Guest Essay by Kip Hansen
Last week Dr. Roy Spencer treated us to the latest UAH Global Temperature Update. Overall, the ”global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for October, 2018 was +0.22 deg. C, up a little from +0.14 deg. C in September”.
Dr. Spencer was kind enough to include in his post, as he usually does, a chart with the actual figures from his ongoing research. The entire post was mirrored here at WUWT.
Here’s the part that I found interesting, which only can be seen if one graphs the data from this chart:
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 22 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2017 01 +0.33 +0.32 +0.34 +0.10 +0.28 +0.95 +1.22
2017 02 +0.39 +0.58 +0.20 +0.08 +2.16 +1.33 +0.21
2017 03 +0.23 +0.37 +0.09 +0.06 +1.22 +1.24 +0.98
2017 04 +0.28 +0.29 +0.26 +0.22 +0.90 +0.23 +0.40
2017 05 +0.45 +0.40 +0.49 +0.41 +0.11 +0.21 +0.06
2017 06 +0.22 +0.34 +0.10 +0.40 +0.51 +0.10 +0.34
2017 07 +0.29 +0.31 +0.28 +0.51 +0.61 -0.27 +1.03
2017 08 +0.41 +0.41 +0.42 +0.47 -0.54 +0.49 +0.78
2017 09 +0.55 +0.52 +0.57 +0.54 +0.30 +1.06 +0.60
2017 10 +0.63 +0.67 +0.60 +0.47 +1.22 +0.83 +0.86
2017 11 +0.36 +0.34 +0.38 +0.27 +1.36 +0.68 -0.12
2017 12 +0.42 +0.50 +0.33 +0.26 +0.45 +1.37 +0.36
2018 01 +0.26 +0.46 +0.06 -0.11 +0.59 +1.36 +0.42
2018 02 +0.20 +0.25 +0.16 +0.03 +0.92 +1.19 +0.18
2018 03 +0.25 +0.40 +0.10 +0.07 -0.32 -0.33 +0.59
2018 04 +0.21 +0.31 +0.11 -0.12 -0.00 +1.02 +0.69
2018 05 +0.18 +0.41 -0.05 +0.03 +1.93 +0.18 -0.39
2018 06 +0.21 +0.38 +0.04 +0.12 +1.19 +0.83 -0.55
2018 07 +0.32 +0.43 +0.21 +0.29 +0.51 +0.30 +1.37
2018 08 +0.19 +0.22 +0.17 +0.12 +0.06 +0.09 +0.26
2018 09 +0.14 +0.15 +0.14 +0.24 +0.88 +0.21 +0.19
2018 10 +0.22 +0.31 +0.12 +0.34 +0.25 +1.11 +0.38
The graph looks like this:
Sharp eyes will notice that I have not used all the data — I graph only Global, Northern Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere, Tropics and the Arctic. (Leaving out US Contiguous 48 States and Australia — which I did not need and they only added clutter — each being already represented in their respective hemispheres.)
It is an interesting looking graph from several viewpoints. Here’s what I find so interesting:
- There are four traces that form a cluster across the graph, being very close to one another in a band about 0.5 °C in width: Global, N and S Hemispheres and the Tropics. The temperature anomalies from the long-term means are generally in step, but not lock-step, between regions.
- Except one: The Arctic. The Arctic trace is very different from the other four.
Here is the Arctic annotated with the seasons:
The Arctic shows more variability, both quantitatively and qualitatively.
The two Arctic winters are far more anomalous than the two summers. To me, the Arctic trace looks a bit chaotic with a seasonal overlay. Between January and February 2018, there is a shift of 1.6 °C in the anomaly.
NOTE: UAH’s “Arctic” is really denoted “NoPol” — North Pole — and is defined as 60N – 90N. It is not DMI’s “above 80N” nor is it “within the Arctic Circle”. It is larger than both.
