New evidence links Arctic warming with severe weather

New evidence links Arctic warming with severe weather
Credit: British Antarctic Survey

Professor Edward Hanna and PhD student Richard Hall, from the University of Sheffield's Department of Geography, are part of a select group of international climate scientists investigating links between Arctic climate change and extreme weather in the northern mid-latitudes.

They have found that while it is too soon to know for certain whether the Arctic played a role in persistent cold events during the extreme wet UK winter of 2013/14 and recent USA East Coast winters, new studies are adding to the growing weight of evidence linking increased Arctic temperatures with changes in mid-latitude patterns.

The research published in the Journal of Climate by Professor James Overland of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and authors from North America, Asia and Europe, including Professor Hanna and Richard Hall, paints a picture of links that vary by region and season.

Arctic temperatures are increasing two to three times faster than those at the mid-latitudes. Some scientists have suggested that warming Arctic temperatures contribute to weaker upper level westerly winds and a wavier jet stream. This wavier path may have caused cold weather conditions to stall over the eastern seaboard and midwest United States during recent winters, according to these theories.

Professor Hanna and Richard Hall note increased variability of the jet stream in winter and high pressure over Greenland, which has given more variable UK winters in the last few years. This includes the exceptionally stormy winter of 2013/14 which could have been partly influenced by in the Arctic.

Professor Hanna said: "Our work presents tantalising new evidence of links between global warming, which is enhanced in high northern latitudes, and recent extreme winter weather events in the UK and further afield, as well as a timely review of much recent literature which has appeared in this important field of research. However, since the climate system is highly complex, many missing parts of the puzzle remain and much further work needs to be done."

Professor Overland, lead author of the paper The melting Arctic and mid-latitude weather patterns: Are they connected? added: "We are in the pre-consensus stage of a theory that links continued warming of the Arctic with some severe weather events."

A way to advance research from a pre-consensus stage is to further investigate the meandering jet stream and the connection between the warmer Arctic and the negative phase of an index showing the dominant pattern of sea level air pressure in the Arctic.

"We are where other major theories such as plate tectonics and El NiƱo were before they were widely accepted," said Professor Overland.

"We need a Grand Science Challenge to advance weather forecasting abilities and climate change prediction."

New studies on the changing Arctic together with additional Arctic observations will improve the ability to make forecasts for the mid-latitudes, helping millions of people better plan for the future and take steps to be more resilient in the face of .


Explore further

Study finds possible link between Arctic change and extreme mid-latitude weather

Journal information: Journal of Climate

Citation: New evidence links Arctic warming with severe weather (2015, May 20) retrieved 26 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-05-evidence-links-arctic-severe-weather.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
193 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

May 20, 2015
Well, if it were insulation of the Earth, via CO2, the warming poles would reduce temperature (energy) gradients, resulting in less extreme weather...

Views of others...?

May 20, 2015
Well, if it were insulation of the Earth, via CO2, the warming poles would reduce temperature (energy) gradients, resulting in less extreme weather...q]

The predicted link between a warming Arctic and record cold snaps throughout North America and Europe was made a long time ago. It's a complex interaction of temperature, gulf stream, a reduction in albedo etc etc that cannot be outlined in a comment. You're going to have to research it yourself.

The main point is that deniers continue to deliberately confuse short, medium and long-term impacts of climate change to leverage doubt (why is it cold if the globe is warming!?!).
Short term, we would expect a warming Arctic to cause an increase in blizzards and record cold in these regions. That was what was predicted and that is what we're seeing.

The only reason they say it's "too soon to know for certain" is because scientists are scientists. They're inherently conservative.

May 20, 2015
lee, I have had no trouble predicting climate change for years now.
It's not complex, like anything else you just need to use the right variables.
Yes, I have told many people about it.

But the point is to confuse rather than unify.
They have AGWers, who are correct in the belief that mankind is indeed causing climate change, but have them charging the windmill of CO2.

