UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH
CREDIT: GABRIELA SCHAEPMAN-STRUB, ARCTIC CENTURY EXPEDITION, 2021
Due to climate change, Arctic winters are getting warmer. An international study by UZH researchers shows that Arctic warming causes temperature anomalies and cold damage thousands of kilometers away in East Asia. This in turn leads to reduced vegetation growth, later blossoming, smaller harvests and reduced CO2 absorption by the forests in the region.
During the past few days, the east coast of the United States experienced heavy snowfall and low temperatures as far south as Florida. Warmer Arctic winters are now also triggering extreme winter weather of this kind in East Asia, an international team of researchers from Switzerland, Korea, China, Japan and the United Kingdom has found. The cooler southern winters reduce vegetation activity in the evergreen subtropics, and continue to negatively affect ecosystems in the spring, for example due to branches broken under heavy snowfall or frost-damaged leaves. First author Jin-Soo Kim of the Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies at the University of Zurich says: “The cooler winters also reduce agricultural productivity of cereals, fruits, root vegetables, and legumes.”
Globally connected weather events
The scientists combined earth system modelling, satellite data and local observations for the study. They also analyzed an index of sea surface temperatures from the Barents-Kara Sea and found that in years with higher than average Arctic temperatures, changes in atmospheric circulation resulted in an anomalous climate throughout East Asia. In particularly cold years, the unfavorable conditions adversely affected vegetation growth and crop yields, and delayed blossoming. Moreover, the researchers estimated a decrease in carbon uptake capacity in the region of 65 megatons of carbon during winter and spring (by way of comparison, fossil fuel emissions in Switzerland are 8.8 megatons of carbon per year). The reduction in carbon absorption capacity caused by climate change is thus another issue that must be taken into account when discussing carbon neutrality.
Climate change causes ecological and socioeconomic damage
The warming of the Arctic caused by human greenhouse gas emissions is causing social and economic harm to humans as far south as the subtropics. Gabriela Schaepman-Strub, co-author of the study, says: “This study highlights how complex the effects of climate change are. While we observe strong warming in the Arctic system, especially over the Barents-Kara Sea, we have now discovered that this warming affects ecosystems thousands of kilometers away and over multiple weeks through climate teleconnections. Arctic warming is not only threatening the polar bear, but will affect us in many other ways.”
JOURNAL
Communications Earth & Environment
DOI
METHOD OF RESEARCH
Data/statistical analysis
SUBJECT OF RESEARCH
Not applicable
ARTICLE TITLE
Arctic warming-induced cold damage to East Asian terrestrial ecosystems
ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE
1-Feb-2022
Hand waving nonsense.
Exactly.
Hm.
“The warming of some of the Arctic caused by normal weather patterns might be causing ….. “.
There, fixed the typo.
OT, but are we going to see sea ice reaching the N. coast of Iceland this year?
I doubt it. The Denmark strait is about 200miles wide at its narrowest point and there must be about 50 miles of open water today. Which is about “normal”. The temperature on that part of the Greenland coast is between -5 and -10’C again not unusual.
Looking at the sea ice page there is very cold water just to the N. of Iceland at the moment.
There’s a very complicated series of currents that operate around the coast of Iceland. There is some very cold water moving south in the South Greenland current but comparitively warmer water moving north around the coast of Iceland in the Irminger current. It might be cold but there’s enough energy in the movement of the currents to prevent freezing at the moment. It’d have to get much colder before you’d see much of a freeze.
https://weather.co/analysis/arctic-sea-ice-extent-is-the-highest-since-2009-now-above-14-million-square-kilometers-on-the-other-side-of-the-pond-antarctic-sea-ice-at-an-all-time-low/ so much ice its worse than we thought
What a load of confusion!!! Arctic ice coverage is above average this year, global greening and food production is at record levels and polar bear numbers are above average wherever they’re properly audited.
But colder does not in any way mean that we are not warming. Remember that their “science” does not respect the facts, only the models.
Of course, they are ignoring the fertilization effect of increasing CO2 on agriculture. Next time you want a home-cooked pizza, stick in the fridge for an hour and it will cook itself—well,. . . maybe not—what looks cooked might be mold.
Maybe some of the polar bears don’t want to answer census questions
Poor Switzerland when your universities have gone down the drain.
See affiliations above…
All the predictions of the AGW crowd have failed so far. I expect this loss of accuracy to continue.
That is the only certainty where climate is concerned.
Old George
yeah except now they are predicting cooling because of warming so they might actually get something right somewhere.
Yes, they are making progress, with the final stage (changing names from Global Warming to Climate Change theme): GOLDILOCKS CLIMATE: Somewhere it is too hot, somewhere it is too cold, and somewhere it is just right.
