Anthropogenic global warming is probably responsible for increasingly extreme weather.
Icarus
2012/04/27 23:29:06
Linking Weird Weather to
Rapid Warming of the Arctic
Does it seem as though your weather has become increasingly “stuck” lately? Day after day of cold, rain, heat, or blue skies may not be a figment of your imagination. While various oceanic and atmospheric patterns such as El Niño, La Niña, and the North Atlantic Oscillation have been blamed for the spate of unusual weather recently, there’s now a new culprit in the wind: Arctic amplification. Directly related to sea-ice loss and earlier snowmelt in the Far North, it is affecting the jet stream around the Northern Hemisphere, with potentially far-reaching effects on the weather.
Arctic amplification describes the tendency for high Northern latitudes to experience enhanced warming or cooling relative to the rest of the Northern Hemisphere. This heightened sensitivity is linked to the presence of snow and sea ice, and the feedback loops that they trigger. For example, as sea ice retreats, sunshine that would have been reflected back to space by the bright ice is instead absorbed by the ocean, which heats up, melting even more ice. As the world has warmed since the fossil-fuel revolution after World War II, Arctic temperatures have increased at more than twice the global rate. A dramatic indicator of this warming is the loss of Arctic sea ice in summer, which has declined by 40 percent in just the past three decades. The area of lost ice is about 1.3 million square miles, or roughly 42 percent of the area of the Lower 48 United States.

Extra heat entering the vast expanses of open water that were once covered in ice is released back to the atmosphere in the fall. This has led to an increase in near-surface, autumn air temperatures of 2 to 5 degrees C (3.6 to 9 degrees F) over much of the Arctic Ocean during the past decade. All that extra heat being deposited into the atmosphere cannot help but affect the weather, both locally and on a large scale. And there are growing indications that some weather phenomena in recent years — such as prolonged cold spells in Europe, heavy snows in the northeastern U.S. and Alaska, and heat waves in Russia — may be related to Arctic amplification.
But if so, how does it work?
The Arctic region is of course colder than the temperate zones, and it is this difference in temperature that propels the west-to-east river of fast-moving air known as the jet stream. This atmospheric feature separates warm air to its south from cold air to the north, and tends to follow a wavy path as it flows around the Northern Hemisphere between about 30 degrees N and 60 degrees N. It usually resides near the altitude where jets fly, hence its name. As high latitudes warm more than mid-latitudes, however, this north-south temperature difference weakens, which has two impacts on the jet stream.
The first effect is to slow the west-to-east speed of the jet stream, a phenomenon that already appears to be occurring. Upper-level winds around the Northern Hemisphere have slowed during autumn, from October to December, which is exactly when sea ice loss exerts its strongest effect on the north-south temperature gradient. Some regions exhibit even larger drops in wind speed, such as over North America and the North Atlantic, where winds have slowed by about 14 percent since 1980. Theory tells us that a decrease in the west-east flow tends to slow the eastward progression of waves in the jet stream. Because these waves control the formation and movement of storms, slower wave progression means that weather conditions will be more persistent. In other words, they will seem more “stuck.” This effect appears to play an important role mainly in autumn, because as sea ice reforms in winter, the north-south temperature difference gradually returns to more normal values.
The second way that Arctic amplification is expected to influence the jet stream and our weather is by increasing the “waviness” of the jet stream. Because of Arctic amplification, the northern peaks of waves, called ridges, will experience more warming than the southward dips, called troughs. This is expected to cause the ridges to stretch northward, which will increase the size of the waves. Larger swings in the jet stream allow frigid air from the Arctic to plunge farther south, as well as warm, moist tropical air to penetrate northward. These wavy flows often lead to record-breaking temperatures. Meteorologists have also known for a long time that larger jet-stream waves progress eastward more slowly, as will the weather systems associated with them. Consequently this represents another mechanism that will cause weather conditions to linger.
Increased waviness seems to be occurring during summer, as well; but instead of sea ice loss, the culprit appears to be the progressively earlier melt of snow on Arctic and sub-Arctic land in the spring. As snow disappears, bare soil is exposed to the strong spring sunshine earlier, which allows it to dry and warm sooner. This effect is at least partly responsible for the approximately 2 degrees C of warming over high-latitude land areas since the mid-1980s. This heat contributes to Arctic amplification during summer, which is expected once again to stretch ridges northward, increase waviness, and promote sluggish weather.