The Danes have been treating us to Arctic temperature comparisons for many years. The three years covered by the UAH graphs above look like this when overlaid on one another:
We see that the Danish Meteorological Institute has calculated the average temperatures above the 80th parallel (yes, it is a model result) and we see that Arctic temperatures have been a lot less cold than the long-term average — 10-15 °C less cold. Even at that, Winters are running 20 degrees below freezing and Falls about 15 degrees below freezing. The Summers, however, have not been anomalously warmer. Summers show about 100 days of temperatures above freezing — and that by only a degree or so (never breaking above 275K — 0 °C = 273.15K)
This (painstakingly created) animation shows the DMI above 80N from 1970 thru Oct 2018. Images sourced from DMI’s Arctic Temperatures page.
The DMI data is in agreement with the UAH data, at least in a qualitative sense, in the last three years of the animation. It takes a good eye to see that nothing really changes much until after 2005, when there is an oddity, then after 2010 things change even more.
The Northern Hemisphere, in the UAH data, taken as a whole, does not show this type of variation.
Now, north of the 80th parallel is a very small portion of the planet but “the Arctic”– defined as the area inside the Arctic Circle at 66.5N — is quite a bit larger. UAH’s “NoPol” is defined as 60N-90N, is larger yet.
Both are part of the Northern Hemisphere.
For comparison, here is the Arctic Sea Ice extent long term average laid over the Arctic Circle. The 1981-2010 average is outlined in red (I think). You see that the 2016 and 2017 Maximum extents just about fill the long term average, with some empty space around the edges in the Bering Sea and the area north of Scandinavia.
Why show you Sea Ice Extent? — just to show that the UAH temperature high winter anomaly (north of the 80th parallel) isn’t caused by a lack of sea ice — almost all of that area is covered in sea ice in the dead of Winter.
Here is one last set of graphs, again from the DMI:
These graphs start in 1960 — about the middle of the 1945-1975 cooling period. Globally, temperatures start to rise again in about 1980 but NOT Arctic temperatures. DMI’s Arctic temperature (above 80 ° North) are steady, if variable, right around the long term (1958-2002) mean. It is not until 2005 that anything exceptional begins to be seen.
So, what does that leave? That’s what I’d like to know. Here’s Dr. Spencer’s UAH Lower Troposphere Global (top — marked with a blue line at 2005) and that regional three year graph (bottom):
One last one, really this time. This is UAH Arctic (UAH’s “NoPol 60N-90N” which is spatially considerably more than DMI’s “above 80N” and more area than “above the Arctic circle”):
Since the beginning of 2016 (highest spike in Arctic blue on the left), Global seems to follow the Arctic signal (which is 60N-90N) and has the same profile. The last data point is Oct 2018. [Note: The reference period for this graph is 1981-2010]
Here is my list of questions: (I have no answers — and I hope the readers here can shed some light on the matter)
- Why is the Lower Troposphere Temperature in that circle at the top of the world, 60N-90N, behaving so differently than the rest of the world ?
- How much does that odd behavior affect the global record?
- The DMI modelled Arctic Temperature, for north of the 80th parallel, also shows anomalously warm winters and springs, seemingly confirming that there is something going on, but only since 2005. Why is that?
- How is it that the DMI above 80N seasonal graphs show seasonal anomalies from 5-8 degrees, but UAH Arctic Lower Trop shows less than 1.5 as an extreme? Is there some physical measurement error in the DMI figures since 2005? Was there some change in the measurement or model? Or is there something physical happening (sea ice doesn’t change in the same period)?
# # # # #
Author’s Comment Policy:
Readers can consider this an Open Thread for comments on ALL MATTERS ARCTIC.
I thought I would find something interesting — and I did, but not answers. Not to worry, good questions are always more valuable than good answers.
I know Arctic warming is predicted by the AGW Hypothesis — but it only substantially appears after 2005.
All collegial comments are welcome — please discuss, not argue.
# # # # #
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I would first check and compare the number, i.e. count, of temperature determinations per region in the UAH plots.
