Sign In »
Register Now!
Help
From the BBC
Extract:
Melting Arctic link to cold, snowy UK winters
27 February 12 20:05
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News
The progressive shrinking of Arctic sea ice is bringing colder, snowier winters to the UK and other areas of Europe, North America and China, a study shows.
As global temperatures have risen, the area of Arctic Ocean covered by ice in summer and autumn has been falling.
Writing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a US/China-based team show this affects the jet stream and brings cold, snowy weather.
Whether conditions will get colder still as ice melts further is unclear.
There was a marked deterioration in ice cover between the summers of 2006 and 2007, which still holds the record for the lowest extent on record; and it has not recovered since.
The current winter is roughly tracking the graph of 2007, according to the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).
The new study is not the first to propose a causal relationship between low Arctic ice in autumn and Europe's winter weather.
But it has gone further than others in assessing the strength of the link.
Through observations and computer modelling, the team headed by Jiping Liu from Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, US, and the Insitute of Atmospheric Physics in Beijing has also elucidated the mechanisms involved.
"For the past four winters, for much of the northern US, east Asia and Europe, we had this persistent above-normal snow cover," Dr Liu told BBC News.
"We don't see a predictive relationship with any of the other factors that have been proposed, such as El Nino; but for sea ice, we do see a predictive relationship."
The Melting Arctic Causes UK Snow?
#1
- Group: Forum Managers
- Posts: 26419
- Joined: 22-November 02
- LocationBrecon Beacons, 330m ASL
Posted 27 February 2012 - 20:49
#2
- Group: Executive
- Posts: 23830
- Joined: 15-October 02
- LocationEvesham, Worcs
Posted 27 February 2012 - 21:10
So what happened this year 
(seriously, whilst it may influence synoptics, it's not the only factor)
(seriously, whilst it may influence synoptics, it's not the only factor)
#3
Posted 27 February 2012 - 21:15
The paper suggests there is a link between the extent of Arctic sea ice in autumn and winter temperatures in Europe. It is not proposing that there is a direct unbreakable link that will work every year. It's a bit like saying that every human activity increase the temperature of the globe!
#4
Posted 28 February 2012 - 09:15
Theoretically it seems reasonable that a lessening of the temp. gradient between the Arctic and N. Atlantic will reduce zonality and allow Continental HP to extend its influence and possibly bring us colder winters, but even that depends on where the HP prefers to sit- it's not too unreasonable to suppose a Bartlett high may be the site of preferance. Would we have seen this prediction put forward if we had not had a mere two cold winters on the trot? I wonder.
#5
Posted 28 February 2012 - 10:30
I did a review of the science in December 20121 but it may have moved on a little since:
http://www.geologywa...1-research.html
Cheers - John
http://www.geologywa...1-research.html
Cheers - John
#6
Posted 28 February 2012 - 16:57
Have just read the paper in full: it tends to reinforce earlier studies that noted that severely reduced Arctic sea-ice are leading to more blocking and meridionality PLUS greater WV content in any winter airmass modified by incorporation of air from sea-ice-free Arctic areas. Take-home appears to be that if you get a block in autumn/winter (especially earlier in the winter) upstream of you then you can expect severe winter weather of a worse nature than usual, in terms of cover/depth/persistence.
Cheers - John
Cheers - John
#7 Guest_Village_*
Posted 02 March 2012 - 22:52
This is a prime example which illustrates precisely what I have been warning of for a decade or more.
So called 'climate experts' more than a decade ago used computer generated synthetic predictions to paint a scare story to all of us that snow in the UK would be a thing of the past. They fabricated a whole theory based purely on computer simulations that we would have a warmer and warmer climate here in the UK and snow and ice in winter time would be history.
I was having none of it.
Now fifteen years forth and it’s the opposite of what these so called experts lead the easily gullible amongst us to believe. So now having got it so wrong, do they ditch their love affair with the synthetic crystal ball gazing? Nope....they now fiddle with the parameters of the program to make the result fit the reality and then declare that they can link the cooling of our climate in this region to the same old CO2 theoretics.
You couldn’t make it up if you tried. Will these people ever learn that making the reality fit the same old tired CO2 story is not science?
So called 'climate experts' more than a decade ago used computer generated synthetic predictions to paint a scare story to all of us that snow in the UK would be a thing of the past. They fabricated a whole theory based purely on computer simulations that we would have a warmer and warmer climate here in the UK and snow and ice in winter time would be history.
I was having none of it.