There have been many examples of “stuck” weather patterns during the past few years. Deep troughs in the jet stream hung over the U.S. east coast and Western Europe during the winters of 2009/2010 and 2010/2011, bringing a seemingly endless string of snow storms and teeth-chattering cold. In the early winter of 2011/2012, in contrast, these same areas were under ridges, or northward bulges of the jet stream, which brought unusually warm and snowless conditions over much of North America. At the same time, however, a deep trough sat over Alaska, dumping record snows. In early February this year, the jet stream plunged unusually far southward over Europe, bringing frigid Arctic air and snow to some areas that hadn’t seen those conditions in over half a century. During summer, persistent weather patterns are responsible for droughts and heat. The record heat waves in Europe and Russia in the past several years have been linked to early snowmelt in Siberia, and a sluggish high-pressure area caused last summer’s sweltering conditions in the south-central U.S.
While it’s difficult to point the finger at Arctic amplification in causing any of these weather events, they are the types of phenomena that are expected to occur more frequently as the world continues to warm and the Arctic continues to lose its ice. Further research may find ways to predict which regions will experience which conditions. But in the meantime, it’s increasingly likely that the weather you have today will stick around awhile.
Rapid Warming of the Arctic
The loss of Arctic summer sea ice and the rapid warming of the Far North are altering the jet stream over North America, Europe, and Russia. Scientists are now just beginning to understand how these profound shifts may be increasing the likelihood of more persistent and extreme weather.
by jennifer francisDoes it seem as though your weather has become increasingly “stuck” lately? Day after day of cold, rain, heat, or blue skies may not be a figment of your imagination. While various oceanic and atmospheric patterns such as El Niño, La Niña, and the North Atlantic Oscillation have been blamed for the spate of unusual weather recently, there’s now a new culprit in the wind: Arctic amplification. Directly related to sea-ice loss and earlier snowmelt in the Far North, it is affecting the jet stream around the Northern Hemisphere, with potentially far-reaching effects on the weather.
Arctic amplification describes the tendency for high Northern latitudes to experience enhanced warming or cooling relative to the rest of the Northern Hemisphere. This heightened sensitivity is linked to the presence of snow and sea ice, and the feedback loops that they trigger. For example, as sea ice retreats, sunshine that would have been reflected back to space by the bright ice is instead absorbed by the ocean, which heats up, melting even more ice. As the world has warmed since the fossil-fuel revolution after World War II, Arctic temperatures have increased at more than twice the global rate. A dramatic indicator of this warming is the loss of Arctic sea ice in summer, which has declined by 40 percent in just the past three decades. The area of lost ice is about 1.3 million square miles, or roughly 42 percent of the area of the Lower 48 United States.

Extra heat entering the vast expanses of open water that were once covered in ice is released back to the atmosphere in the fall. This has led to an increase in near-surface, autumn air temperatures of 2 to 5 degrees C (3.6 to 9 degrees F) over much of the Arctic Ocean during the past decade. All that extra heat being deposited into the atmosphere cannot help but affect the weather, both locally and on a large scale. And there are growing indications that some weather phenomena in recent years — such as prolonged cold spells in Europe, heavy snows in the northeastern U.S. and Alaska, and heat waves in Russia — may be related to Arctic amplification.
But if so, how does it work?
The Arctic region is of course colder than the temperate zones, and it is this difference in temperature that propels the west-to-east river of fast-moving air known as the jet stream. This atmospheric feature separates warm air to its south from cold air to the north, and tends to follow a wavy path as it flows around the Northern Hemisphere between about 30 degrees N and 60 degrees N. It usually resides near the altitude where jets fly, hence its name. As high latitudes warm more than mid-latitudes, however, this north-south temperature difference weakens, which has two impacts on the jet stream.
The first effect is to slow the west-to-east speed of the jet stream, a phenomenon that already appears to be occurring. Upper-level winds around the Northern Hemisphere have slowed during autumn, from October to December, which is exactly when sea ice loss exerts its strongest effect on the north-south temperature gradient. Some regions exhibit even larger drops in wind speed, such as over North America and the North Atlantic, where winds have slowed by about 14 percent since 1980. Theory tells us that a decrease in the west-east flow tends to slow the eastward progression of waves in the jet stream. Because these waves control the formation and movement of storms, slower wave progression means that weather conditions will be more persistent. In other words, they will seem more “stuck.” This effect appears to play an important role mainly in autumn, because as sea ice reforms in winter, the north-south temperature difference gradually returns to more normal values.