Cheers.
I like looking for simple stuff first. What if all that white stuff on the sea/ground buggers up the ‘radiance’ measured by the satellite. After all its not temperatures that are being measured, they are just inferred by some BS model.
JimW ==> In this case we are comparing like to like — UAH to UAH and sidechecking with DMI.
Unless UAH has done something wacky in 2005-2008 or so, there must be something other than a long-term inability to deal with snow and sea ice.
The Arctic shows more variability, both quantitatively and qualitatively.
I’ve done my thousands of hours of station data, and it occurs to me that, while the cold spots are inherently volatile, there are also the issues of much smaller area and relatively few stations. And that nearly always makes the zigs and zags bigger.
Evan ==> UAH is satellite data not subject to “number of stations”.
Joe Bastardi has had several discussions concerning injection of water vapor into the atmosphere as a result of the super NINOs. His theory/conjecture (my words) is that the temperature dependence of the mixing ratios will affect the low temperature limit in the polar region and consequently will result in higher low temperatures. This is a non-linear function which affects higher temperatures less and is seen in near normal summer high temperatures. I’m not an expert in this field by any measure so please excuse me if I’ve somehow confused this but from a standpoint of water vapor and saturation vapor pressure this seems to make some sense. I’m sure the overall system has more complex interactions that affect the global air flow and water vapor transport. I’m not aware of any discussion of this by Joe outside Weatherbell which requires a subscription. If someone has more references to this I’d be interested to see the comments.
Dan ==> Thanks for the tip to check Bastardi.
Hi Kip……..Interesting graphs and puzzling observations. Thanks for posting this.
Please note that there is a typo in the text/legend just below your last graph. It should read “(highest spike in Arctic Blue on the LEFT)”………not right. Cheers!
Phil Rae ==> Thanks for reading carefully and closely! My editor cleans up 99% of my typos, but there is always at least one!
Thanks!
Thanks for the note, Phil. Fixed. I hate typos.
w.
Only reliable temperature in the general Arctic area are those available from just outside the Arctic circle, i.e. from Reykjavik met office. Some 6 or 7 years ago I did ten year forecast based on some other long term data and promptly forgot about it.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/RF.htm
I’m currently far away from my pc so unable to update and see if the forecast was a failure or otherwise. It would be great if anyone else would like to have a go, at least for the annual temps where the scale is actual temperature in degrees C, while winter one might be too, but it looks like the anomaly, so best ignored unless annual turns out to be good.
I think the reason for high variability in the Arctic is storm-system-related phase change releasing latent heat, and high and -pressure centers moving warm Pacific air northward at the higher elevations, and warm/wet air masses carried northward through the gap between Greenland and Northern Europe.
to help visualize this, below is a url for nullschool.net precipitable water, spherical rendering, with the north pole in the middle.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2018/10/01/0900Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=total_precipitable_water/orthographic=-0.68,91.40,671/loc=-115.949,89.968
The gold color is very dry air, and the blue is higher moisture.
A few things of note:
1) There are two strong cyclones visible, one in the Atlantic and one in the Pacific. The moisture elevated from these two storms is picked up by lesser power low pressure systems. In the Pacific, one south of China (at the top, right of center) a second just south of the Alaskan Archipelago (top, left of center). The latter of these is feeding moisture northward, and getting picked up by otherwinds and carried into the high Arctic, as seen by the blue Total Precipitable Water (TPW) content extending North of 80 degrees.
2) The Water Vapor from Cyclone in the Atlantic is connected by winds to a low pressure system between Iceland and Greenland, which is quite close to the arctic circle.
3) Now, put nullschool in motion. Click on the word ‘Earth’ in the lower left corner, and the controls will be displayed. Find the line labelled ‘Control’, and the double right arrow on that line. Clicking on this will advance the display by 1 day per click, and you will be able to see the daily changes in moisture pattern motion through that month.
4) After just 1 click, the moisture from the Pacific side moves to cover the north pole, and extends all the way to the Bering Sea, shown as a top-down motion in from this perspective.
