Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Arctic Ice: How Does It Influence Our Weather?


Methuselah

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

Since when has 10 years been an acceptable timespan to judge anything connected with climate?

And again, how can any conclusions be made when it hasn't even happened yet, let alone been recorded and studied. All this speculation is bonkers, made even more bonkers by the fact that we have no way of distinguishing between the impact of a greatly reduced Solar output and lower ice levels on the jet stream. And before someone jumps up and says we're approaching Solar max, yes we are, but it's a max so low and a cycle which has been so quiet, that's it's hardly worth calling a max at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

All we have here, IMO, is one ex-hurricane interacting with one Greenland-based anticyclone. And, I think, to attribute both to the recent Arctic sea-ice minimum is as premature as it is absurd? As with effects of both the ice-melt and the Solar minimum, the data are still too incomplete as to allow for anything other than speculation?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary

There seems to a lot of mixing up between speculation and conclusions. We only have speculation here, with different degrees of evidence.

For anyone that isn't aware, the way the sea ice loss and solar activity/uv levels affect the jet stream and are distinguishable.

  • The solar/uv levels cause the jet stream changes, based on the most recent studies, from a cooling of the tropical stratosphere downward.
  • The sea ice/snow cover causes it from heating from the surface over the Arctic upward.
The two are distinct.

We have records of times when solar activity was as low as it has been in recent years, back in the early part of the 20th century. We also have good storm track records from then. None were like this. Not saying solar activity is having no effect, but the evidence so far doesn't help it.

post-6901-0-57078200-1351543259_thumb.jp

For people only interested in peer reviewed studies, there are threads for those.

The very name of this thread invites speculation though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and heatwave
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft

I don't go for all this 'most powerful storm on record' lark, for how long have we had the capability to record them like we do now? For how long could we not even watch them coming, but they just happened and people said "christ, it was windy yesterday wasn't it? I can't find my hanging baskets". Was there a worse storm that hit British Columbia in September 1156, or Japan in October 1219? Who knows.

This thread seems to want to attribute whatever it can to Arctic ice melt, the first few posts predict a mild winter as a result of it, and then blame it for the recent snowfall in Europe too.

Don't get me wrong the lack of ice up there is likely to have some effect, but we won't know what it was until we have observed it for a while.

Does seem to be for some BIG EVENT = AGW, Global warming.

Lets see six BIG EVENTS (same area) before we start blaming man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

You're right BFTV, it does. Guess whose fault that is!Posted ImagePosted Image

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

I'd speculate that you are correct BFTV! (Ask Pete why he opened it?)

As for '10 years'? I was asking for any period of extremes matching the last 10 years not looking for 'trends' in climate? 10 years seems a nice figure and ,coincidentally, includes the lowest ice/ snow cover we have ever recorded in our recent 'civilised' incarnation. It also includes the period where we have convincing Data on the impacts on the complete atmospheric thickness of the loss of ice over certain areas of the basin and the 'anomalous' Jet behaviour this seems to aid. It also includes some pretty darn interesting A.O. figures and some off the wall DMI 80N winter temp deviations.

Once again this storm will have real live (for now?) human beings following the advice of those unwilling to commit to the changes occurring and choosing to believe the 'Good News' of 'nothing to see here'. That is their own choice but if that info is fed by folk that are merely playing games against the grain of science (for their own ends?) then it becomes a moral question.

Allowing govt's to continue, B.A.U., due to apparent 'lack of interest' of the voting public leads to the type of aid shortfall we have seen the past few years of climate impacted harvests (and our own inflation woes due to food price hikes).thanks , in part, to the 'good news', "Nothing to see here" brigade feeding Panis quod Venatus to the masses then this is a moral issue.

I , and others, can see the impacts of the low ice. Others , via the Nelson patch, see no such signal . Only one 'side' can be correct. If it is my side then we have squandered lives whilst having a wealth of data to warn us of those losses. If they are right then something is very wrong with science and it's methodology.

Does seem to be for some BIG EVENT = AGW, Global warming.

Lets see six BIG EVENTS (same area) before we start blaming man.

Arctic Basin 2007, 2008 ,2009, 2010, 2011, 2012?

Edited by Gray-Wolf
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

You're right BFTV, it does. Guess whose fault that is!Posted ImagePosted Image

Speculation is fine. But I don't want to see a long list of unsubstantiated claims, though???Posted Image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL

All this speculation is bonkers, made even more bonkers by the fact that we have no way of distinguishing between the impact of a greatly reduced Solar output and lower ice levels on the jet stream.

Unless it is a combination of both that causes the effect? Let's face it, it'll answer a few of the problems we're trying to make sense of..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: swansea craig cefn parc 160 m asl
  • Location: swansea craig cefn parc 160 m asl

Sorry Keith, I've little clue as to what your trying to say or imply. Would you mind rephrasing your post? Thanks.