The second way that Arctic amplification is expected to influence the jet stream and our weather is by increasing the “waviness” of the jet stream. Because of Arctic amplification, the northern peaks of waves, called ridges, will experience more warming than the southward dips, called troughs. This is expected to cause the ridges to stretch northward, which will increase the size of the waves. Larger swings in the jet stream allow frigid air from the Arctic to plunge farther south, as well as warm, moist tropical air to penetrate northward. These wavy flows often lead to record-breaking temperatures. Meteorologists have also known for a long time that larger jet-stream waves progress eastward more slowly, as will the weather systems associated with them. Consequently this represents another mechanism that will cause weather conditions to linger.
Increased waviness seems to be occurring during summer, as well; but instead of sea ice loss, the culprit appears to be the progressively earlier melt of snow on Arctic and sub-Arctic land in the spring. As snow disappears, bare soil is exposed to the strong spring sunshine earlier, which allows it to dry and warm sooner. This effect is at least partly responsible for the approximately 2 degrees C of warming over high-latitude land areas since the mid-1980s. This heat contributes to Arctic amplification during summer, which is expected once again to stretch ridges northward, increase waviness, and promote sluggish weather.
There have been many examples of “stuck” weather patterns during the past few years. Deep troughs in the jet stream hung over the U.S. east coast and Western Europe during the winters of 2009/2010 and 2010/2011, bringing a seemingly endless string of snow storms and teeth-chattering cold. In the early winter of 2011/2012, in contrast, these same areas were under ridges, or northward bulges of the jet stream, which brought unusually warm and snowless conditions over much of North America. At the same time, however, a deep trough sat over Alaska, dumping record snows. In early February this year, the jet stream plunged unusually far southward over Europe, bringing frigid Arctic air and snow to some areas that hadn’t seen those conditions in over half a century. During summer, persistent weather patterns are responsible for droughts and heat. The record heat waves in Europe and Russia in the past several years have been linked to early snowmelt in Siberia, and a sluggish high-pressure area caused last summer’s sweltering conditions in the south-central U.S.
While it’s difficult to point the finger at Arctic amplification in causing any of these weather events, they are the types of phenomena that are expected to occur more frequently as the world continues to warm and the Arctic continues to lose its ice. Further research may find ways to predict which regions will experience which conditions. But in the meantime, it’s increasingly likely that the weather you have today will stick around awhile.
Read More: http://e360.yale.edu/feature/linking_weird_weather...
















Rapid warming of the Arctic caused by rising greenhouse gases? If this were the case then the Antarctic Ice would also be receding. It is not, in fact it is growing. The reason...could it be deep sea volcanic activity in the Arctic area and not in the Antarctic?
The Gakkel Ridge stretches 1100 miles from Greenland to Siberia under the Arctic cap and has recently been discovered to be a hot bed (pun intended) of volcanic activity.
Seems to me that this would raise the water temperature and melt the ice more than the gases in the air.
“The sea ice extent changes by about 10 million square kilometers every year. 100 square kilometers is about one hundred thousandth of that. It would take a thousand volcanos the size of Mount St. Helens every year to account for just 1% of the yearly Arctic ice loss”
These are scientific data and you have used a very small part of the truth to make your claim, sir. This is not a subject to be treated lightly, Many high level scientists, and I'm guessing you're not one, are predicting potentially unliveable conditions in less than 100 years. Wouldn't it be a good idea to take politics and bias out of this discussion and not use half truths?
Did I once mention politics or even one politician or any political party? NO! You are the one who brought politics to the table.
Bias??? The original post lays blame solely on anthropogenic warming. That's bias!
I simply offer another explanation. Further, anything less than ALL the explanations would be less than the WHOLE TRUTH.
Scientific data??? You're right, I'm not a scientist. As you say, "many high level scientist...predicting potentially unlivable conditions..." but there are many who also think the opposite is true.The scientists change their minds more than a lovestruck teenage girl. One year it's melting, the next it's growing. One year we're heading for an ice age, the next we're going to cooked in the coming global warming oven. One year coffee will kill you and the next it's the best thing for you. Give me a break.
