The Beast from the east:

[beecee]

OK, firstly I'm no expert in climate change and sadly and unforgivably do not really know enough about it, other then to say I'm slowly rectifying that, and in any stretch of the imagination, I'm sure most reasonable thinking people, those without any agenda or self interests in fossil fuel productions and such, would agree with the principal that even if there is any doubt as to catastrophic human induced climate change, one should err on the side of caution...for the sake of those that are following us.

My interest was aroused by two articles...[1] concerning the incredible snow falls and freezing temperatures in Britain, North America and Europe in recent times, coupled with the seemingly contradicting fact that temperatures in the Arctic are much higher then normal. 

The articles concerned are.....

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/28/what-does-snow-mean-climate-change-beast-from-the-east-polar-vortex-freezing-temperature

Q&A: What does all this snow mean for climate change?

and

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/27/arctic-warming-scientists-alarmed-by-crazy-temperature-rises

Arctic warming: scientists alarmed by 'crazy' temperature rises

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

One point I did learn a few years ago, was that the rather crazy weather patterns, with a seemingly increase in extreme weather events, was evident of human induced global warming and climate change. Scientific comments on the apparent two contradictory weather patterns welcome, and while we are at it, is there any chance that Donald Du, oops Trump, may recommend the US again join the Paris agreement.

 

 

[Ken Fabian]

I wouldn't say contradictory - they appear to be linked phenomena - from an article at TheConversation.com (by scientists from Norwegian Polar Institute)

Quote

 

Normally, the cold air above the polar region is contained in the Arctic by a ring-like band of strong winds called the polar vortex. But in the middle of February this year, the polar vortex split into two vortices: one over Eurasia and the other over North America.

Between these two features, a strong high-pressure system gradually formed. As a result, warm air was pumped up into the Arctic on the west side of the high, while cold air was channelled southwards to the east of it. Hence the exceptionally warm air in the Arctic and the cold snap in Europe.

 

 

Edited March 2, 2018 by Ken Fabian
fixed typo

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

I wouldn't say contradictory - they appear to be linked phenomena - from an article at TheConversation.com (by scientists from Norwegian Polar Institute)

 

Thanks Ken, I knew there would be a valid scientific explanation for it, it was just escaping me at the time.

[Prometheus]

A simple answer i give when people raise this point is that it's called 'global' warming, not 'my neck of the woods must always be hotter than usual' warming (too simple for you since you're actually looking into the science, but it works for many who don't really care about science but don't have an agenda either)

[NortonH]

http://joannenova.com.au/2018/03/uk-weather-going-mediterranean-so-fast-it-overshoots-to-south-pole/

 

 

[beecee]

10 hours ago, NortonH said:

http://joannenova.com.au/2018/03/uk-weather-going-mediterranean-so-fast-it-overshoots-to-south-pole/

Seems to be a personal blog of some unscientific nut. 

And again, the apparent number of extreme events, does point to an acceleration in the now confirmed aspect of human induced climate change.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Supplementary article and paper..........

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-earlier-polar-regions-rest-earth.html

Spring is springing earlier in polar regions than across the rest of earth

March 2, 2018, UC Davis

Spring is arriving earlier, but how much earlier? The answer depends where on Earth you find yourself, according to a study led by the University of California, Davis.

The study, published in Nature's online journal Scientific Reports, found that for every 10 degrees north from the equator you move, spring arrives about four days earlier than it did a decade ago. This northward increase in the rate of springtime advance is roughly three times greater than what previous studies have indicated.

For example, at southern to mid latitudes such as Los Angeles, New Orleans, or Dallas, the study suggests spring might be arriving a mere one day earlier than it did a decade ago. Farther north, in Seattle, Chicago, or Washington DC, it might be arriving four days earlier. And if you live in the Arctic, it might be arriving as much as 16 days earlier.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-03-earlier-polar-regions-rest-earth.html#jCp

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

the paper:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22258-0

Acceleration of phenological advance and warming with latitude over the past century:

Abstract: 

