warming which might have occurred in the Arctic is regional.

      The Antarctic, by contrast, hasn’t warmed at all.

  27. I wonder when they will run out of fraudulent ideas to perpetuate nonexistent “global warming”. Probably never as long as public funds are doled out to pseudo-scientists for fraudulent research. When the Trump witch hunt is over, perhaps Trump will clean house at NOAA and NASA, the liars at the forefront of this conspiracy.

  28. Statistical mumbo jumbo searching for a ‘p’ they can call significant.

    “To minimize the impact of these biases, we have limited our primary analysis to 1990–2015, which is mostly during the era of the Next Generation Weather Radars (NEXRAD)51”

    That little superscript reference number 51? It refers to this paper. “Whiton, R. C., Smith, P. L., Bigler, S. G., Wilk, K. E. & Harbuck, A. C. History of operational use of weather radar by U.S. weather services. Part I: The Pre-NEXRAD era. Wea. Forecast. 13, 219–243 (1998)

    NEXRAD became operational in 1988 with full implementation, operation and ability over the years. Since that early period, Nexrad has undergone improvements, software and hardware changes.

    Great advances occurred to NEXRAD’s capabilities along with improvements to NEXRAD analysis during the last five-eight years of this alleged study.

    “Arctic sea ice data are from the National Snow and Ice Data Center archive (http://nsidc.org).53 We use SIE, which is defined as the area with at least 15% sea-ice cover, and determined from Nimbus 7‐ SMMR/SSM/I and DMSP SSMI Passive Microwave data. Limitations and biases of these SIE data are discussed elsewhere.”

    Limitations and biases that apparently not represented with error bounds.

    “The North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR),55 obtained from the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/), is used to evaluate possible physical linkages between SIE and TOR. Composite standardized anomalies in relevant field variables are computed for the years with the five highest and five lowest SIE and TOR in July, based on the detrended data. The standardized anomaly is the anomaly from the 1981–2010 mean divided by the 1981–2010 standard deviation.”

    Modeled sparse data is then used to find assumed correlations? BAsed upon jet stream movements?

    From that NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory site:

    “The Arctic is a critical region that significantly affects and is effected{sic} by global climate. Without understanding mechanisms of the Arctic atmosphere, it is impossible to accurately project the future path of global climate change. It is an under-observed region because of the operational difficulties of taking measurements in remote, sparsely populated areas with harsh environmental conditions.”

    Nowhere in Trapp’s research is correlation identified, evaluated or proven; other than through mutable statistics, run until results they liked were gained.

    Causation remains unproven.

    Just more press release glory and funding seeking.

  29. Ever since the global warming and then climate change debate started everything that’s bad with weather would happen. Less ice, severe droughts, floods, more and worse hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones, more cat 5 tornados. The list goes on. It seems when there is a result that doesn’t fit the prediction a researcher comes up with a reason why not but still links it back to climate change or CO2.

  30. You think THAT is a connection? Well how about this: My research shows that 100% of a small group I am studying that ever ate carrots, died within about 100 years.

    I just need a grant or two to expand my study to a larger group – but it looks promising! A few $million should do it.

  31. I don’t see the connection. Arctic sea ice is increasing and tornadoes are getting less frequent and less powerful. We may be close to setting a record low for the number of tornadoes moving through Tornado Alley this year.

    Tornado strength and numbers are definitely down. It doesn’t look like it has anything to do with Arctic ice. This study certainly didn’t show any connection, as far as I could see.

  32. “Because sea ice and the atmosphere are coupled, the response of the atmosphere is also relatively slow

    sigh. welcome to my beautiful nightmare in the Land of Confusion-
    So we have here: A Little Gem – and Garbage

    Firstly garbage – “relative”
    Relative to what? Another atmosphere perchance, so how many do we have?
    Another time, another place maybe but: Do Please Give Us A Clue: Mr Grinning Idiot Scientist. Keep practising that look to get the superb smug of Gore The Great.

