Researchers find temperature feedback magnifying climate warming in Arctic

Feb 03, 2014 by Bob Yirka report
Mosaic of images of the Arctic by MODIS. Credit: NASA

(Phys.org) —A team of researchers with the Max Planck Institute in Germany, has found that temperature feedback in the Arctic is causing more warming in that region than sea ice albedo. In their paper published in the journal Nature Geoscience, the team describes how plugging data into a computer simulation revealed a "layered cake" atmosphere that traps heat over the polar cap.

Scientists have known for several years that temperatures in the Arctic are rising faster (due to ) than for the rest of the planet—for the most part, most climatologists have attributed this to albedo—a feedback system where a small rise in leads to melting of ice and snow. Less ice and snow means less heat is reflected back into space, which means more warming occurs, and so on. In this new effort, the researchers suggest that while sea ice albedo is causing temperatures to rise, it's second to temperature feedback in overall impact.

To gain a better perspective on why Arctic temperatures are increasing so much, the researchers turned to highly sophisticated and data intensive climate computer models. Their model showed a cap of cold layered air hovering over the Arctic, holding in the heat. The researchers believe their simulation accurately portrays what actually exists in the real Arctic.

Normally, they explain, changing weather patterns (such as thunderstorms) in other parts of the world keep atmospheric air churning, which in turn allows heat closer to the ground to be moved higher, allowing some of it to escape into space. Things are very different in the Arctic—there is very little churning, which means that warm air close to ground (just one to two kilometers thick) remains where it is, trapped by a heavy layered atmosphere.

The simulation also helps to explain why Arctic warming is more pronounced in the winter than during other seasons—even less mixing of the air in the atmosphere occurs because the air is so cold.

The team reports that their simulations show that the temperature feedback that occurs in the Arctic is causing more average temperature increase than sea ice albedo, the second most critical factor in causing warming. They have not used their findings to try to predict what sort of overall impact increasing Arctic temperatures might have on the rest of the planet, however, if the will melt completely, or if it does, when it might occur.

Explore further: Weakened 'polar vortex' blamed for N. American chill

More information: Arctic amplification dominated by temperature feedbacks in contemporary climate models, Nature Geoscience (2014) DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2071

Abstract
Climate change is amplified in the Arctic region. Arctic amplification has been found in past warm and glacial periods, as well as in historical observations and climate model experiments. Feedback effects associated with temperature, water vapour and clouds have been suggested to contribute to amplified warming in the Arctic, but the surface albedo feedback—the increase in surface absorption of solar radiation when snow and ice retreat—is often cited as the main contributor. However, Arctic amplification is also found in models without changes in snow and ice cover. Here we analyse climate model simulations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 archive to quantify the contributions of the various feedbacks. We find that in the simulations, the largest contribution to Arctic amplification comes from a temperature feedbacks: as the surface warms, more energy is radiated back to space in low latitudes, compared with the Arctic. This effect can be attributed to both the different vertical structure of the warming in high and low latitudes, and a smaller increase in emitted blackbody radiation per unit warming at colder temperatures. We find that the surface albedo feedback is the second main contributor to Arctic amplification and that other contributions are substantially smaller or even opposeArctic amplification.

Related Stories

Recommended for you

The ocean's living carbon pumps

16 hours ago

When we talk about global carbon fixation – "pumping" carbon out of the atmosphere and fixing it into organic molecules by photosynthesis – proper measurement is key to understanding this process. By ...

User comments : 50

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TegiriNenashi
1.7 / 5 (24) Feb 03, 2014
"Arctic amplification"? One has to give credit to AGW ingenuity. "If data doesn't fit the model, throw out the data!" Or arrogance and obfuscation skills: "Yeah, we know about Antarctic, but you [denier] are obviously ignorant: it is shaped differently, plus don't forget this [ozone] hole!"