Now fifteen years forth and it’s the opposite of what these so called experts lead the easily gullible amongst us to believe. So now having got it so wrong, do they ditch their love affair with the synthetic crystal ball gazing? Nope....they now fiddle with the parameters of the program to make the result fit the reality and then declare that they can link the cooling of our climate in this region to the same old CO2 theoretics.
You couldn’t make it up if you tried. Will these people ever learn that making the reality fit the same old tired CO2 story is not science?
This post has been edited by Village: 02 March 2012 - 22:54
#8
Posted 02 March 2012 - 23:17
Vill, if you want to check out the papers this story is dealing with, email Nile Queen or myself - we both either have them or can get hold of them. You really have some catching-up to do and your rusty old rhetoric is insufficient these days! It works for the likes of Delingpole but he has a subset of readers who get off on his every word! Not so for us genuine skeptics (as opposed to the fakes).
Cheers - John
Cheers - John
#9 Guest_Village_*
Posted 03 March 2012 - 08:46
Dont you worry John, NQ sent me the papers a week ago.
If you can remember back ten years you will also recall that I was first to suggest a theory that exposing more arctic ocean would lead to colder weather here due to lower pressure beyond the 70 degrees north parallel which would interupt the circumpolar vortex and force the jet stream to shift further south at times which would make our winters colder.
I recall that you were aping the tired old CO2 theoretics at that time based on nothing more than computer generated synthetics which is all global warming theory had to offer. I did warn that blindly following computer predictions would get people into trouble.
I am glad to hear that you are now sceptical about the man made global warming theoretics. Well done.
If you can remember back ten years you will also recall that I was first to suggest a theory that exposing more arctic ocean would lead to colder weather here due to lower pressure beyond the 70 degrees north parallel which would interupt the circumpolar vortex and force the jet stream to shift further south at times which would make our winters colder.
I recall that you were aping the tired old CO2 theoretics at that time based on nothing more than computer generated synthetics which is all global warming theory had to offer. I did warn that blindly following computer predictions would get people into trouble.
I am glad to hear that you are now sceptical about the man made global warming theoretics. Well done.
This post has been edited by Village: 03 March 2012 - 09:07
#10
Posted 03 March 2012 - 09:53
And exactly where would this lower pressure beyond 70N be situated in longitudinal terms, Vill? 10 years ago is a long time. Remind me, please!
Cheers - John
Cheers - John
#11
Posted 03 March 2012 - 10:26
Village, on 02 March 2012 - 22:52, said:
This is a prime example which illustrates precisely what I have been warning of for a decade or more.
So called 'climate experts' more than a decade ago used computer generated synthetic predictions to paint a scare story to all of us that snow in the UK would be a thing of the past. They fabricated a whole theory based purely on computer simulations that we would have a warmer and warmer climate here in the UK and snow and ice in winter time would be history.
I was having none of it.
Now fifteen years forth and it’s the opposite of what these so called experts lead the easily gullible amongst us to believe. So now having got it so wrong, do they ditch their love affair with the synthetic crystal ball gazing? Nope....they now fiddle with the parameters of the program to make the result fit the reality and then declare that they can link the cooling of our climate in this region to the same old CO2 theoretics.
You couldn’t make it up if you tried. Will these people ever learn that making the reality fit the same old tired CO2 story is not science?
So called 'climate experts' more than a decade ago used computer generated synthetic predictions to paint a scare story to all of us that snow in the UK would be a thing of the past. They fabricated a whole theory based purely on computer simulations that we would have a warmer and warmer climate here in the UK and snow and ice in winter time would be history.
I was having none of it.
Now fifteen years forth and it’s the opposite of what these so called experts lead the easily gullible amongst us to believe. So now having got it so wrong, do they ditch their love affair with the synthetic crystal ball gazing? Nope....they now fiddle with the parameters of the program to make the result fit the reality and then declare that they can link the cooling of our climate in this region to the same old CO2 theoretics.
You couldn’t make it up if you tried. Will these people ever learn that making the reality fit the same old tired CO2 story is not science?
Blimey Vill, you've changed while you were away
#12 Guest_Village_*
Posted 03 March 2012 - 21:59
John Mason, on 03 March 2012 - 09:53, said:
And exactly where would this lower pressure beyond 70N be situated in longitudinal terms, Vill? 10 years ago is a long time. Remind me, please!
Cheers - John
Cheers - John
John, I may have thirty five years more experience in meteorology than your good self, but I am sure that your knowlege should by now be enough for you to have answered it for yourself in a nanosecond. Here's a clue....latent heat. Now you can dust your globe off again!