5) With a few clicks… the blue color dissipates in this area, replaced with gold, representing very dry air. What happened to the precipitable water? It phase changed into water (rain) or snow. Surface temp at the North pole is below freezing.
6) But, it is not below freezing at 850 hectoPascals of pressure. Using the controls, find the line marked “Height’, and click on the 850 to the right of that. Also find the line Labeled ‘Overlay’, and select ‘Temp’ See the green to the north of Alaska, the Berents and Eastern Siberia? Almost 9C.
7) In this configuration, click a few times to advance the date. The green area (above freezing at 850 hPa pressure) extends all the way to the North Pole. What is less obvious is that the temperature is decreasing. If you click in the green area, the temp is displayed in the upper left of the screen.
8) Advancing the date to October 8, the temp at 850 hPa is -3C.
Through the same time period, there are a couple of cyclones pumping warm air up the East Coast of Greenland, quite visible at 850hPa, especially on the 11th-13th. By the 14th, temp at that elevation has returned to below freezing. At the surface, temps stay above freezing between Greenland and North of Europe.
Typo sorry: high- and low-pressure centers… in the first paragraph.
Steven Fraser ==> Thanks for the link to nullschool.net. I’llhave to take some time and play with that following your instructions….
Stephen Fraser, re nullschool.net link for October 1.
FWIW, there was precipitable water in the Arctic in early October. Temperatures were rising around that time. The Arctic air is now much dryer and temperatures are falling.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2018/11/10/0900Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=total_precipitable_water/orthographic=-89.47,85.95,671/loc=-115.949,89.968
Oops, sorry, should’ve finished reading before clicking the link and commenting.
I suspect instrumentation differences and that the newer polar orbiters have better sensors. It’s difficult to distinguish between clouds and ice during polar winters and this was especially true for older polar orbiters. In 2005, they deployed NOAA-18 which was the first to use a significantly different and upgraded microwave sounding instrument.
UAH measures mid-troposhere temperatures, not the surface.
You are wrong. Roy Spencer’s site quotes
“We describe the major changes in processing strategy, including a new method for monthly gridpoint averaging; a new multi-channel (rather than multi-angle) method for computing the lower tropospheric (LT) temperature product; and a new empirical method for diurnal drift correction. We also show results for the mid-troposphere (“MT”, from MSU2/AMSU5), tropopause (“TP”, from MSU3/AMSU7), and lower stratosphere (“LS”, from MSU4/AMSU9). “
UAH measures mid-troposhere temperatures, not the surface.
tty is correct, UAH v6 takes data from 0-14km altitude with the peak sensitivity at 4km.
The microwave data is used to establish atmospheric temperature profiles and this instrument went through a significant upgrade starting with NOAA-18 in 2005. It’s also not just the result of one instrument, but the combined result from many instruments. There’s also a whole lot of processing involved, which is subject to change and when it does, it’s generally not applied to older data, especially since its often specific to new sensors that aren’t available on older satellites.
Possibly related to the stability of the polar vortex. Stable vortex == stable arctic air (cold)
Unstable vortex == unstable arctic air (cold air goes south replaced by warm air from somewhere else)
The unstable vortex is associated with solar minima.
Ooops! Kip……my apologies! Please scrub my last comment regarding left/right.
There’s no typo……only me reading your post badly on a small screen. Sorry about that!
However, you do have a typo just above your graphics showing the latitudes encompassed by the two different measurements.
“NoPol” is defined as 60N-980N, is larger yet…..should read “60N-90N, is larger yet” Thanks and, again, sorry about the earlier screw-up.
Phil ==> Thanks again.
The Arctic area has a smaller land mass than the other areas measured, so fewer data points were used in its calculation.
Fewer data points means you are going to have more deviations.
If you want to do an apples-to-apples comparison, you would need to get the raw underlying data and use the same number of data points from each region to calculate the regional averages.