Ian Allison, Australia Antarctic Division glaciology program head (April 18, 2009) "Sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica."
Wouldn't it be a better idea to practice what you preach.
Thanks for bringing up his name. You just shot yourself in the foot. FYI, he's retiring.
By the way, that's moron; not maroon. And climatologists drink coffee but don't analyze it. Keep an open mind, Believe me, I wish the scientists were wrong and I look for reasons not to believe. I've probably researched this subject 100 times more than you.
I believe the earth warms and it cools. The earth regulates itself and I think we have a much smaller impact on the cycle than we credit ourselves.
Oh, oh...this just in...renewable, "green" energy is contributing to global warming and climate change. That's right folks, Wind energy is raising the temperature of the earth according to Liming Zhou, associate professor at the State University of New York, Albany and author of the paper published April 29 in Nature Climate Change. I thought this kind of thing was supposed to save us and now it seems it's another nail in our hot steaming coffin.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitec...
popular+%28Internal+-+Most+Po...
And by the way...
In regards to wind turbines heating the air? Yes, they do but by a very small amount. If you've had any training in thermodynamics, as I have, heat is required in all cases to create work or power. Maybe you can refute thermodynamic laws and, if you do, please let me invest in your company. Those large blades aren't used to cool the earth; they're used to turn a generator for power; usually 1 to 4 megawatts. On a local scale, they have very minor temperature rise but globally, zip. Here’s something I’ve worked on, as an engineer, and my info didn’t come from anything but experience working with engineers at power stations: Compared to one coal fired steam turbine generator, which may be powering your computer, it would take many hundreds of wind turbines to create as much heat. One unit can burn 400 tons of coal per day to acquire 1000 megawatts of power.
If you are learning word meanings from the comics, I'm wasting my time talking to you. Marooned on another planet, moron.
What part of any of my replies do YOU not understand? You keep coming back with non related topics such as politics, and my supposed bias. "Holy crap Batman" (just another comic reference to befuddle you) you are probably one of the most biased persons I have had the pleasure of having written intercourse with. Yeah, it's been fun f*cking with ya. You act like I am the one who said wind turbines are heating things up. I didn't! It was just another example of "we don't really know what the f*ck we're doing" syndrome. Except for you, because you're an engineer.
Wait a minute, you're an engineer, thermodynamics you say, "heat is required in all cases to create work or power". Your words, direct quote.
The wind generators are not "creating" the temperature rising heat Prof Zhou wrote about, they are disturbing the natural thermodynamics of the earth and are pulling warmer air from above to the ground thereby negating the natural ground cooling of the night air and raising the ground temperature. But since you are an engineer in thermodynamics you already knew that. You must have just been a bit flustered by Bugs Bunny.
I stand by my words..."what a maroon".
You sent me a Faux News article which means you use them as a source of information about climate change. This tends to make me think that you have been brainwashed rather than learned. Learning is a great way to tell the difference between BS and the truth. In all cases you have mentioned, the scientists have been right; it's more about separation of the wheat from the chaff. You have taken specific comments that YOU think support your opinion; that's not how you learn.
The Koch family (super rich & haters of climate change ideas) hired a climatologist of considerable fame to do the research about climate change...
You sent me a Faux News article which means you use them as a source of information about climate change. This tends to make me think that you have been brainwashed rather than learned. Learning is a great way to tell the difference between BS and the truth. In all cases you have mentioned, the scientists have been right; it's more about separation of the wheat from the chaff. You have taken specific comments that YOU think support your opinion; that's not how you learn.
The Koch family (super rich & haters of climate change ideas) hired a climatologist of considerable fame to do the research about climate change with the idea that he would be a powerful argument against it. Unfortunately for them, the scientist spent a lot of effort studying data worldwide and, in the end, agreed that climate change was real. He is not employed by them any longer; sometimes the truth hurts.
The only debate about climate change today is how fast it will adversely affect the world; not whether it's real or not. Have a nice day.
When these areas begin to thaw they will start producing methane and more carbon dioxide as well as open water areas where previously there was frozen organic materials with a thin crust of plants that grew every year. The more of these melt the more greenhouse gases released the more the warming then the more the melting.