The antarctic satellite image is quite remarkable. Even a nonspecialist can see how easy is to estimate ice cover. The distinction between sea and ice is well pronounced. Therefore, to estimate area just count the white pixels! The error is basically cloud cover. Clouds don't sit in one place, though, so with several days of satellite photo one takes pretty accurate figure of ice coverage. And, finally, what is the total current ice cover anomaly [for both hemispheres]? About 0.
shavera
4.8 / 5 (21) Feb 03, 2014
It's nice to see science transitioning from broad global patterns to understanding some simplified local patterns as well. That'll be an important step for better understanding what the *effects* of AGW will be globally. Other good science has pointed out how differentially heating of the Arctic (observed) will cause weakened jet stream behaviour, leading to stronger variations in local weather over time in temperate regions.
nevermark
4.6 / 5 (19) Feb 03, 2014
Tegiri, discarding research results by impugning the motives of specific researchers without any evidence of poor or unethical research is a common logical fallacy among people who don't value honesty in themselves or others. If you actually had any real evidence to refute the paper you could have done so.
TegiriNenashi
1.6 / 5 (19) Feb 03, 2014
Once again, this article doesn't mention Antarctic one single time. I would like to know have they tried to run the model applied to Southern hemisphere. I can't imagine a scientist deprived basic curiosity to check their hypothesis at every applicable spot. The only possible explanation why they refuse to apply it to model Antarctic is that they are aware that their model is junk. However, I give it benefit of the doubt: can somebody venture behind the paywall and tell us what do they say (if anything) about the opposite region?
shavera
4.6 / 5 (18) Feb 03, 2014
I'm behind the paywall and they do not mention the antarctic (using ctrl+f at least). But there's no *a priori* reason why both poles must be the same. The antarctic is a pole with a continent lying beneath it. Plenty of land for ice to attach to. There's less land-mass, and differently distributed at that, in the southern hemisphere.

I think you have the research backwards. They're not trying to predict *a priori* what's happening in the Arctic. They made an observation (the arctic is warming faster than global averages), made a hypothesis (variations in air turbulence between temperate and arctic airs), tested their hypothesis (using software to numerically solve physical behaviour), and reported their conclusions. I mean science doesn't often fit into the middle school "model" of science, but that's pretty much how to interpret these results.
shavera
4.6 / 5 (18) Feb 03, 2014
Actually, in fact, in Figure 1, they implicitly acknowledge that the North polar region is dramatically different than the South polar region in differential warming. The zonal warming in the Antarctic is only about 6 K, but the warming in the Arctic is about 25 K.

http://imgur.com/4BkZyI7
TegiriNenashi
1.4 / 5 (19) Feb 03, 2014
There is a good reason why both poles should respond in a similar fashion. It is called "polar amplification". This idea was pretty much consensus for a while. Note, that nobody actually challenged Mercer's 1978 paper in Nature magazine predicting ridiculous 5-10K degree increase / 50 years. 35 years later it is obvious that there is no warming in the Antarctic, so your camp has to change the story. Changing explanation is not a problem per se; if you were wrong in the past it better be a convincing explanation. Tell us something we don't know.
shavera
4.6 / 5 (18) Feb 03, 2014
You did read the graph I posted, right? The one that posted a 6 degree +/- 4 degree warming in the Antarctic too? You know how numbers work right, that 6 falls within the range of 5-10. If anything, what the data show is that the Arctic warmed significantly more than predicted (given the numbers you quote), warming an additional 10+ degrees over that polar amplification range. So as scientists, maybe there's a reason to look into that 10 degree difference. And they did. And this is the result.
The Shootist
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 03, 2014

Gold
laying on the ground
waiting to be found
Gold.

TegiriNenashi
1.4 / 5 (19) Feb 03, 2014
Excuse me, but this is just one graph. It is like exhibiting a single number (97%) and expecting the other side to take it as gospel. I don't know what is going on, and I would like to check. Specifically, what mechanism is responsible for lower warming of Antarctic? I'm pretty sure Jim Mercer (who suggested a different number) was quite aware of the fact that antarctic is a continent surrounded by the ocean.

BTW, I find it quite outrageous that the article is behind paywall. They take nontrivial amount of taxpayer money (AGW research is 2.5 billion $ in the US), make dire pronouncements, and keep their "masterpiece" not available for public scrutiny?
shavera
4.5 / 5 (15) Feb 03, 2014
There are many pushes to try to make science available publicly, there are many forum discussions on the same, so I don't want to add more to it here.