“earth system modelling”
Which naturally(sic) gave the right answer…
“estimated a decrease in carbon uptake capacity in the region of 65 megatons of carbon. The reduction in carbon absorption capacity caused by climate change is thus another issue that must be taken into account when discussing carbon neutrality.”
A decrease in carbon uptake ,they say. And yet…
“From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change “
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
As for carbon neutrality…. that’s utter [politically driven] nonsense.
“and found that in years with higher than average Arctic temperatures, changes in atmospheric circulation resulted in an anomalous climate throughout East Asia.”
This is about as bad as arguing all animals with four legs are dogs.
It’s Sun stupid !
Arctic and the Antarctic are open windows to geometric storms.
Elon Musk has learnt lesson the other day too
“SpaceX has confirmed that a geomagnetic storm destroyed most of the Starlink satellites it launched last Friday.
Elon Musk’s company said that 40 of its 49 satellites were going to fall back to Earth – though they are designed to burn up on re-entry – after a space storm “significantly impacted” them.
They were part of a planned satellite constellation that is intended to eventually provide constant internet coverage for most of the world”
Lot of space junk, hopefully it will eventually burn itself out.
Didn’t see that reported in the MSM.
When I first read a report about this, I thought they were saying the solar storm had knocked out the satellites’ electronics, but now it seems there is a problem with them maintaining their orbits. So the problem must be with the launch vehicle since the other Musk satellites already in orbit are apparently working fine. So how would a solar storm affect the launch vehicle to the point that these satellites cannot maintain their orbits?
As I understand, the “space storm” causes the atmosphere to swell, thereby increasing the drag on the satellites, so they fall.
These were in low earth orbit for testing before they get put into final orbit. Easier to get rid of the duds. They could have just said the 40 were duds, but blamed it on a solar storm instead. 😊
apparently caused difficulties with the orbit insertion maneuvers.
I think they have ion thrusters which gently and efficiently lift them from low earth orbit to their medium-ish orbit level.
See Scott Manley – SpaceX Loses 40 Satellites To Solar Storm February 9 @ https://youtu.be/9kIcEFyEPgA?t=112
Boy it just gets stupider and stupider with each passing “study”
Just fraudsters making totally unsupported assertions to fit their religious dogma of “global warming causes global cooling”.
There must be a very big cheque in the offing somewhere they are hoping to receive!!!
Its peer reviewed so it must be right. Obviously written by morons . Presumably the peer of a moron is another moron
Primus inter peeres ….
Written by authors who take people for morons and reviewed by close pals
““…I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
— Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, July 8, 2004
More meridional jet stream tracks allow polar air to flood across the lower latitudes whilst equatorial air flows to the polar regions.
There is no hypothesis whereby greenhouse gas emissions can determine the degree of meridionality.
However, there is a lot of long term observational evidence linking meridionality to low solar activity.
My dear Mr Wilde, I think you are delving into the realms of science fiction, thinking that the big shiny ball thingamybob in the sky, a giant fusion reactor possessing over 99.9% of the mass of our Solar System, can possibly have any affect on the Earth’s climate, pure science fiction!!! Sarc off!!! 😉
The “study” seems to be mixing up cause and effect: They are saying (apparently with the backup of their models) that a warming Arctic causes the jet stream to waver. On the other hand, other studies indicate that jet stream variations cause Arctic warming and sub-Arctic cooling in the winter. I suspect that the true atmospheric causes and effects are too complex for CliSciFi to distill it into catastrophic soundbites.
I suspect that the true atmospheric causes and effects are too complex for CliSciFi to understand. There – fixed!
Talking of mass motion. One of the most puzzling things for me was to learn in Meteorology 101 that the wind flows parallel to the isobars (lines of equal pressure). How is this possible? Surely it is pressure that drives the wind and so air must flow down the pressure gradient and not parallel to the isobars?
I eventually resolved this paradox with a physical model. Consider a round-shaped pan with a flat level base that contains a given volume of liquid water at rest. The pressure of the water at the base of the water column is uniform across the bottom of the pan and no liquid water movement occurs.
Now take a spatula and stir the water in the pan to create a vortex. What happens to the level of the now moving liquid in the pan? We observe a dimple shaped surface and note that there is now less water column in the centre of the pan. Clearly the water pressure has dropped in the centre of the vortex. In the extreme case we can stir the water to move sufficiently fast to have no water column, and therefore no water pressure, in the centre of the pan. This experiment demonstrates that in the pan it is water motion that generates the horizontal water pressure gradient at the bottom of the pan, and so we can conjecture that in the troposphere it is air mass motion that generates the surface pressure gradient seen in a cyclone.