Off the cuff, how is it that mankind would only be changing it with one thing, and why is it so impossible to draw an direct correlation?

I can draw direct correlations, and use it to predict climate change.

That heat released from fossil fuels is causing change, and all we have observed is easily predictable from that simple assumption.

Ubfortunately, most keep circling the inconclusive drain of CO2 based effects. As a chemist, I can tell you it is a very rare and very very active substance that has relevant properties at 0.0004. I mean HCl (aq) only has a pH of 3.4 at those concentrations.

May 20, 2015
I'm not going to continue to argue BASIC physics with you. You can continue to mine climate science for nuance that proves your whacky pet theory but it doesn't mean we have to take you seriously.

how is it that mankind would only be changing it with one thing, and why is it so impossible to draw an direct correlation?


If you knew as much as you claimed, you'd realise this is a strawman fallacy. CO2 is just one GHG and not a very powerful one. All human GHG emissions are to blame; it's just with CO2 we emit so damn much of it. So the argument we're "changing it with one thing" is deliberately disingenous as is much of what you say.

GHG traps energy in the system; if you increase it, you increase the energy trapped. That's it. End of. Game over. Basic. Physics. Deal with it.


May 20, 2015
Well pontificating and claiming I am wrong solve so much. Keep at it.
Remain ignorant, or at least unexposed to new ideas. That'll change something, how about worshiping Hephaestus again?

As far as wacky theories go:

You overlook one thing;

It works.

So, you're green house gases trap heat do they? Is 3/15th the energy of the Sun a significant amount of heat to trap? That's what we emit in fossil fuels. Hmmm.

Caught in a do loop? We're emitting more heat that GHG trap, but we can't be emitting more heat because GHG are to blame, but GHG can't be shown to produce and effect, but heat is being trapped, and fossil fuel emit heat.

Leetenent 404 error.

May 20, 2015
So, you're green house gases trap heat do they? Is 3/15th the energy of the Sun a significant amount of heat to trap? That's what we emit in fossil fuels. Hmmm.


Whiffenpoof. And his unsupported claims. Especially wildly inaccurate doggerel like that quoted.

What a maroon.

May 21, 2015
It works.
No, it doesn't .. you cook the books and ignore science to make it LOOK like it works .. that's an important distinction, no?
So, you're green house gases trap heat do they?
"Trap" is imprecise .. better to say they retard its escape to space, so it raises the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere .. this is why your "insulation" analogy is actually not too bad, if only you would apply it logically.
Is 3/15th the energy of the Sun a significant amount of heat to trap? That's what we emit in fossil fuels.
No, it's not .. you're being disgustingly imprecise there.
We're emitting more heat that GHG trap
That's just utter B.S., and if you had one tenth the scientific acumen you claim, you'd know it. GHG's are responsible for keeping this planet warm enough to live on .. 33 degrees warmer that it would be without them. So it's no shock that relatively small changes in their concentrations can cause significant changes in global temperatures over time.

May 21, 2015
And you DLK are gutless, because you know I usually ignore you, so you try to get your cheap shots in.
Your refutations are their usual refuse, because, of course I am demonstrably correct, and have been in the past, ad nauseum.

May 21, 2015
And you DLK are gutless,
A strange choice of words from someone who runs and hides any time the discussion gets down to meaningful scientific content
because you know I usually ignore you
I don't care, as long as you stop posting pseudoscientific drivel
so you try to get your cheap shots in
Like what? All my "shots" are well-supported and scientifically sound
I am demonstrably correct, and have been in the past, ad nauseum.
Well, you certainly are nauseating. As for the rest of it, the cycle goes like this:
1) WP posts claim that is contrary to accepted, well-supported scientific theories
2) claim is challenged by poster, who points out the clear flaws and tries to educate WP and correct his obvious errors
3) WP ignores scientific content of refutation, and either makes new claims, or resorts to personal attacks against motivation or credibility of poster
4) 2 & 3 repeat for a few cycles until WP vanishes
5) 1-4 repeat on new thread w/same flawed theories

May 21, 2015
Thomas Jefferson proves tomatoes aren't poisonous.
Galileo proves the Earth goes around the Sun.
MacNamara proves Gulf of Tonkin was a lie.