You are trying put each and every storm on planet earth BFV to GW ,yet when a large storm hits the Arctic causing massive break up of ice you ignore that the storm was a major contribution to ice loss in the Arctic . Edited by keithlucky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

You are trying put each and every storm on planet earth to GW ,yet when a large storm hits the Arctic causing massive break up of ice you ignore that the storm was a major contribution to ice loss in the Arctic.

Eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary

You are trying put each and every storm on planet earth to GW ,yet when a large storm hits the Arctic causing massive break up of ice you ignore that the storm was a major contribution to ice loss in the Arctic.

I haven't been saying every storm on the planet is down to AGW, in fact, this is the first storm path with which I've suggested a link to climate change/AGW.

The storm in the Arctic may have been related to the extra open water and warmth. It certainly helped with the sea ice loss, but we were already lowest on record by most counts even before the storm.

So it seems you're wrong on both counts...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and heatwave
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft

In this case, with Hurricane Sandy, there is already a reasonable connection to be made.

There is plenty of evidence now (and lots more papers to come in the next few months) that the sea ice and snow cover loss in the Arctic is causing a slower and more meandering jet stream. It does this by lowering the temperature and atmospheric thickness gradient between the Arctic and more southern latitudes. This effect is strongest in Autumn as the newly warmed waters in the Arctic release their heat into the colder air. Just look at the temperature anomaly map for Autumn so far, and even just October so far

post-6901-0-89005600-1351537904_thumb.gipost-6901-0-54265700-1351538382_thumb.gi

These anomalously high amplitude jet stream waves are what caused a massive record melt of Greenland this year and why SST anomalies are so high around southern Greenland to the US north east coast.

It's this unusually strong Greenland ridge that's steering Sandy on a track straight into New York, rather than brushing up along the coast. This is why people are suggesting it's related to the Arctic.

Not every weather event is being linked to sea ice/climate change, nor should they. But with some there is some justification for it, and this may be one of those.

In one month we have gone from 'Artic Ice will it affect our weather' to 'Artic ice how it affects our weather' Posted Image

Lets wait for 10/20 years rather then 1 month me thinks. We are jumping to far too many conclusions.

Edited by stewfox
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary

In one month we have gone from 'Artic Ice will it affect our weather' to 'Artic ice how it affects our weather' Posted Image

Lets wait for 10/20 years rather then 1 month me thinks. We are jumping to far too many conclusions.

Ah now!

When a feasible physical connection can be made, what the harm in discussing it? As I've said a few times, I'm not making any definite conclusions, just giving evidence and suggestions as to where the links might be.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

KeithL , just re-read the Arctic thread as the storm there approached and see who was saying what? Like the current event we had a lot of folk trying to convince us just how 'normal' such a storm was. Same appears to be happening here. Do I detect a pattern emerging?

As BFTV points out , some of us see evidence for the contributions the low ice impacts might be contributing to this little shindig. To us it fits the pattern that the science tells us is emerging.

as for the 'impacts' of low ice? I said at summers end that we should be open to the impacts that the record losses could drive and both the Euro snow event and this storm show elements of such impacts. Merely a personal observation and opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and heatwave
  • Location: Napton on the Hill Warwickshire 500ft

Ah now!

When a feasible physical connection can be made, what the harm in discussing it? As I've said a few times, I'm not making any definite conclusions, just giving evidence and suggestions as to where the links might be.

Maybe all the big weather EVENTS of last 5 yrs are due to AGW, nobody really knows but the point is we seem to have many people making direct links , I am talking outside of netweather.

Interesting times anyway. Lets get Sudden large stratospheric warming and a very stronger latitudinal temperature gradient which causes a very mild NH Winter not the cold one as expected.

Edited by stewfox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary

Maybe all the big weather EVENTS of last 5 yrs are due to AGW, nobody really knows but the point is we seem to have many people making direct links , I am talking outside of netweather.

Interesting times anyway. Lets get Sudden large stratospheric warming and a very stronger latitudinal temperature gradient which causes a very mild MH Winter not the cold one as expected.

I can't speak for anyone else, or what events they attribute to sea ice/AGW.

Even if we do clearly establish how the sea ice loss affects weather, it's still going to be just one of many things that have an effect and will never effectively "control" the weather.