If I remember rightly Sam Jowett also agreed at the time that there could be some merrit to my thoughts that reducing Arctic Sea ice may well provide increased instability and therefore greater precipitation to the region. If you remember some of our conversations circa 2002 then you will also recall my belief that one of the major keys to the amount of Arctic Sea ice is precipitation. Any tiny overall shift in the typical synoptic set can subtly alter the source airmass and therefore flavour of input to the region. This is critical to relative humidity content and therefore precipitation values which in tern affect the amount of ice in the Arctic. This is regardless of the increased instability afforded by exposing Ocean to he environment.
This post has been edited by Village: 03 March 2012 - 22:03
#13 Guest_Village_*
Posted 03 March 2012 - 22:09
Peter H, on 03 March 2012 - 10:26, said:
Blimey Vill, you've changed while you were away
Not really Peter, its only you who keeps changing....one minute you are Devonian here and then Peter H and then in another site as Devonian only to turn up here again as Peter H! Maybe its a symptom of a continually changing perspective you have.
#14
Posted 04 March 2012 - 07:22
Village, on 03 March 2012 - 21:59, said:
John, I may have thirty five years more experience in meteorology than your good self, but I am sure that your knowlege should by now be enough for you to have answered it for yourself in a nanosecond. Here's a clue....latent heat. Now you can dust your globe off again!
If I remember rightly Sam Jowett also agreed at the time that there could be some merrit to my thoughts that reducing Arctic Sea ice may well provide increased instability and therefore greater precipitation to the region. If you remember some of our conversations circa 2002 then you will also recall my belief that one of the major keys to the amount of Arctic Sea ice is precipitation. Any tiny overall shift in the typical synoptic set can subtly alter the source airmass and therefore flavour of input to the region. This is critical to relative humidity content and therefore precipitation values which in tern affect the amount of ice in the Arctic. This is regardless of the increased instability afforded by exposing Ocean to he environment.
If I remember rightly Sam Jowett also agreed at the time that there could be some merrit to my thoughts that reducing Arctic Sea ice may well provide increased instability and therefore greater precipitation to the region. If you remember some of our conversations circa 2002 then you will also recall my belief that one of the major keys to the amount of Arctic Sea ice is precipitation. Any tiny overall shift in the typical synoptic set can subtly alter the source airmass and therefore flavour of input to the region. This is critical to relative humidity content and therefore precipitation values which in tern affect the amount of ice in the Arctic. This is regardless of the increased instability afforded by exposing Ocean to he environment.
I'm struggling to remember discussing this with you in 2002, Vill, but perhaps that's because I didn't join UKww until the spring of 2003!
That aside, what you are talking about above has absolutely nothing to do with the topic being discussed here! This thread is about extreme long-range teleconnection between polar and temperate latitudes as a consequence of low sea-ice in the Arctic, as opposed to what is causing the low sea-ice extent in the Arctic. In other words it is about the emergence of a third circulation pattern on top of the NAO and AO, and its consequences in terms of periodic unusually severe winter weather in NW Europe and elsewhere.
Cheers - John
#16
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 5174
- Joined: 18-July 06
- LocationGraham, NC USA
Posted 04 March 2012 - 16:13
Hey VIL!
Of course we are discussing the thread. If we really want to discuss the who/whats, I believe a quick search over in the Discussion&Analysis where Snow Hope, Ukskys, and a few other long time members were discussing changes in weather extremes, which morphed into a discussion of reduced sea ice and finally the change in the zonal flow of the polar jet streams was a bit more recent. When it was re-discussed in the 08-09 timeframe in Chat there was some physical evidence of what the climate science was predicting. The point is the science at the time and for a few years later was trying to predict the changes in a warming world.
The problem is not that they were wrong about the changes; but, how fast they would occur. Now the science is beginning to focus on changes in a "warmer" world, rather then a "warming" world.
The point remains if the Earth continues to have a tilt there will always be a cold season at the poles. That the effect does or does not portrude into non-polar regions is related to many factors. The primary one being the presence of both radiational heat emission reduction and the other increased cross zonal advection. Change either and you change heat flow in the atmosphere and at the surface-air interface, regardless the cause.
So in that regard I am glad to see we are in agreement too. The next question or thread that is created, may want to revisit or take a deeper look at the causes for the changes we see in the polar regions...
Of course we are discussing the thread. If we really want to discuss the who/whats, I believe a quick search over in the Discussion&Analysis where Snow Hope, Ukskys, and a few other long time members were discussing changes in weather extremes, which morphed into a discussion of reduced sea ice and finally the change in the zonal flow of the polar jet streams was a bit more recent. When it was re-discussed in the 08-09 timeframe in Chat there was some physical evidence of what the climate science was predicting. The point is the science at the time and for a few years later was trying to predict the changes in a warming world.