In the Northern Hemisphere, springtime events are frequently reported as advancing more rapidly at higher latitudes, presumably due to an acceleration of warming with latitude. However, this assumption has not been investigated in an analytical framework that simultaneously examines acceleration of warming with latitude while accounting for variation in phenological time series characteristics that might also co-vary with latitude. We analyzed 743 phenological trend estimates spanning 86 years and 42.6 degrees of latitude in the Northern Hemisphere, as well as rates of Northern Hemisphere warming over the same period and latitudinal range. We detected significant patterns of co-variation in phenological time series characteristics that may confound estimates of the magnitude of variation in trends with latitude. Notably, shorter and more recent time series tended to produce the strongest phenological trends, and these also tended to be from higher latitude studies. However, accounting for such variation only slightly modified the relationship between rates of phenological advance and latitude, which was highly significant. Furthermore, warming has increased non-linearly with latitude over the past several decades, most strongly since 1998 and northward of 59°N latitude. The acceleration of warming with latitude has likely contributed to an acceleration of phenological advance along the same gradient.

Edited March 2, 2018 by beecee

[Essay]

13 hours ago, beecee said:

Acceleration of phenological advance and warming with latitude over the past century:

.... Furthermore, warming has increased non-linearly with latitude over the past several decades, most strongly since 1998 and northward of 59°N latitude. The acceleration of warming with latitude has likely contributed to an acceleration of phenological advance along the same gradient.

The “Lazy Jet Stream Theory” seems to be supported by all these observations.  The theory explains how the polar jet stream, which is driven by the difference in temperatures  between the polar air mass (Polar Cell) and the temperate or mid-latitude air mass (Ferrel Cell), will weaken or get “lazy” as the polar air mass warms more than the global average.  In the same way the arms of a spinning ice skater can be extended more easily as the skater slows down, the borders of the polar air mass (polar jet stream) can wander more easily away from the center and toward the lower latitudes—creating so-called “omega loops.” 

This leads to more longitudinal patterns in our weather, instead of the more traditional latitudinal or zonal flow to weather patterns that agriculture depends on.  This more frequent interruption in traditional weather patterns also makes it more likely to break weather records, such as record cold temperatures farther south or record warm temperatures farther north, especially in winter and spring when the loss of the normal temperature differential is most pronounced.

Certainly, the early prediction of amplified arctic warming, which was specifically expected to result from extra CO2 heating, seems to have been born out (see colored arrows and shaded text on annotated graph below) over the first climatologically significant period of time—thirty years—since Stuiver's prediction.  The non-annotated graph (in black and red) was first published in 1981, and it was used in the 1991 textbook for climate researchers, on page 253:

Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics no.16; Paleoclimatology; edited by Crowley & North.

~

Edited March 3, 2018 by Essay
typo in text

[Strange]

Before someone comes back and claims this shows how inaccurate climate models are, it is probably worth highlighting that:

1. It is just one model. No one plans (or achieves scientific consensus) based on a single model or one experiment.

2. It is more than 35 years old. A lot has been learned since then and newer models take many more factors into account.

3. The relative difference in temperatures is correct.

 

[StringJunky]

A little known fact I've just learnt is that the temperature difference between snow falling and cold rain is 0.1^oC. 

[Essay]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Before someone comes back and claims this shows how inaccurate climate models are, it is probably worth highlighting that:

1. It is just one model. No one plans (or achieves scientific consensus) based on a single model or one experiment.

2. It is more than 35 years old. A lot has been learned since then and newer models take many more factors into account.

3. The relative difference in temperatures is correct.

Good point!  I probably should have included a relevant quote, from the accompanying text of the 1991 source, to provide that context.

They say:

Quote

"Despite the geologic evidence, some CO₂ doubling studies suggest that the atmosphere should already have warmed to levels greater than those of the present (e.g., Hansen et al., 1984; Schlesinger, 1986).  Are the models wrong, or are other processes operating that are obscuring the trend?  One possibility involves sequestering of excess heat in the intermediate and deep layers of the ocean (Hansen et al., 1984; Schlesinger, 1986), a possibility for which there is some empirical evidence, as intermediate waters in the North Atlantic appear to have warmed significantly over the last 30 years (Roemmich and Wunsch, 1984)."  -page 255, Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics no.16; Paleoclimatology, 1991.

They go on to mention other explanations for the discrepancy too, such as the "...modulation of atmospheric signals by volcanism and solar variability, i.e., by 'natural' climate fluctuations," as well as intrinsic or internal "interactions in a nonlinear coupled system" that can "generate low-frequency climate variance." 

~

Edited March 3, 2018 by Essay
text/quote