Otherwise, of course the areas with more data points will have more smoothing and less deviation.
Bart Tali ==> But UAH is a satellite data set “measuring” temperature (radiance) of the atmosphere.
No Kip, UAH is not a data set “measuring” temperature. UAH is the output of a MODEL that translates microwave brightness into a “temperature.”
…
You think the output of a model is “data?”
Dave ==> Thus the quotes riund measuribg….radiance is used as a proxie for temperature and checked against other data, such as radiosone balloons,
Sorry Kip, the “riund measuribg” is meaningless.
…
Model output is a proxy?……..you mean like tree rings?
Just like a thermometer is a MODEL that translates expansion/contraction of a medium (or more recently changes of the electical resistivity) into temperature.
Temperature is actually a statistical distribution of molecular movement and not directly measurable. If anything radiation temperature is less indirect.
RSS takes the same inputs that UAH takes, but the output of the RSS MODEL is different than the output from UAH.
The underlying data for UAH is from the AMSU satellite.
Described here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/
There are fewer raw data points for smaller geographical regions.
How does the question fit in with various oscillation changes from the mid 90’s forward (PDO, NAO etc..)? We did also reach a significant ice minimum in 2007 that could provide some logical linking relationship.
ossqss ==> Yes, but our hinky graph is hinky in the Winter when sea ice is at a Maximum.
Waxing sarcastic: Despite being a non polar molecule (both charge and moment being balanced by its symmetry), CO2 can be seen in recent NASA visualizations migrating to both poles in the upper atmosphere. The effect is pronounced in the arctic because both human and natural (soil) CO2 is predominantly northern hemisphere.
Seriously: Despite being anathma around here, adiabatic effects from higher winter pressure could easily account for the temperature increases. After 2005 (possibly in conjunction with a “great Pacific” shift), this pressure could exacerbate arctic oscillation ie more meridional exzcursions.
I love adiabatic effects. They explain the stability of climate and reduce CO2 to a piffle.
I would put it down to a lack of high pressure over the arctic region in recent years in winter if there was high pressure dominating the weather then the Arctic region would be losing a lot more heat by radiation then it is now and would be colder despite cold air being pushed out of the Arctic. This year we have the threat of high pressure becoming dominant in the Arctic region from the weather models but like last tear it is taking a long time to happen. I remember when we had warm temperatures in December in the UK recently when it rose to I believe 15 degrees centigrade maximum temperature one day, that day however everyone had to drive with headlights on at noon which shows that it is the warm air that is pushed into the Arctic that we have to consider not cold air being pushed out of the Arctic.
Kip,
Very interesting post, thank you. As you know, I have been looking at the HadSST3 data recently and have not got very far as yet, but some initial comments follow. The reason for bringing this up here is not to distract from your post, but to add an additional and possibly relevant factor. First, bearing in mind that this is sea surface anomaly data and not air temperatures, look at this graph:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3nh/from:1990/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1990
There is a clear divergence in character from early 2003 onwards, with the northern hemisphere (NH) anomolies being heavily influenced by the annual (seasonal) cycle. Prior to 2003, NH and SH anomalies tracked pretty closely. Further, the NH peaks reflect the summer months (generally August) while the troughs, which are more consistent with the SH data, reflect the winter months (generally March). So, in a sense, the exact opposite of the air temperature anomalies that Kip has highlighted. More detailed analysis is required to see if/how the NH air and sea surface anomaly data may be linked.
Preliminary analysis indicates that the appearance of the annual cycle in the HadSST3 anomaly data is definitely linked to the more northern latitudes. There are data issues above 75N with zero or a limited number of observations in each 5×5 degree cell, but these have only a minor effect on the overall NH values due to area weighting. The more interesting area seems to be from 75N down to about 45N between June and September. Very provisionally, there is some evidence that the highest average cell anomolies (based on 5 degree latitude zones) shift southwards as the summer progresses. Incidentally, you can view the distribution of individual cells and their values on a monthly basis over the last few years here:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/charts_past.html
If anyone has done a detailed analysis of the HadSST3 data please share your conclusions. If not, perhaps someone with more analysis expertise than me would like to have a go.