    The gem: “ice & atmosphere are coupled”
    Here we have a (subconscious)** admission that what happens on the ground affects what happens in the atmosphere – the subject of my repetitive ravings since I first ever writ anything on here. Good on ya.

    ** The human animal cannot pass untruth. He *knows* without knowing, that forest-cutting, paddy-fielding, ploughing, agriculture-in-general *and* Urban Heat can and does affect the weather.

  33. How can less tornados be assosiated with extreme weather. It is doublespeak. Call it what it is: milder weather.

    Extreme weather is a meaningless PC term that is suddenly all the rage. What is the scientific definition.

    If it is normal to get tornados how can a tornado be extreme weather. That would make normal weather the new extreme. It is nonsensenonsense.

  34. “The team believes that the correlation between Arctic ice retreat and jet stream migration may lead to advances in seasonal severe weather prediction.”

    The use of the word ‘retreat’ is emotive and meaningless. Every year the arctic ‘retreats’ by approx 10,000,000 sq. km.
    Connection?
    Longest day = mid June
    Peak Tornado = early June
    Minimum Arctic Ice = mid September

    And Hurricanes?
    Longest day = mid June
    Peak sea temp Miami = mid August
    Peak sea temp South UK = mid August
    Peak Hurricanes = early Sept
    Minimum Arctic Ice = mid September

  35. Scientifically trained people can easily see that climate alarmists and other pseudo-scientists of that kind use nonsense correlations to prove their assumptions, e.g.:
    – the cold 30 year post WWII period with increasing CO2 was “just weather” (while it already then actually falsified the CO2 hypothesis completely)
    – the following 30 year period (1976-2006) with both increasing temperature and increasing CO2 levels on the other hand, is coined “dramatic climate change”

    What we actually observe however, is that fanatically blinded climate scientists claim a relationship between two variables that appear to have interdependence or association with each other – but actually do not. Nonsense correlation is often caused by a third factor that is not apparent at the time of examination, re my example above where e.g. natural cycles are overlooked and can explain the contradictive CO2-effects.

  36. I can see Peter Stormare (the Russian from Armageddon) holding the wire after drawing lots saying “is this good or bad?”

  37. The following is from Wiki

    “However, in 1 billion years’ time, the Sun will be 10% brighter than it is now, making it hot enough for Earth to lose enough hydrogen to space to cause it to lose all of its water.”

    Now this is something we should all wet our beds over. The time to get off this planet has now been reduced to 1 billion years. That means that we have to find another planet at least as large as ours somewhere in our galaxy. Since the nearest star is 4 light years away. we dont have any time to lose. We must explore outer space (in the realm of Star Trek ) for the survival of our species. Since the earliest plants only formed around 1 billion years ago, that means mankind will never be able to inhabit any planet for more than 2 billion years. Homo sapiens will be forever doomed to be a migrating form of life; reduced to planet hopping every 2 billion years. Star Trek got it right.

  38. From most North American severe thunderstorm creation, the southern branch of the polar jet is a critical component. This branch is influenced in a large part by ENSO and the Pacific North American teleconnection. Arctic sea ice has nothing to do with our severe weather patterns.

    Another component is the interaction of ENSO and the strength and direction of the LLJ (low level jet) in the Southern Plains. The LLJ is of paramount importance in severe weather development.

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00568.1

    Again, Arctic ice has nothing to do with this. We’re talking tropical teleconnections and not action in the high latitudes.

  39. Does the amount of Arctic Sea Ice affect the climate,

    or does the climate affect the amount of Arctic Sea Ice?

  40. So, tornado activity that was supposedly increasing due to climate change failed to materialise, and so now is decreasing due to climate change.

    OK…I think I got it…

  41. Let me see if I understand. A reduction in tornado activity has resulted in the reduction in sea ice?

  42. Let me see if I understand. A reduction in tornado activity has resulted in the reduction in sea ice?

    • No, they are exploring for why tornadoes have become fewer.
      They theorize that the jet stream, influenced (somehow) by sea ice changes, may be responsible.