I'm just not aware of what you're trying to claim. The antarctic is warming; not as much as the arctic, but warming none the less. Differences between the two are functionally local climate differences. Both have more warming than midlatitude regions because of albedo changes. This research suggests that the variations in turbulent air mixing in the arctic adds additional surface warming on top of the albedo change. It just does not comment on the antarctic condition, but... that's just a study that is limited in focus, common practice in sciences.
omatwankr
4 / 5 (12) Feb 03, 2014
shavera it seems you are debating a troll whom mass-debating

http://arstechnic...24219841

"Dr. Jay Science Editor
et Subscriptor
Registered: Jul 29, 2003
Posts: 6606
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 12:11 pm
MODERATION: tegirinenashi has been banned for ignoring previous moderators' requests to stop posting bogus information. Please stop responding to his post."
TegiriNenashi
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 03, 2014
There is a profound logical gap in your argument. The increased antarctic ice cover (as evidenced by satellite observations) should increase albedo, causing temperature drop. Thus, I disagree with your assessment that there is any [observed] warming in the antarctic at all.

Omat, if you want to bring up arstechnica, then it doesn't strengthen your position at all. First, their science coverage is minuscule and completely irrelevant (compared to other venues). They have couple of second rate authors, whose ideology happened to align with the owners. There were several instances when inquisitor-in-chief (wheels) posted lengthy debunking, but, at the same time, the editors banned the other side from posting. How can I defend my position when banned? In the later discussions, they always point up to past discussions and exclaim: "See, you were didn't respond to that!". This is just pathetic.
shavera
4.8 / 5 (17) Feb 03, 2014
"I feel like reality should be a certain way, therefore it must be" - TegiriNenashi
runrig
4.1 / 5 (14) Feb 03, 2014
Once again, this article doesn't mention Antarctic one single time. I would like to know have they tried to run the model applied to Southern hemisphere. I can't imagine a scientist deprived basic curiosity to check their hypothesis at every applicable spot. The only possible explanation why they refuse to apply it to model Antarctic is that they are aware that their model is junk. However, I give it benefit of the doubt: can somebody venture behind the paywall and tell us what do they say (if anything) about the opposite region?


It doesn't mention the Antarctic, err, because it's about the Arctic, which is a TOTALLY different environment - despite them both being Poles.

Do I really have to list the enormous differences between the two? Again.

Just for a start there are tremendous katabatic winds flowing down from the interior ... because , you know, like, it's at a mean height of 12000ft, whereas the Arctic is at sea-level.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (15) Feb 03, 2014
There is a profound logical gap in your argument. The increased antarctic ice cover (as evidenced by satellite observations) should increase albedo, causing temperature drop. Thus, I disagree with your assessment that there is any [observed] warming in the antarctic at all.


Only to people who willfully blind themselves to the obvious differences.
OK for the nth+1 time on here ...
Arctic at SL, Ant at 12000ft.
Arctic virtually enclosed by land-mass.
Ant isolated by ocean - itself isolated from ocean warming via the ACC.
Arctic salinity stable - relatively fresh.
Ant salinity variable and becoming fresher via summer land ice melt.
Arctic - sea-ice exposure on melt giving large +ve feedback
Ant relatively little albedo change in because of small increase in sea-ice extent in comparison to the loss in the Arctic...
http://www.columb...IceArea/

cont
runrig
4.1 / 5 (13) Feb 03, 2014
cont

Ant sea-ice formation uncontained and increasing due fresher seas and divergent winds impact on unconstrained movement.
Ant cooled/isolated further by CFC destruction of O3 and consequent intensification of the Trop and Stratospheric vortex.

Need I go on?
I disagree with your assessment that there is any [observed] warming in the antarctic at all.

Really?

From.....https://ore.exete...quence=2

"Our analyses reveal significant temperatures changes aloft over the past half-century, with large-scale mid-tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling. Statistically significant mid-tropospheric warming is found in all seasons, indicating that it is not solely the winter phenomenon first uncovered by Turner et al. [2006]. Stratospheric cooling has occurred predominantly in austral spring and summer."

TegiriNenashi
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 03, 2014
Are you implying there is non-negligeable difference in salinity between Arctic and Antarctic?
http://www.scienc...salinity
You are clutching at straws.