So how does the atmosphere get stirred to create a vortex? Continuing the fluid motion model sedimentology recognises a series of sedimentary patterns in deep marine ocean sediments first identified by Arnold Bouma. The Bouma Sequence is formed by the action of a turbidity current which is a density current that descends from the continental shelf and has a characteristic profile that includes a rolling horizontal vortex above the nose of the descending sediment laden water mass. Sediment laden density currents are also found in the atmosphere, the examples of which are the Haboob, the Nuée Ardente and also the Airborne Powder Avalanche, however cold airmass movement is of itself sufficient to generate the turbulence and vorticity that we observe in the cyclogenesis of the Ferrel Cell.
This process was described by the French meteorologist Marcel Leroux in his 1992 seminal paper The Mobile Polar High. Leroux recognised that mobile polar highs are scaled-up density currents of vast size. In the lower troposphere the motion of dense cold air generates cold fronts as the air moves meridionally. In the northern hemisphere the southerly track of cold dense air will generate a cyclonic vortex on its eastern margin, an anticyclonic vortex on its western margin and an entraining rolling vortex vertically above the cold front boundary (the jet stream).
As Stephen Wilde says there is no hypothesis whereby greenhouse gas emissions can determine the degree of meridionality or indeed the initiation of vorticity. It is the process of meridional advection of cold air that generates the observed winter cold waves in low latitudes and the corresponding advection of warm air in to the Arctic that balances this process of dense air mass motion.
“The warming of the Arctic caused by human greenhouse gas emissions…”
Arctic warming is caused by lower indirect solar forcing, which increases negative North Atlantic Oscillation conditions, warming the Arctic directly by increasing warm humidity events into the Arctic, and indirectly by the negative NAO conditions driving a warmer AMO, which warms the Arctic Ocean.
Rising CO2 forcing should increase positive NAO, that cannot warm the Arctic.
Negative NAO drives both the Arctic warming, AND the changes in mid latitude weather.
It took these extraordinarily gifted scribblers to come up with a new trick :
Atmospheric teleconnections linked to Arctic warming
This should be a South Korean publication : Affiliations
Now I wonder how that is done in the models – Teleconnection Sensitivity anyone?
Newton’s Spooky action at a distance?
After all Maynard Keynes’ biography of Newton showed he was not a scientist but the last of the Magi (direct quote), and changed his mind about his hero.
I thought it was Einstein, with the “spooky action at a distance”?
Newton to Hooke originally. Einstein quoted Newton.
Leibniz mentioned the problem stemming from Newton’s absolute space, which Einstein’s Relativity thoroughly discredited.
So Newton’s remark to Hooke is revealing, yet he could not reject absolute space. At the same time Newton was practicing the strangest spooky alchemy as Keynes found out on getting access to the records.
Given what we know now, alchemy is utter nonsense.
Given what they knew in Newton’s time, alchemy was cutting edge science.
Rejecting Newton because he believed in alchemy is utter nonsense. Though with your hatred of all things British, I’m not surprised at how desperate you are for an excuse.
Lord Maynard Keynes wrote that – and is famous for the statement
“When the facts change, I change my mind”
What do you do, Sir?
Maybe this could help :
Charles Babbage, of the famous computing engine :
De-ism and Dotage
or
Decline of Science in England
Funny, because science now is changing the facts to meet the theory/agenda.
Quote:”The cooler winters also reduce agricultural productivity of cereals, fruits, root vegetables, and legumes.”
Well, shag me senseless with a six foot shagging stick, there’s a blessing.
We shouldn’t be eating most of the shyte on that list in the first place.
Maybe a bit of fruit now and again for the Vitamin C but leave the rest for the bison, antelope, deer and wild boar.
Then, eat them
And, = what switched off our own Vitamin C production, dig up the roots and suck the sap/juice out of them. It’s how hunters survived while they tracked their prey and because they did it so often, our own internal Vitamin C production ceased
PS It is actually The Principal Rule of Survival.
Visit a landscape, look around at what lives, grows and survives there – then eat that.
Then you will survive there.
It’s not difficult
“look around at what lives, grows and survives there – then eat that“.
Well, in the arctic, the only edible thing you (might) see is a polar bear. (If you don’t see him, you will be eaten!). If you try that, and eat the liver, you will die from Vitamin A poisoning!
Absolutely NOT – a famous Arctic lost expedition tried that and all died of a parasitic worm – see :
https://www.trichinella.org/andrees-story
Many an Eskimo (raw meat eater) has died from eating bear meat.
Stick to the bears diet – those seals and walruses’ livers.
How about in London or New York City?
What if deadly nightshade grows there? Should you eat that too? Poisonous mushrooms? Poison Hemlock? Oleander?
“”The cooler winters also reduce agricultural productivity of cereals”
Ummm….. winter wheat does fine here on the High Plains of the US. So do root veggies, etc. And it’s much cooler here than sub-tropical Asia. Perhaps they need to change what they are growing?