Jim, I have seen the HADSST3 NH vs SH time series graph posted here before. To me the sudden change in the NH time series looks very artificial, as if something drastic changed in the way the data are compiled/analysed. I can’t imagine that strong seasonality would just suddenly turn on like that in the real world. This artifact raises questions about what was changed and why, as well as how legitimate is the change.
Bryan,
I agree that it looks artificial, but I have starting digging into the data at a 5×5 degree cell level (values and number of observations) and, as yet, have not found any obvious “local” busts that are sufficient to explain what we see. There certainly are some very questionable values. There is also a marked increase in data observations around that time. According to the QC procedures, anomalies greater than 8C are deleted, but that still leaves some that are in 7C range, which is stretching credibility. For example, I have found a few very high values in the middle of Hudson Bay, which may possibly be explained (I have not checked this) a consequence of ice melt combined with relatively sheltered waters (i.e. not open ocean), but I see little point in speculating at this point. A thorough analysis is necessary before drawing conclusions and it is very time consuming due to the volume of data.
I remain suspicious, but it clearly needs explaining.
Jim ==> Let me know what you figure out — the SS data shifts around 0.2 degrees, up and down….
Kip,
Yes, will do. Assuming that the HadSST3 data are “correct” and not a conseqence of a change in procedures as suggested by Bryan-oz4caster (big assumption as he may be right), the annual cycle range of 0.2C up to 0.5C (see 2014) would indicate a significantly increased annual temperature variation compared to that recorded in the averages of the 1961-1990 baseline data. In other words, the summer anomalies are increasing at roughly twice the rate of the winter anomalies. The problem is that these data, clearly incorporating annual cycle effects, are then merged with the SH data, completely changing the character of the global HadSST3 data (e.g. the time series response), which are then incorporated into the HadCRUT4 data.
Bryan,
I have checked HadSST2 as well and it shows the same thing (it includes data up to end-2014). It is interesting to note that HadSST2 was introduced around the time of the “sudden change” (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadsst2/rayner_etal_2005.pdf), but the same procedures would have been applied to all previous and, when available, subsequent data. I am keeping an open mind for now, in the absence of any specific information that provides a definitive explanation.
WARNING: WFT has mis-labelled the HadSST2 datasets and shows NH as SH and vice versa. I have confirmed this against the Hadley published files.
See: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3nh/from:1990/plot/hadsst2sh/from:1990
It is very unlikely that humans are going to affect climate change any time soon
(apologies, this is OT)
but (some horrible) humans, if the N G is correct, are interfering with evolution of one of most magnificent of land animals, the African elephant.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2018/11/wildlife-watch-news-tuskless-elephants-behavior-change/
V ==> ” if the N G is correct” — that is quite unlikely. NG gave up real science for activism many years ago.
Why is the Lower Troposphere Temperature in that circle at the top of the world, 60N-90N, behaving so differently than the rest of the world ?
rbabcock
November 10, 2018 at 8:55 am
pointed at the “How much does it take to warm 245K air 5 degrees vs air at 275K? Compare that to trying to warm 300K air in the tropics just .5 degrees.”
Another point is you lose much more energy at higher temperature (t**4), so at lower temperature you can have higher variations for smaller amounts of energy.
Antarctica is more or less isolated through the circumpolar current (and included in the S Hemisphere graphic) whilst the Arctic is directly pumped from global oceans through the Gulfstream.
There was also mention of the latent heat in the above thread – which is much more then the heat to warm air 1°.
This for sure can create huge variations for the Arctic environment – a bit warmer or colder ocean means a lot in the balance of energy for the Arctic.
The DMI modelled Arctic Temperature, for north of the 80th parallel, also shows anomalously warm winters and springs, seemingly confirming that there is something going on, but only since 2005. Why is that?