Also what items on your list were not known / ignored by Mercer when he made his alarmist prediction?

Finally, when you are dumping reasons, you should supply quantitative data. It is not enough just to wave hands and blurp: "ozone hole ate my global warming".
runrig
4.1 / 5 (14) Feb 03, 2014
You are clutching at straws.

No, I take on board the science - it is you that are denying it and clutching at the straws your ideology fits.

I am saying that there is DECREASING salinity in the oceans surrounding Antarctica. That is all - the clue is in the decreasing bit and not in any comparison. As in sea-ice can form at a higher temp....From:
http://www.nature...-1.12709

"Its authors analysed satellite and buoy observations of ocean temperature and salinity for the period 1985–2010. They then compared observed changes in those data with the output of a global climate model that simulated how losing 250 gigatonnes of meltwater from the Antarctic ice sheet each year would affect ocean conditions. In the model, the meltwater formed a cool freshwater cap that facilitated the expansion of sea ice, leading the researchers to identify this as the most likely cause of the recent trend."

cont
runrig
4.3 / 5 (16) Feb 03, 2014
Also what items on your list were not known / ignored by Mercer when he made his alarmist prediction?
So you use one scientist's incorrect prediction made 36 years ago in order to rubbish all of current climate science. Silly question, of course you do that's about par for the course for your ilk.

Finally, when you are dumping reasons, you should supply quantitative data. It is not enough just to wave hands and blurp: "ozone hole ate my global warming".

Right, so your "blurp" that the Antarctic ate up GW as in "it is obvious that there is no warming in the Antarctic" is no such thing?

Where's your "quantitative data" - you know, like the paper on Antarctic warming I linked.
If you're not aware that there is an ozone hole over Antarctica and that 03 is a GHG, and what that would necessarily mean, then what are you doing on here talking bollocks to people who do know?

cont
runrig
4.1 / 5 (13) Feb 03, 2014
You are aware that O3 destruction warms and that it's absence means colder Strat temps and ergo a stronger vortex?
You are aware that a strong vortex leads to greater convergent winds into the continent? thereby reducing advection of warmth from the exterior?
Do wake up - you're talking to people who know stuff on here. Well at least me and a few others.
Oh, and don't come back with the "appeal to authority" riposte as logic dictates that to be a fallacy.
So you're not going to get your way by shouting loudly/repeatedly. Neither will we change your mind. I give not a toss that you do - you're just not spouting mythic denialist crap without me denying it.
Thank you and good night.
TegiriNenashi
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 03, 2014
Did you read the link that you have provided?
"The mechanism could be completely true, but this study does not demonstrate that increased melting has made a significant contribution to the increase in sea-ice cover,"
Could be, maybe, weather permitting...
Those 250 gigatonnes are literally drop in the basket: the volume of southern ocean is
71,800,000 cubic *kilometers*
http://www.ngdc.n...mes.html
That right: it is more than 10^5 times bigger. Please don't tell me that fresh and salty water don't mix (especially during those roaring southern storms). Finally, the salinity map that I have provided independently confirms that there is no salinity difference between the polar regions whatsoever.
Mimath224
4.3 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2014
I suppose another difference between the polar regions is that probably a lot more people live closer to the Artic than do the Antartic. For example ESA's 20 year study apparently shows thinning of ice (grounded ice) over Alaska Artic Lakes in the range of 22%. Sentinel-1 mission of the Copernicus programme is expected to provide further details.
MandoZink
4 / 5 (8) Feb 03, 2014
You are aware that O3 destruction warms and that it's absence means colder Strat temps and ergo a stronger vortex?
You are aware that a strong vortex leads to greater convergent winds into the continent? thereby reducing advection of warmth from the exterior?