The Sun fluctuates 0.2 Watts/m2. Fossil Fuels release 0.04 Watts/m2 are released in the Northern Hemisphere.
The Sun is the primary driver of climate. 3/15 (0.04/0.2) of the Sun must have effects on the climate.
In addition, anyone can see by inspection that fossil fuels and Sun emissions dictate temperature change. All one need do is look the two up.

That is proof positive, proof anyone can do.

If anyone desires, they can further demonstrate: In a closed room CO2 is 3-4x greater than outdoors. Open a window, when indoor and outdoor temps are the same. How does it feel?

Feel free to anklebite.

May 21, 2015
The Sun fluctuates 0.2 Watts/m2. Fossil Fuels release 0.04 Watts/m2 are released in the Northern Hemisphere.
The Sun is the primary driver of climate. 3/15 (0.04/0.2) of the Sun must have effects on the climate.
In addition, anyone can see by inspection that fossil fuels and Sun emissions dictate temperature change. All one need do is look the two up.

That is proof positive, proof anyone can do.

If anyone desires, they can further demonstrate: In a closed room CO2 is 3-4x greater than outdoors. Open a window, when indoor and outdoor temps are the same. How does it feel?
I will not waste my time by refuting these oft-refuted talking points of yours again .. I will just say that they have been debunked before, quite comprehensively. If you had one shred of scientific integrity, or indeed any integrity at all, you would cease posting them and address those criticisms.

If anyone else reading this actually cares and missed earlier exchanges, I will repost on request.

May 22, 2015
DLK, Thank you! Please don't waste your time, because I know how frustrating it must be for you, people can judge for themselves, believe it or not.

May 23, 2015
Water_Prophet claims
..I have had no trouble predicting climate change for years now.
It's not complex, like anything else you just need to use the right variables.
Yes, I have told many people about it
LIAR !
Water_Prophet only has a brass bowl & a candle, he 'interprets' changes "after the event" which feeds his ego & aggrandizes here !

Water_Prophet states
..point is to confuse rather than unify
This is Water_Prophet, no Physics - only dumb claims he NEVER proves - ever !

Water_Prophet claims
.. but have them charging the windmill of CO2
Then refute this
http://en.wikiped..._forcing

Prove your claim CO2 is 0.00009W/m^2 ?

Water_Prophet claims
.. how is it that mankind would only be changing it with one thing, and why is it so impossible to draw an direct correlation?
WRONG !
This proves you cannot have a degree in "Physical Chemistry" & know nothing of
https://en.wikipe...ometrics

CO2 lifts H2O !

cont

May 23, 2015
Water_Prophet LIES again with
would only be changing it with one thing, and why is it so impossible to draw an direct correlation?
No you can't - a brass bowl of water & gedanken as you claim has negligible degrees of freedom & cannot predict global let alone regional climate change - you are deluded and been claiming this for years !

Go away

Water_Prophet claims
I can draw direct correlations, and use it to predict climate change
Rubbish, prove it - you're a Liar & Cheat, I challenge you to prove you have your claimed "4 technical degrees" ?

Water_Prophet claims
.. heat released from fossil fuels is causing change, and all we have observed is easily predictable from that simple assumption
Effect is negligible - you confirmed my view months ago when I suggested you check the Watts, fossil fuel use has negligible heat comparable to CO2's radiative forcing of > 1.5W/m^2

Water_Prophet claimed his 0.00009 is in "great agreement" with 1.5

ie Deluded !