If this is not an artifact of measurement (some instruments or location or whatever has been changed) could mean a change in global current circulation?
Warmer Arctic air resulting in greater heat loss which could explain the pause.
These just my two cents = ‘armchair specialist’ thoughts 😉
Not sure it is relevant but….
“For NOAA-18 (NOAA N), launched May 20, 2005, AMSU-B was replaced by a similar instrument, the Microwave Humidity Sounder (MHS). ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_microwave_sounding_unit
Dave
Dave ==> Thanks for the link to the equipment change in MSU — I’ll have to see what Spencer had to say at the time.
If you look at this graph of sea ice volume
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png
you can see an increase in sea ice volume formation each year since about 2007. Open water sea ice formation releases latent heat at the ocean very surface hence we get an increase of surface heat and an increase in deep water formation (surface warming /deep water cooling). The very surface heat escapes to the atmosphere quickly over the winter and then is lost to space. Along the way it weakens the polar vortex which then allows the influx of more warm air from lower latitudes. This is a feature of low summer sea ice extent. The slow cooling of the arctic ocean at depth over years will enable the slow accumulation of pack ice with or without an increase of fresher water from the pacific.
In periods of low solar activity in the lower stratosphere, areas with an increased amount of ozone are formed. In these areas the polar vortex slows down (weakens).
Correct-(probably ozone)
Abstract
The relationship between climatic parameters and the Earth’s magnetic field has been reported by many authors. However, the absence of a feasible mechanism accounting for this relationship has impeded progress in this research field. Based on the instrumental observations, we reveal the spatio-temporal relationship between the key structures in the geomagnetic field, surface air temperature and pressure fields, ozone, and the specific humidity near the tropopause. As one of the probable explanations of these correlations, we suggest the following chain of the causal relations: (1) modulation of the intensity and penetration depth of energetic particles (galactic cosmic rays (GCRs)) in the Earth’s atmosphere by the geomagnetic field; (2) the distortion of the ozone density near the tropopause under the action of GCRs; (3) the change in temperature near the tropopause due to the high absorbing capacity of ozone; (4) the adjustment of the extratropical upper tropospheric static stability and, consequently, specific humidity, to the modified tropopause temperature; and (5) the change in the surface air temperature due to the increase/decrease of the water vapor greenhouse effect.
(PDF) Geomagnetic Field and Climate: Causal Relations with Some Atmospheric Variables. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281441974_Geomagnetic_Field_and_Climate_Causal_Relations_with_Some_Atmospheric_Variables [accessed Nov 10 2018].
That is the line of research I was looking at. Here is an interesting paper.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dbb7/21ef96e230325a7999fbec5b209e5046fd60.pdf
It looks at the variations of the lat/long of the north magnetic pole wrt global temps.
Two things struck me: the meandering of the magnetic pole is often in jerks, moving small distances some years, much larger distances in others. Perhaps a large movement around 2005, combined with other changes, resulted in the sudden polar temp extremes. (Actually, the paper suggests a 25-year time lag, so maybe a big shift in 1980?)
The second thing is that one could hypothesize a linkage between the magnetic pole shift and temperatures. Seems to me a shift in the location would shift how and where solar and cosmic radiation most impact the atmosphere. That, in turn, could impact cloud cover, and temps.
But I am way out of my depth. Maybe someone else will pursue it.
The Montreal protocol limiting freon came during this time.
DMI measures the ozon layer over Ittoqqortoormiit:
http://www.dmi.dk/groenland/maalinger/ozonlaget-over-groenland/
It has a top in February.
Could this possible be relevant ?
Kip
This change since 2005 has not just been confined to Arctic temps. lt also shows up in the spring and early summer NH snow cover extents.
Since 2005 there has been a notable decline in NH snow extents during the months of May and June ( and to a lesser extent also during April and July). The Rutger snow lab monthly graphs show this up very clearly.
P.S.