I recall reading a detailed description of that process almost a decade ago. It was in a study of the effects of CFCs and the hole in the ozone layer. The study never mentioned global warming, only the unusual effects in the atmospheric layers beneath the O3 hole that created atypical local cooling. They said the persistence of this anomalous effect would cease as the ozone layer returns to normal.
jyro
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 03, 2014
No mention of actually measuring the cold layer cap, just relying on a Computer model is bad science.
runrig
3.8 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2014
I suppose another difference between the polar regions is that probably a lot more people live closer to the Artic than do the Antartic.....

mimath:
The Arctic is especially vulnerable to anthroprogenic influences.
The main one however is the shape of the land-masses surrounding it.
Mountain torque events are the primary reason that the Arctic PV gets disrupted, thus allowing warmer air to penetrate into the Polar region.
A MT event is the barrier effect of mid-Trop winds being deflecting N'wards/upwards into the Strat and this air "wave-breaking" into the PV and warming/disrupting it. This eventually reverses the thermal winds aloft to cause a -ve AO to develop (HP) and so allow the frigid Arctic air to escape S'ward (plausible casual links here to AGW theory).
The Rockies are a primary mover here, as are the Himalayas plus natural gaps eg Bering Straits. There's also an overlying planetary long-wave to the Tropics (MJO and BDO) that can reinforce these processes.
runrig
4 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2014
No mention of actually measuring the cold layer cap, just relying on a Computer model is bad science.


Excuse me? Bad science?

Now how do you propose to "do the science" in such a highly complex algorithm.
With a slide rule and graph paper?
Get real please, climate science is not unique in using models - they are just the modern day equivalent of slide rules/calculators.
All complex science is done this way.
You think they're not used to map a satellites trajectory to the planets. To model jet-engine dynamical air-flow. Nuclear interactions etc etc.

Mimath224
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2014
I suppose another difference between the polar regions is that probably a lot more people live closer to the Artic than do the Antartic.....

mimath:
The Arctic is especially vulnerable to anthroprogenic influences.
The main one however is the shape of the land-masses surrounding it.
Mountain torque events are the primary reason that the Arctic PV gets disrupted, thus allowing warmer air to penetrate into the Polar region.
A MT event is the barrier effect ...

Won't argue the point(s) you make except to say that the land masses have been there a lot longer that the populace so neglecting effects from elswhere either it's a repeating phenenom or or we have a local change. But I agree with you it just 'ain't' that simple and we can't neglect what happens elsewhere. Satellites are great in showing us what is happening but as you imply, it takes a lot of hardbasic workto find out why.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 04, 2014

Won't argue the point(s) you make except to say that the land masses have been there a lot longer that the populace so neglecting effects from elswhere either it's a repeating phenenom or or we have a local change. But I agree with you it just 'ain't' that simple and we can't neglect what happens elsewhere. Satellites are great in showing us what is happening but as you imply, it takes a lot of hardbasic workto find out why.


Mimath:
I didn't mean to dismiss your point - it is a very good one. The majority of the world's industrialisation/people lie in the NH, and it's atmosphere is effectively cut-off from the SH's with air only leaking across on a time-scale of many months/years.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2014
@runrig...That's okay I didn't mean to write as though you did dimiss anything, my apologies. As a layman, I appreciate your comments.
OIbviously any topic even having a remote connection to climate change has interesting consequences. I enjoy the articles and the posts...I enjoy learning ifrom it all.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2014
Their model showed a cap of cold layered air hovering over the Arctic, holding in the heat.
I wonder if the cap of cold air they are modelling here could also help explain the "polar vortex" phenomena we've been seeing in the middle and eastern US? The super-cold air trapped over the Arctic slips past the warmer air trapped under it, and "spills" into the NH at the latitudes we are seeing it? Runrig, any traction to this idea?
Mimath224
5 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2014
@Maggnus, I don't live in USA but have been trying to follow the recent cold weather there. You might be aware of the content at
www.weather.com/n...20140107
However, other reports suggest a 'breakdown' of the PV beginning with above average warm temps followed by 'Hercules', then still colder temps following, which seems to support what you mentioned. The implication is apparently that unusual pressure differences caused the jet stream extend further south.
Seems to me that the 2 usual 'centers' of the PV were breaking up into 3 or more smaller ones...just my thought.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) Feb 04, 2014
@Maggnus, as a 'ps' I understand that these recent record low temps in NH have prompted new anthropogenic discussions but you'd know more about that than I.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 05, 2014
I wonder if the cap of cold air they are modelling here could also help explain the "polar vortex" phenomena we've been seeing in the middle and eastern US?