A quote from Dr. Jennifer Francis, the lead author of the study published earlier this year on sea ice and extreme mid-latitude weather

The jet stream pattern — particularly the strongly negative NAO [North Atlantic Oscillation ] and associated blocking — that has been in place for the last 2 weeks and is projected to be with us into next week is exactly the sort of highly amplified (i.e., wavy) pattern that I’d expect to see more of in response to ice loss and enhanced Arctic warming. Blocking happens naturally, of course, but it’s very possible that this block may have been boosted in intensity and/or duration by the record-breaking ice loss this summer. Late-season hurricanes are not unheard of either, but Sandy just happened to come along during this anomalous jet-stream pattern, as well as during an autumn with record-breaking warm sea-surface temperatures off the US east coast. It could very well be that general warming along with high sea-surface temperatures have lengthened the tropical storm season, making it more likely that a Sandy could form, travel so far north, and have an opportunity to interact with a deep jet-stream trough associated with the strong block, which is steering it westward into the mid-Atlantic. While it’s impossible to say how this scenario might have unfolded if sea-ice had been as extensive as it was in the 1980s, the situation at hand is completely consistent with what I’d expect to see happen more often as a result of unabated warming and especially the amplification of that warming in the Arctic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

Unless it is a combination of both that causes the effect? Let's face it, it'll answer a few of the problems we're trying to make sense of..

I'm with you on that one. Truth is though, we're still a very long way from knowing so I can't see the point of jumping to conclusions. It's really inconvenient that the Sun decides on a go slow now, it's lousy timing IMO; it just confuses the issue further.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

Have to agree J'!

Pulling apart natural from 'affected' is the impossible part of this but accepting the impacts that 'our' contribution may be having has to be a step forward?

We always knew that 'Nature' would always add into/take away from 'our' impacts but we have to face the possibility that our impacts may grow so strong as to dominate things. I believe that the earlier we accept our inputs and try to mitigate them then the sooner we can start to step back from a possible climate catastrophe.

We must also accept that we are pushing Natures buttons and that She can do far more, far faster, than our impacts ever could. It is not enough to look to our impacts alone, we need be mindful of what our impact may precipitate from Nature Herself (as we see in the Arctic ice situation?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

Have to agree J'!

Pulling apart natural from 'affected' is the impossible part of this but accepting the impacts that 'our' contribution may be having has to be a step forward?

We always knew that 'Nature' would always add into/take away from 'our' impacts but we have to face the possibility that our impacts may grow so strong as to dominate things. I believe that the earlier we accept our inputs and try to mitigate them then the sooner we can start to step back from a possible climate catastrophe.

We must also accept that we are pushing Natures buttons and that She can do far more, far faster, than our impacts ever could. It is not enough to look to our impacts alone, we need be mindful of what our impact may precipitate from Nature Herself (as we see in the Arctic ice situation?).

How is it possible to accept our impact when it is impossible to decipher what it is? As for the dominating or the possibility that we could dominate, that's just a reflection of man's desire to be in charge - there's more chance of me flying to the Moon on a toadstool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

Never say never J'?

In the same way we look at ENSO impacts the growing body of research into AGW impacts affords us the same opportunity. The PDO is a recent discovery yet you have no problem in pushing it's state and impacts. A far larger swathe of research has been ongoing, in tandem, for AGW impacts but you seem unwilling to accept this in the same way?

Odd really?

Edited by Gray-Wolf
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

Never say never J'?

In the same way we look at ENSO impacts the growing body of research into AGW impacts affords us the same opportunity. The PDO is a recent discovery yet you have no problem in pushing it's state and impacts. A far larger swathe of research has been ongoing, in tandem, for AGW impacts but you seem unwilling to accept this in the same way?

Odd really?

Actually, I rarely mention the PDO, except to question when you insist it has changed because of AGW.

At no point have I ever said I don't accept the science on AGW, quite the reverse; on numerous occasions I've gone out of my way to state categorically that I fully accept the theory of AGW - time and time again. To say that I've said otherwise GW is merely a ploy to undermine my questions and add gravitas to your own opinions.

My stance is quite simple - we don't know what's going on, and that applies to both natural and AGW. Taking the PDO as the example, theories abound as to why and how it happens, but there's no definitive answer. Ditto AGW and it's relevance/impact on this latest storm in the USA. When you, or anyone else talk in absolutes you're simply trying to add more weight to your argument than actually exists in science. I would say the same to anyone claiming that the Sun is responsible too. That's the joy of being where I am in this debate - firmly in the middle. I've no desire to see either side win the argument, no personal conviction that either side is right or wrong, if I have any affinity at all in any of this, then it's with Mark Twain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

Well at least we can all accept that this is a record breaking storm!

Sadly it appears the Metro did ship water, and remember, this is salt water and so corrosive so the damage and disruption will be huge.

I'm sure the debate over the scale of the impacts driven by low ice/snow cover will continue if only to have the scientists involved in the area of study use it to highlight the scale of the impacts sea ice loss will be a factor in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary

I think before people decide to play down the role of anything, including sea ice, in our weather, surely they should try get a grasp of how the weather works, especially the upper level flows that largely control the steering of the tropical/sub-tropical systems.

Dismissing the current unique storm track by saying things like "the US has been hit by storms in the past" seems little more than wilful ignorance. Surely people should make at least a small attempt to learn a bit about these systems rather than this thread becoming just a battle of pre-concieved and baseless stances.

An actual discussion would be a nice change, other than dismissals and claims that we can never know.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...