Here is a update to my first snow record. Which recorded Oct 27th 10.04am for this season 2018/19.
taxed ==> Sorry, your links (if you meant to leave them) didn’t show up. Please try them again.
Sorry l don’t know how to provide links.
But if you are interested take a look at Rutgers snow lab home page. Where under the “graphs” list you can click onto monthly anomalies and check each month. Where you will notice a step change in the NW snow extent from 2005 and onwards during the months May, June, and July. The change for the month of June is very noticeable.
NH not NW. 🙂
Thank you. Interesting analysis. Slicing and dicing the data can lead us to the root causes of the changes. Now I have more questions.
– Is this just UAH and CFSR? What do other data sets say?
– Are there differences between sea locations and in-land locations?
– Do we have correlations with ocean currents and wind patterns?
– and so on
The strong El Niño plays a big role in the temperature changes at the poles.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot.png
Kip
The answer to your question 1 – atmosphere intrusion from troposphere mid latitudes. The inflow has increased over the period starting mid 1980’s. These intrusions can cause vortex deformation.
Look at the chart link below, note that starting December Barrow CO2 values go flat during the winter months.
The period of greatest CO2 output in the NH and the values stop rising and go flat. Some years have a specific shapes depicting wind speed flow. Increased air flow = dilution of CO2. That same wind is transporting heat also, and other trace gases.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graphs/ccgg.CBA.co2.1.none.discrete.2016.2018.pdf
Regards
Air ingress
Ozonebust ==> I can’t connect a change in 1980 to the observed change not taking place until at least 2005….?
Kip
Using the data in the example below, NH average temperature anomalies started moving higher about 1989 – 1990. Prior to that the NH anomalies were colder.
Also note the immediate and identical mirror effect between the NH and SH temperatures particularly the 2005 year. This is evident most years. From that an average is derived. No-one previously has noticed the mirror effect.
I have researched the reason for the mirror effect, one day I will do a post on it. It is quite fascinating, but not that simple. The temperature anomalies should not be seen as isolated from earths atmospheric transport systems and limitations. To understand the temperature anomalies you first must delve wider and understand the mechanics of atmospheric distribution and what the influencing and controlling factors are. This is the controlling mechanism of the anomalies and why there is an Arctic amplification. Anyone stating that earth is warming without a comprehensive explanation of the influencing factors is talking nonsense.
Regards
Thoughts.
Despite the differences, land, elevation , temperature inversions etc etc we still need to compare both ends of the world. First request is a graph of Antarctic changes available,
If not why not and if available what does it show?
–
Second one may note that at the height of this cold the DMI had shown, last 5 years, below normal or normal summer temps so no problem there.
The temperature increases occur as soon as the temp drops a couple of degrees and recently has been staying up and spiking throughout the winter independent of the ice refreezing rate.
As soon as it reaches the same day on the other side, warming up, it ducks under the average for the 100 days of summer.
–
Why?
DMI graph is unnaturally smooth and symmetric. I am sure it does not reflect the actual data summary/average which would have to be bumpier and asymmetric. Probably we do not have the right average put in to derive our anomalies from. Natural variability is very underestimated.
–
angech ==> You have as many questions as I do ;-0
DMI data is modelled and not measured — but has been the go-to data set for the high north for many years.
FFS Kip, DMI is not the “go to data”
Maybe at WUWT
Over the years DMI have merely picked a weather model and cut out the portion above 80N
And they dont even area weight it.
Its not their data, its other people data and they dont even area weight it properly.
FFS
“Its not their data, its other people data and they dont even area weight it properly.”
A bit touchy, young man.
You of all people should restrain your comments on area weighting considering the way you have twisted the data (other people’s often, by the way) in the past.
But since you have made the comment DMI is allowed to use the data. They are scientists and they weigh it according to thought out principals.
Now I don’t agree with them all and you don’t but that does not make their attempts any less scientifically valid.
As to go to data, if people go to it, and they do, it is go to data, full stop.
Try being nice to people.