May 23, 2015
DLK, Thank you! ... people can judge for themselves, believe it or not.
@prophet stultitiae /ALKIE/prometheus and many more socks

and again, people CAN judge for themselves
just like people can see that you bring absolutely no evidence at all except known political or fallacious comments with no grounding in science or support from the scientific community

just like people can see that you have no studies supporting your position, only personal conjecture

May 23, 2015
Mike_Masen is ignorant again, 1.5watts/m2 is 7x more powerful than the solar cycles of the Sun. This kind of energy would be catastrophic.

Still, pretty good for someone who posts bits of electronics pictures and doesn't know what "matched impedances" are or do. I never claimed to be in electronics, but I know that, if you are going to lie Mikey, keep it within scope of your ignorance please.

May 23, 2015
IIf you knew as much as you claimed, you'd realise this is a strawman fallacy. CO2 is just one GHG and not a very powerful one. All human GHG emissions are to blame; it's just with CO2 we emit so damn much of it. So the argument we're "changing it with one thing" is deliberately disingenous as is much of what you say.

GHG traps energy in the system; if you increase it, you increase the energy trapped. That's it. End of. Game over. Basic. Physics. Deal with it.
Well said, one small caveat:: CO2 is actually a pretty strong GHG due in large part to the longevity with which it stays in the atmosphere. A little goes a long way.

I also want to point out that water pffttt is a little bit right, in that there is a tiny, but measurable, impact on climate due to mechanical heating. Orders of magnitude too small to do what he says it does, but it is there.

May 23, 2015
Water_Prophet claims
.. 1.5watts/m2 is 7x more powerful than the solar cycles of the Sun. This kind of energy would be catastrophic
Yes It IS catastrophic & averaged over whole Earth, arises from evidence based on experimental methodology from physics & maths
http://en.wikiped..._forcing

Ignorant one is Water_Prophet, you incorrectly calculated CO2's of 0.00009W/m^2 from naive reasoning of someone who has zero education in radiative transfer, you refuse to show working, this is the correct maths
https://en.wikipe...transfer

Water_Prophet lies again
... doesn't know what "matched impedances" are or do
No. Prove it, never stated that, you slimey liar & dumb fake !

Water_Prophet stated
I never claimed to be in electronics
Good but, you claimed "4 technical degrees" yet have NEVER proven it, you don't write like a graduate !

How can a Physical Chemist as you claimed get essential maths so very Wrong ?

May 23, 2015
Maggnus offered
I also want to point out that water pffttt is a little bit right, in that there is a tiny, but measurable, impact on climate due to mechanical heating. Orders of magnitude too small to do what he says it does,..
Indeed, By mechanical heating, take it you mean heat from combustion & waste thermals etc of all fossil fuels..

That idea was from me (Evidence old phys.org posts), I urged Water_Prophet to start quantifying all heat sources starting with fossil fuels, I offered a starting figure @ ~2010 equiv of ~ 230,000 liters petrol/sec & as short cut approximation assume petrol = octane as C8H18 as a fair average of all the long C chain molecules burned

Water_Prophet ignored my starting number, launched off with calcs based on his google find but, didnt indicate source though did arrive at comparatively small heat comparable to delta Sol's TSI

But, he stopped there, become enamored with his ego, imagining only he thought to look at it - LOL !

sad

May 23, 2015
Indeed, By mechanical heating, take it you mean heat from combustion & waste thermals etc of all fossil fuels..

That idea was from me (Evidence old phys.org posts), I urged Water_Prophet to start quantifying all heat sources starting with fossil fuels, I offered a starting figure @ ~2010 equiv of ~ 230,000 liters petrol/sec & as short cut approximation assume petrol = octane as C8H18 as a fair average of all the long C chain molecules burned

Water_Prophet ignored my starting number, launched off with calcs based on his google find but, didnt indicate source though did arrive at comparatively small heat comparable to delta Sol's TSI

But, he stopped there, become enamored with his ego, imagining only he thought to look at it - LOL !

sad
Yea, he wasn't clear about what to call it. There's a bit about it on the SkepSci site too, and other places. It's nothing all that novel.