@Maggnus
i am going crazy looking for the link... but within the last month either runrig or howhot produced a link that had a quick video in it... showed the pattern of the polar vortex, i believe, and how it destabilized and fluctuated.
i cant find it

@runrig
@howhot
do either of yall remember that video? might have been late dec 2013... but definitely recently as in the past month to month and a half...
had a woman talking about the destabilized pattern and how the warming caused the wave pattern to fluctuate lower and push colder air into the midwest, etc.

if you remember it can you please re-post it?
i will continue to look for it
steven_johnston_353
4 / 5 (4) Feb 05, 2014
2013 tied for the seventh warmest year since 1880, according to NASA's latest data.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 05, 2014
I wonder if the cap of cold air they are modelling here could also help explain the "polar vortex" phenomena we've been seeing in the middle and eastern US? The super-cold air trapped over the Arctic slips past the warmer air trapped under it, and "spills" into the NH at the latitudes we are seeing it? Runrig, any traction to this idea?


Maggnus:
Well, as an expert I always find these "media" type explanations strange. If they mean the Stratospheric vortex – this year it has reached unusually cold (~-90C) at the core and as a result has been very hard to shift/disrupt – then, yes it forms every northern winter. It is instrumental in the guidance of the Tropospheric vortex beneath, (PV), and it serves to strengthen the +ve AO (low pressure) in the Arctic and thereby intensify convergent winds there (lock in cold air).
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 05, 2014
cont

I can only think they mean this as to have cold air overlying warmer is the opposite – unstable, and will cause wamer air below to rise and remove heat from the lower layers. Ie I don't see anything revolutionary here. There is no routine upper air data from the deep Arctic – the closest comes from Jan Mayen Svallbard, Thule Greenland and Novoya Zemlya Russia.
PS: the persistence of the PV this year is prob related to the E'ly QBO (Quasi-biennial Oscillation) and the relatively high solar flux. Plus the Autumnal advance of snow across Eurasia stalled during Oct (high correlation of fast advance to a disrupted PV).
Also the colder the core the more stable it is to movement and it's parked itself over N/E Canada this year – this shooting out a strong jet towards Europe, which has spawned multiple storms and deluges here. Next year should be different with a W'ly QBO and likely low solar.

runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 05, 2014
Captain...
Do you mean this:
http://curriculum...mations/

Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 05, 2014
Captain...
Do you mean this:
http://curriculum...mations/


@runrig
thanks for that post... it is NOT the one i was looking for... but i will use it to learn
thank you
i DID find a good link though from another thread.
@goracle posted it

http://qz.com/163...n-worse/

love the little video toward the bottom
Jennifer Francis
Understanding the Jet Stream

that video showing the evolution of the let stream is WOW

Mimath224
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2014
@Captain Stumpy, yes a good video but looking at that and other sites (like Climate Indicators - Stratospheric Air Temperatures) it looks to me that there is possibly a differential eq with max-min values (sine wave?) within a given interval. Obviously there are discontinuities too but even those look like another de max-min...
Say, runrig, as the expert am I on the right track? If so is there any place where I view such? If not, sorry I bothered you.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2014
@Maggnus, as a 'ps' I understand that these recent record low temps in NH have prompted new anthropogenic discussions but you'd know more about that than I.


I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you're talking about people, especially in the US saying "look it's winter, so there must not be global warming" or "look it's cold so there must not be global warming" that I would say yes it is probably occurring. I know that there were references to this by Jon Stewert and others making fun of those who do this (Rush Limbaugh and Fox News come to mind) but as I'm not in the US my views are only conjecture.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2014
love the little video toward the bottom
Jennifer Francis
Understanding the Jet Stream

that video showing the evolution of the let stream is WOW


Captain:
Yes that's a good one.
In fact I posted a link to it on WUWT to try to teach the Neaderthals on there something about how atmospheric fluid dynamics works.
I think one or two got it - but FFS the others. You'd have thought I was linking to the Koran.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2014
but as I'm not in the US my views are only conjecture

@Maggnus
conjecture away... it HAS to be more accurate than me. i DO live in the us but i dont even get TV. so i am willing to bet you are far more up to date on policies than even i am... LOL

@Mimath224
Runrig is DEFINITELY the person to ask that question to as he is a meteorologist ... i would only be speculating, even though my SWAG would most likely be far more accurate than ryggy or some such, i would still defer to the experience of Runrig or even Howhot (physicist).