The problem is not that they were wrong about the changes; but, how fast they would occur. Now the science is beginning to focus on changes in a "warmer" world, rather then a "warming" world.
The point remains if the Earth continues to have a tilt there will always be a cold season at the poles. That the effect does or does not portrude into non-polar regions is related to many factors. The primary one being the presence of both radiational heat emission reduction and the other increased cross zonal advection. Change either and you change heat flow in the atmosphere and at the surface-air interface, regardless the cause.
So in that regard I am glad to see we are in agreement too. The next question or thread that is created, may want to revisit or take a deeper look at the causes for the changes we see in the polar regions...
#17 Guest_Village_*
Posted 04 March 2012 - 20:32
Hey Dave, hope you are well.
Yes, I think you have summed it up very well. However, you have done this with the luxury of more than a decade of hindsight. Don’t underestimate the belligerence of thinking a decade ago from climatologists and followers alike who really were not prepared to see any further than warming, warming and more warming.
This is why all the talk back then was of winters here in the UK where ice and snow would be a thing of the past. I didn’t accept it because I could see that exposing more Arctic ocean to the atmosphere could upset the apple cart in ways which were not being contemplated at that time.
I and a few others broke into that mould to try to bring about a little more of a balance. I based that on the following: Any subtle change in overall climate in any particular region will throw up further unforeseen ramifications which may not necessarily be for the warmer. This was my point back in 2002/2003 when all the talk was of warming and very few climatologists could see any further than AGW. Sam Jowett and Michael (snowhope) also could see beyond the warming hype and were not prepared to believe that ice and snow here in winter would be history. They too discussed how ice melt would bring about the reverse.
What has changed is that finally after egg on the faces of some so called climate experts is that they are now much more willing to look beyond the juvenile AGW theory of a decade ago.
Basically climatologists back then who made out they knew what the future would bring were simply learning while going along. Now they are not so prepared to make the ridiculous claims that they used to throw about based on a juvenile AGW theory. You could say that the AGW theory and the protagonists are finally maturing.
This report will be one of many which will continue to shape their thinking.
It is about time that they came round to my way of thinking as I predicted would have to happen ...after all ...they are supposed to be the experts right!
How long has it taken them?
Yes, I think you have summed it up very well. However, you have done this with the luxury of more than a decade of hindsight. Don’t underestimate the belligerence of thinking a decade ago from climatologists and followers alike who really were not prepared to see any further than warming, warming and more warming.
This is why all the talk back then was of winters here in the UK where ice and snow would be a thing of the past. I didn’t accept it because I could see that exposing more Arctic ocean to the atmosphere could upset the apple cart in ways which were not being contemplated at that time.
I and a few others broke into that mould to try to bring about a little more of a balance. I based that on the following: Any subtle change in overall climate in any particular region will throw up further unforeseen ramifications which may not necessarily be for the warmer. This was my point back in 2002/2003 when all the talk was of warming and very few climatologists could see any further than AGW. Sam Jowett and Michael (snowhope) also could see beyond the warming hype and were not prepared to believe that ice and snow here in winter would be history. They too discussed how ice melt would bring about the reverse.
What has changed is that finally after egg on the faces of some so called climate experts is that they are now much more willing to look beyond the juvenile AGW theory of a decade ago.
Basically climatologists back then who made out they knew what the future would bring were simply learning while going along. Now they are not so prepared to make the ridiculous claims that they used to throw about based on a juvenile AGW theory. You could say that the AGW theory and the protagonists are finally maturing.
This report will be one of many which will continue to shape their thinking.
It is about time that they came round to my way of thinking as I predicted would have to happen ...after all ...they are supposed to be the experts right!
How long has it taken them?
#18
Posted 04 March 2012 - 21:14
Wow. Just wow! I think that is the best Gish-Gallop I have ever seen. Lord Monckton, watch out. Your job may be under threat!
Cheers - John
Cheers - John
#19
Posted 14 March 2012 - 05:20
FWIW, my musings on the Liu et al paper and other recent research:
http://www.skeptical...hey-linked.html
Cheers - John
http://www.skeptical...hey-linked.html
Cheers - John
#20
Posted 14 March 2012 - 05:34
I've not read the report properly yet, but (with my sceptical head on) this appears like another case of propaganda to show how a recent weather event only occured because of global warming. I'm not sure if the movement to conduct research in this manner is really counter productive to the cause, however it does sound plausible that reductions in sea ice would change the stability of the atmosphere across the Arctic ocean and therefore the nature of the circumpolar vortex. Simplistic to think one always causes the other though iimo...