May 24, 2015
Maggie, Mikey,
aside from the credibility you don't have: False credentials, but not knowing electronics, and ask me what a mole is.

Skeptigarbage, monitors this site, probably as you, or thermo/other sockpuppets, but, it copies, and usually twists what I say.

LOL.

Goofballs. I love you, you're great.

May 24, 2015
How do you get enough fiber when you are on a low carb diet?

One doctor wants me on low carb and the other wants me on high fiber. This is not possible. Ima have to take metamucil and stuff like that.

May 24, 2015
How do you get enough fiber when you are on a low carb diet?

One doctor wants me on low carb and the other wants me on high fiber. This is not possible. Ima have to take metamucil and stuff like that.


@ Returnering-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am fine and dandy thanks. What the heck does that have to do with the Arctic warming? Podna you need to learn to focus on where you are before you postem the really smart postums you come up with. People might start thinking you have the mental conditions.

May 24, 2015
Returners asked
How do you get enough fiber when you are on a low carb diet?
Not that much to re carbs, Eg Cellulose - comes with carbs often but, not always, for general article
http://en.wikiped...ry_fiber

I graduated in Food Science (post grad) Curtin University at Bentley, Western Australia in 2010. Your issue is well covered from food chemistry perspective re soluble/insoluble fibres, nutritionists tend to be broader but, we need to know details as we design food product & the engineering development of efficient food production processes so formulation's texture & nutritional value is minimally affected. So feel free to ask any questions, np :-)

One issue not covered by many doctors are anthocyanins, ie The red/purple pigments in fruit & veg, a very helpful nutrient in conjunction with higher mineral intake.

Key issue for most on western diet of last ~200yrs is zinc & esp copper deficiency
https://en.wikipe...n_health

May 24, 2015
Water_Prophet claims
Maggie, Mikey,
aside from the credibility you don't have: False credentials, but not knowing electronics, and ask me what a mole is
You really are a f..king lowlife, you asked for my credentials & presented ie
http://niche.iine.../physorg
There's my student number & grad certification numbers too, phone/email the uni quoting both & they will confirm precisely I have the credentials you asked me about, here is link
http://students.curtin.edu.au/ & click on the complaints & see how far you get !

I've asked you for MONTHs to prove your claims of "4 technical degrees", which uni/when but ZILCH !

Water_Prophet claims
Skeptigarbage, monitors this site, probably as you, or thermo/other sockpuppets, but, it copies, and usually twists what I say
No. You LIAR, you are the idiot goof head.

You make so many dumb claims which can be tested so easily, you fail in ALL of them, ie Why can't you prove one, your 0.00009W/m^2 for CO2 ?

May 28, 2015
Incidentally, key issue regarding positive feedback effect of CO2 raising H2O in the atmosphere is presented extremely well Eg.
https://en.wikipe...ometrics

The FACT is water, vapour, steam etc has been very well studied for >150years and its well proven both experimentally and theoretically via Physics/Maths that water vapour precipitates out VERY quickly within mere hours once its position on Psychrometric chart changes, this graphical predictive technique is used DAILY by Food & Environmental scientists to gauge propensity for water to dew in a very wide range of environments whether outside, indoors, inside fridges, food containers etc

It is the key issue just WHY CO2 is raising Water Vapour levels as the heat load is much higher than ANY other sources, something Water_Prophet just CANNOT grasp & thus lies to gain credence.

Water_Prophet has also claimed to have "4 technical degrees" but, cannot prove it !

Physics, not idle ignorance please !

Jun 09, 2015
Muttering Mike the blabbering science fraud, preaching to the heretics!
He must be desperate for that post at the high altar of the AGW Cult. He certainly possess the ignorance.
Muttering Mike blabbers one thing out the side of his mouth and then in the next breath contradicts himself from the other side.
Muttering Mike claims Canada is a block of ice and it's the reason why the US has been cooling since the 1930s.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more