From the article: “During the past few days, the east coast of the United States experienced heavy snowfall and low temperatures as far south as Florida. Warmer Arctic winters are now also triggering extreme winter weather of this kind in East Asia, an international team of researchers from Switzerland, Korea, China, Japan and the United Kingdom has found.”
These people don’t know that a warmer arctic is causing any of this. This is an unsubstantiated assertion not backed up by any facts.
Excursions of arctic air to the south is a regular part of the weather and has been happening since the beginning of time on Earth. Claiming a slight arctic warming is driving all this is ridiculous and they have provided no evidence to say differently.
Alarmist Climate Science is all assumptions and assertions. This is another example of it. It’s just more climate change propaganda from the alarmists.
From the article: “During the past few days, the east coast of the United States experienced heavy snowfall and low temperatures as far south as Florida.”
Poorly worded as we did not get heavy snow in Florida.
I nearly choked on my coffee when I read this. So polar vortex’s never occurred before the Arctic “warmed”? I didn’t read one fact that was gathered that showed this hasn’t happened in the past.
Models are fine but they need to be validated. You don’t even need station temperature records to determine if this has ever happened, just look at newspapers and agricultural information.
were those old things written by climate scientists?
Jim Gorman. The name “polar vortex” is new, so too many people think the weather thus described is new too. Ergo, if they didn’t call it a polar vortex in 1901, did it really exist at that time? (Like my elderly neighbour who got frightened of the term “atmospheric river” and thought that since she hadn’t heard it before that the phenomenon hadn’t existed until “global warming”. ) Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but people ain’t very smart.
There was a popular theory in the 1950’s which posited that rising sea levels could melt the arctic ice, leaving the Arctic Ocean open water, so water would evaporate, which would lead to more snow in the north, thus increasing the Earth’s albedo, which would cause another protracted period of glaciation.
https://harpers.org/archive/1958/09/the-coming-ice-age/
Did they look at the possibility that the cold in Florida is causing the warming in the Arctic?
Citrus fruit that ripens in winter must have cold temperatures as that is what makes them sweeter and more tasty.
Ya know, it is a good thing Arctic is not warming, otherwise all these bad things leftards screech lies about would actually be happening. Oh, who am I fooling, none of this crap leftards are screeching lies about will ever happen!
and the warming arctic has the second most sea ice it has had in the last 18 years.
The magic molecule does it again – causes both warming and cooling while greening and browning, but now all at the same time! What else can CO2 do!?!
Someone seems to have mistranslated “correlation” as “causation”. A very common mistake, especially by climate “scientists”.
it used to be believed that correlation does not mean causation but modern science has proved that to be a baseless falsehood.
If it’s different than last year, CO2 caused it.
CO2 or leprechauns. The odds are about 50:50 either way.
Well let me get this straight. Global warming of the Arctic causes lower temperatures elsewhere which in turn cause agricultural difficulties in those areas. So the governments of the world push us toward a cooling world even while there are more and more mouths to feed in those non Arctic areas that are colder due to Arctic warming. So the end result to stopping global warming will be warming of the non Arctic world and the cooling of the Artic so that crop production can increase? I think I get it.
No, no! It’s the butterfly wings in Brazil that cause everything!
” Due to climate change, Arctic winters are getting warmer. ”
This phenomenon is known to occur on a few days of winter in some years at some places. Formerly, before the development of SCS (Social Climate Science), it was called “weather”.
I prefer CliSciFi; no need to explain one’s acronyms. The few non-socialist blogs that allow discussion and dissention (like WUWT), however, preserve the the inherent right for humans to have independent thoughts and differences: Do your own thing.
I was trying to make a subliminal link to SSS (Social Studies of Science), which is the Father Of All That BS. As all fathers, this one also has a father: the great Michel F. plus his ideologic sons and grandsons (and daughters and grandaughters) with their relativism of science.
Damn! I went for the wrong field in college. The big bucks is in “climate…” and not being held accountable for BS spewed via scholarly observations. Really great grant monies available though. Luvin’ that the idiots are starting to out themselves with their continued more or less common sense observations of weather. Hey, I know farmers who can do the same tricks, do it every year.
Yep, because the Climastrologists never suffer accountability for being always wrong. Great business. About like economics a la Paul Krugman.
In CliSciFi, governments fund and allow outright frauds such as Mann and Marcott to flourish, among many others. Thanks to Rud’s ebook “Blowing Smoke” we all have a handy reference to some of those instances of scientific misconduct/fraud. I hope he comes up with an updated version. Hint, hint.
Heat causes cold. Of course it does. (sarc off)
Heat causes cold just like wealth causes poverty. Duh!
What does a warm winter (at night) in the Arctic look like? – 29 ° C instead of – 32° ?
It’s obvious from that context why those in East Asia would be very concerned.
It can’t be long before we hear warnings of zombies, aliens and goblins turning the climate into a giant fire-breathing dragon with syphilis and bad posture.