  43. Ye ol’ post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy..

    Ironically, physics show global warming should decrease latitudinal temperature disparity, which decreases wind-shear incidence/severity, thus decreasing the incidence/severity of many types of severe weather phenomena: tornadoes, hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, thunderstorms, hail, etc.

    This is consistent with IPCC’s AR5 report which finally admitted to no increasing trends of incidence/severity in 60~100 years (depending on weather phenomena) for: tornadoes, hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, thunderstorms, hail, etc.

    Another irony is that if global temps do start falling when the PDO, AMO and NOA are all in their respective 30-year ocean cool cycles from the early 2020’s, and a 50~75-yr Grand Solar Minimum event starts cooling the planet from around 2020, it’s logical to assume that global latitudinal temperature disparity will increase, wind-shear severity/incidence will increase, and severe weather incidence/severity will all start trending up…

    CAGW advocates will, ironically, switch the narrative away from ocean cycle/GSM global cooling to increasing trends of severe weather incidence/severity from global cooling…. (which is the sole purpose of why CAGW advocates switched the name of “The Cause” from Global Warming to Climate Change)…

    Just another example of ILLI (Immutable Law of Leftist Irony)….

    • “if global temps do start falling when the PDO, AMO and NOA are all in their respective 30-year ocean cool cycles from the early 2020’s, and a 50~75-yr Grand Solar Minimum event starts cooling the planet from around 2020…”

      Uh huh, and if temperatures continue to rise through all that then you can kiss your propter hoc goodbye right?

      • Your speculations go against both observed data, and physics. The Equatorial regions of the world will remain hot and humid regardless of what cycles the oceans are going through. However, the higher latitudes will undergo cooling, which will increase the global temperature gradient that exists between the equator and poles. Observation between 1945-1978 give us plenty of information concerning North American severe weather. During that period, there was slight global cooling which was brought on by cooling in the North Pacific and Atlantic SSTs. Not only did the Northern Hemisphere experience some of the coldest 20th Century winters, but also some of the worst severe thunderstorm outbreaks. The infamous tornado outbreak of April 2 1974 (The so-called Day of the Killer Tornado), where 200 separate tornadoes hit the US in a 24 hour period.

    • That said, looking for the specifics as to how tornado activity is reduced is a good thing.
      I did not find the paper to be a fear mobgering hype of CO2 as the control knob of evil, which makes it better than most climate papers getting published today.

  44. At first I couldnt believe the esoteric nature of this study. Attempting to relate tornados to arctic sea ice extent?????????????????????? However it finally dawned on me after reading the following:

    “our exploration is also motivated by the U.S. tornado incidence over the past decade, which except for a few years has been abnormally low, as has the Arctic sea ice. The purpose of this paper is to present initial evidence in support of the basic hypothesis is that low Arctic sea ice extent (SIE) contributes to a reduction in U.S. tornado activity as quantified by EF1+ tornado days ”

    I would guess that these researchers were told to do this study with the proviso that funding would be found. This could be a demonstration of just how evil the whole global warming climate science scam has become. The reason is that since the climate scientists can’t claim that there are more extreme weather events, they have to try to show that if there are decreases in an extreme weather event, these decreases are caused by something else which in turn is caused by global warming. Look for other crazy correlation studies in the future.

    The following paragraph shows that these researchers know very little about the whole subject. It also shows that they should NOT have done this study before understanding the drivers of the sea ice changes and what role the tropics may be playing.

    “Because sea ice and the atmosphere are coupled, the response of the atmosphere is also relatively slow. We can use this property to help make long-term predictions for tornadoes and hail, similar to the way predictions are made for hurricane seasons.” But before doing so, Trapp said they still need to understand the drivers of the sea ice changes and what role the tropics may be playing.”

    • “The following paragraph shows that these researchers know very little about the whole subject…”

      A Professor of atmospheric sciences, what could he possible know about this stuff?
      Thank christ we have the worlds greatest climate scientist right here to set us straight.