@runrig
whenever you challenge someone's belief, they take it as a personal attack. see arguments with Rygg, Uba, Cantdrive, Zephir etc. say ONE thing against their pseudoscience and they flood the comments with unfounded conjecture or hallucinations (like the grand canyon being formed by plasma discharge, etc)
i have been egging some on lately for a study in psych that i am doing... pretty fun, actually
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2014
Stumpy please go take a look at the Denial of science (not exact) thread. I have been musing about the psychology behind conspiracy theories in general and denialism specifically. I'd be interested in your opinions.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2014
Say, runrig, as the expert am I on the right track? If so is there any place where I view such? If not, sorry I bothered you.


No, no mimath, I'm more than happy to answer questions.

Jet-stream wave motion is essentially caused by the Coriolis parameter. This effect is greatest towards the poles. There are two components – planetary and relative vorticity. Planetary is caused by the decreased radius of rotation of the planet beneath air moving north – it therefore has a momentum to the right (NH). Relative V is due to the curve of air from the increase/decrease of planetary V inducing increased curve upwind (advection).

cont
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2014
The general idea to fix on is the conservation of planetary + specific vorticity to equal absolute vorticity as a constant. If Planetary V increases then rel V decreases and vice versa.

Remember that +ve Vort involves an cyclonic turn (anticlockwise – NH) and vice versa.

So as air moves N, it's Planetary V increases and so it's rel v decreases (to conserve abs Vort) this results in an increased RH turn until the air is moving S. As air then moves further S it's planetary V decreases but it's rel V increases ( cyclonic or anticlockwise rotation) and so there is a turn to the left. Etc etc
runrig
4 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2014
Just noticed in my earlier (23 hours ago) post I got the WBO directions wrong.
This winter we have had a westerly QBO and next winter it should be an easterly.
Upshot is that there will be less overall westerly momentum in the atmosphere and so less resistence to northern blocking (and therefore more chance of a consequent -AO following a SSW - Sudden Strat warming).
Mimath224
4.8 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2014
@runrig, this is great...many thanks...but this lead me to the Rossby parameter, which is described by de (sine). But I also note (American Met Soc.) that this is considered as north moving parameter so I am asking (again) IF there is a 'tug of war' type effect going on between this and the JS? IF so how do you determine the relative strength between one and the other or is this one of the problems in predicting weather. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick...wouldn't be the first time ha! Thanks again
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2014
@runrig, this is great...many thanks...but this lead me to the Rossby parameter, which is described by de (sine). But I also note (American Met Soc.) that this is considered as north moving parameter so I am asking (again) IF there is a 'tug of war' type effect going on between this and the JS? IF so how do you determine the relative strength between one and the other or is this one of the problems in predicting weather. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick...wouldn't be the first time ha! Thanks again


The Rossby parameter is the maths of working out the lat variation changes in Coriolis - and yes, a jet-stream's strength plays a big part of the point of inflection of it's track. Simply think of it as momentum and the greater momentum of a strong jet will cause it to turn later than when weak. A MAJOR chicken/egg effect in NWP.
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2014
nevermark made a good point with this:-
Tegiri, discarding research results by impugning the motives of specific researchers without any evidence of poor or unethical research is a common logical fallacy among people who don't value honesty in themselves or others. If you actually had any real evidence to refute the paper you could have done so.
The intrinsic problem with bad simplistic non-scientific thinking of the likes of TegiriNenashi is they missed the chance of a good foundation in Science, sadly from lost education opportunities.

Two key issues they REALLY need to understand *first* in relation to AGW are:-

1. Rising CO2 levels and which are not in dispute.

And

2. Known thermal properties of CO2, Eg. re-radiation.

It is the combinatorial effect of those which are the core of AGW, sadly simple people desire the paradigm of "Keep it simple", why ?

Are they of low intelligence ?
Can't they observe combinatorial complexity ?

Nature is complex, work at it, accept it.