Every time severe winter weather strikes the United States or Europe, reporters are fond of saying that global warming may be to blame.
The paradox goes like this: As Arctic sea ice melts and the polar atmosphere warms, the swirling winds that confine cold Arctic air weaken, letting it spill farther south.
But this idea, popularized a decade ago [and was the outlandish plotline in The Day After Tomorrow, pictured], has long faced skepticism from many atmospheric scientists, who found the proposed linkage unconvincing and saw little evidence of it in simulations of the climate.
Now, the most comprehensive modeling investigation into this link has delivered the heaviest blow yet: Even after the massive sea ice loss expected by midcentury, the polar jet stream will only weaken by tiny amounts—at most only 10% of its natural swings.
And in today’s world, the influence of ice loss on winter weather is negligible, says James Screen, a climate scientist at the University of Exeter and co-leader of the investigation, which presented its results last month at the annual meeting of the European Geosciences Union.
“To say the loss of sea ice has an effect over a particular extreme event, or even over the last 20 years, is a stretch.”
The idea that Arctic sea ice loss could influence mid-latitude winter weather first gained traction in 2012, in a paper by two climate scientists, Jennifer Francis, now at the Woodwell Climate Research Center, and Stephen Vavrus at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
It started with a simple observation: The Arctic is warming nearly three times faster than the rest of the world.
At the time, sea ice loss was thought to be the primary accelerant for this amplification: As bright, reflective ice is replaced by dark, sunlight-absorbing water, the Arctic heats up, causing more ice loss, and more warming in turn.
The warming, Francis and Vavrus proposed, would inflate the height of the polar troposphere—the lowest layer of the atmosphere and home to its weather.
That would decrease the pressure differences between polar and midlatitude air that drive the polar jet stream, which separates the air masses and keeps cold air collared around the pole.
The jet would grow weaker and wavier, allowing cold air to intrude farther south. In their paper, Francis and Vavrus argued such a trend was visible in weather records and worsening with Arctic warming and ice loss.
A lot has changed since then, Francis now says. “Like all things, as you dig into them, they become more complicated.”
Most significantly, the 25-year trend that she and others had identified in observations from the late 1980s to early 2010s has weakened after another decade of observations.
Although sea ice loss has continued, there are few signs of colder winters in Eurasia or North America, more cold extremes, or more frequent weakening or waviness in the jet stream.
The new computer modeling matches the observations, says Doug Smith, a climate scientist at the United Kingdom’s Met Office and another co-leader of the modeling effort. “There’s not an inconsistency.”
In the years-long investigation, called the Polar Amplification Model Intercomparison Project (PAMIP), researchers ran more than a dozen climate models 100 times each.
One set of model runs simulated the Arctic atmosphere without pronounced sea ice loss, using ocean temperatures and sea ice extent from 2000.
The other kept the ocean temperatures the same but reduced the ice coverage to the extent expected decades from now, after 2°C of global warming, when the Arctic could be ice-free in the summer. Keeping the oceans the same should highlight the influence—if any—of sea ice loss.
In addition to finding only a tiny effect of sea ice loss on the polar jet stream, the models also found no coherent sign of a second proposed effect of reduced sea ice: more frequent disruptions of the stratospheric polar vortex—a second set of swirling winds, much higher up.
Read rest at Science Mag
There is no one temperature for this planet. Cold air from the Arctic can conceivably reach southward for a brief while without necessarily changing the sum of the planetary temperatures or resulting from a change in it. This has surely to be a natural process and not one that needs a disaster plot or Carbonageddon explanation.
Every month, the Very Scary Weather Channel reviews the last month’s temperature. Only 3 or 4 days hit the historical average on the nose. “Average” is a calculated value, and there’s no shortage of calculaters out there.
A leading computer modelling expert has stated that it is mathematically impossible to forecast anything beyond a week or so with any accuracy, So how can a “modeling effort” say anything more than what is put into it in the first place? Even the UN IPCC has stated that climate is a non linear system, making any long term forecasting impossible. How can models forecast if this is so, and hey do not put in cyclic patterns?
The one good thing that kids not being in Schools is their not being exposed to this Global Warming/Climate Change scam Home Education/Schooling is the Answer to the $64:000 Question
As equatorial and polar temperatures move closer together, shouldn’t we expect stability? Instead of calamity?
Southern Ontario is experiencing the coldest month of May since 1967, the last time the Leafs won the Cup. This could be the year!