      Ever heard of the Dunning Kruger effect Alan?

      • Anybody that tries to correlate tornados with Arctic sea ice extent should be stripped of his PhD . For far too long climate scientists have been getting away with this nonsense.

        All the world’s media and politicians keep saying that there are more extreme weather events now than before. The climate scientists have fed them this false information . Here is Canada’s tornado data. I have asked Environment Canada where is the data after 2009?

        https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/65658050-7a80-4da3-9a09-da137c203a34

        Canada’s tornado data like every other tornado data in the world DOES NOT SHOW ANY INCREASE IN ACTIVITY. The same goes for every other extreme weather event except for river hillcrest overflow which shows minor increase.

        THERE ARE NO MORE TORNADOS,HURRICANES/CYCLONES,FLOODS,WILDFIRES,STORMS,DROUGHTS, NOR SURFACE TEMPERATURE EXTREMES THAN THERE EVER WERE.

        THE BIG LIE OF THE MEDIA AND POLITICIANS HAS NOT BEEN COUNTERED BY CLIMATE SCIENTISTS. In fact climate scientists like Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt keep pushing this lie. Is there no honour left in this world or is it all groupthink and religion?

  45. Why should lack of tornado activity or lack of sea ice be anything but good news for humans. Why does climate science try and spin change as negative.

    If the past was so wonderfull why do humans spend trillions of dollars every year to change the world. Look at where you live. Does it look the same as 150 years ago. Then why expect the climate to have remained the same when all over the earth the same thing has happened. Everywhere you look humans have change the local landscape yet climate science thinks that change is bad. If it is bad why are we spending money to make changes.

    What other branch of science tries to label observations as good or bad. Is it good or bad that 1+1=2. Change results in winners and losers.

    If the climate is changing then it is way more effective economically to invest in change.

  46. One can scour the classical literature concerning the formation and development of North American severe thunderstorms (See Miller 1972, Doswell 1984, Maddox, Ostby, Galway, etc…) and you will not see mention of arctic sea ice or any other high latitude parameters used to as either proxies or direct correlations concerning the trends of severe convection development.

  47. In the paper, Figure 1 shows the correlation over 8 months for detrended series and original series. Also change of tornados with time – biggest R with time is July.

    Both sea ice and tornados change with time, so only the detrended crossplots should be used. But when making multiple cross-plots by sub-dividing the data the probability of spurious correlation should be checked by taken into account of the number of comparisons performed. They claim significance for July with R = 0.48. However, if you do a Student T-test adjusted for 8 comparisons, with 26 samples the R=0.48 has probability = 0.1 ie it fails a significance test. (I bet they did 12 monthly comparisons originally!).

    See Kalkomey (1997) for a nice simple explanation. Its an article entitled “Potential risks when using seismic attributes as predictors of reservoir properties”

    Peer review should have caught this paper. Just 1 month has significant correlation, and the months either side have zilch? June has a flat line regressionand August is a pronounced negative. Really? That gives them the following comment in the introduction:

    “Here, robust statistical correlations are found between tornado activity and SIE during boreal summer, specifically in July.”

    That should read ONLY in July – and even then its spurious.

  48. Having spent my career managing Illinois state educational facilities, I’ve watched as eccentrics build card house postulations which propel them to department chairmanship, where they become eccentric and egotistical until they either commit ethics breaches and are forced to resign, or drive out enough of the good faculty that the Dean of the school helps them move up to a larger university. Many of us at SIU considered UIUC to be the ultimate rest home for eccentric ideas and socialist group-think.

    My own thoughts are that these folks missed the boat, so to speak, that ocean processes and SSTs may well be the causative influence both of polar sea ice cycles and of tornado activity cycles through the wonders of atmospheric water vapor, and its effect on pressures. Also, It takes very little water vapor to raise the air temperature of the Arctic in winter. I’d look for correlations of MJO activity, ENSO state, and jetstream activity if I were trying to connect sea ice and tornados.

Comments are closed.