Slashdot Mirror
Extreme Winter Weather In the US Linked To a Warming Arctic (theverge.com)
A new study shows how global climate change can have ripple effects at the local level. According to the research, extreme winter weather is two to four times more likely in the eastern U.S. when the Arctic is unusually warm. The Verge reports: Researchers analyzed a variety of atmospheric data in the Arctic, as well as how severe winter weather was in 12 cities across the U.S. from 1950 to 2016. Since 1990, as the Arctic has been warming up and losing ice, extreme cold snaps and heavy snow in the winter have been two to four times more frequent in the eastern U.S. and the Midwest, while in the western U.S., their frequency has decreased, according to a study published today in Nature Communications. The study, however, only shows there might be a correlation -- not a direct causal link -- between the warming Arctic and severe winters in the U.S. And it doesn't show how exactly the two are connected, so it doesn't really add much to what scientists already knew, according to several experts.
Today's study focuses on the Arctic as the main culprit for the extreme winter weather. Previous research has suggested that the warming Arctic may disrupt the polar vortex, a ring of swirling cold air circling the North Pole. Think of the polar vortex as a river, says study co-author Judah Cohen, a climatologist and director of seasonal forecasting at Atmospheric and Environmental Research. The fast flow of this river locks up the cold air over the Arctic. But as the Arctic warms -- especially in some areas like the Barents-Kara seas north of Europe and Russia -- a boulder springs up in this river, disrupting the polar vortex and allowing the freezing Arctic air to flow south, Cohen says.
Today's study focuses on the Arctic as the main culprit for the extreme winter weather. Previous research has suggested that the warming Arctic may disrupt the polar vortex, a ring of swirling cold air circling the North Pole. Think of the polar vortex as a river, says study co-author Judah Cohen, a climatologist and director of seasonal forecasting at Atmospheric and Environmental Research. The fast flow of this river locks up the cold air over the Arctic. But as the Arctic warms -- especially in some areas like the Barents-Kara seas north of Europe and Russia -- a boulder springs up in this river, disrupting the polar vortex and allowing the freezing Arctic air to flow south, Cohen says.
Climate change doesn't care whether you believe in it or not
Creating a hypothesis based on observation (explaining past events) IS science. It's part of the scientific method. A real scientist would take that hypothesis, test it (predictions and further observation), refine the hypothesis further and further. Just because something is difficult to predict doesn't mean you are not doing science.
"When the rooster crows, the sun comes up! With the population of roosters declining, the world is doomed to eternal darkness! It's all on the same planet, people!"
"Being able to explain, what already happened does not make you a scientist."
Well, that's cosmologists fucked then. And geologists, anyone who works on evolution, continental drift... Good to know that none of us are scientists.
Being able to explain, what already happened does not make you a scientist.
Are you seriously claiming that paleontology is not a science? You might want to revisit that nice little straw man definition you have there. Just because something happened in the past does not mean it cannot be studied scientifically. Remember that the past is where we get literally ALL of our data for our scientific models.
To qualify, you have to be able to reliably predict, what will happen... And there, despite several decades of trying, the Climate Scientists have been no more successful than the Economists.
You may have meant that as an insult but it isn't. Economics does make testable predictions that routinely turn out to be true. They don't award Nobel Prizes in economics for lucky guesses. Just because a field is complicated and messy doesn't mean that they haven't had any success. I'm guessing you don't actually know any climate scientists nor are you actually familiar with any of their work that you so glibly disparage.
Pretty much all serious attempts at modelling global weather/climate points to one important correlation:
More heat (= more energy) in the atmosphere means that we get more extreme weather.
I think 2017 in particular but most years since 2000 have had a lot more (Carribean/US) hurricanes than what used to be normal.
Here in Norway we have had a bunch of warmer winters but also winters with far more precipitation which (when the weather is still cold enough) gives us more snow. At the main meteorological office here in Oslo the snow cover is within 2cm of the highest ever measured.
Terje
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
So far
- more extreme weather worldwide [check]
- poles getting warmer, ice sheet melting [check]
- sea water temperature and level increased [check]
- all of these happening too quickly over the past century to be natural [check]
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Paleontology could make a statement to the effect of: "We will find a fossil with such and such features".
I think that nicely shows that you have no idea what paleontologists do or how they do it.
Your argument regarding Economists is an "Appeal to Authority" fallacy
Not at all. Go read their papers because you clearly haven't. I have a graduate degree in finance and I've worked with many of the economic models you question. The models stand on their own and make perfectly valid and provable predictions. No appeal to authority needed. If you want to disprove them go right ahead. There is a Nobel prize waiting for you if you do.
Like that distinguished bunch, Climate Scientists too can explain anything, but are able to predict nothing.
Again you make fairly sweeping claims about a field of study you pretty clearly know nothing about. The climate scientists make predictions routinely and are proven to be accurate within the limitations of the model. If you think otherwise then you haven't actually examined any papers on the subject. Sure there is a lot they still don't know but that's true of every field of science. You also have to understand that it takes years for most predictions of climate models to be proven. But the evidence is there. Your failure to examine it does not make it less valid.
Here in NJ we had temperature-wise....
We don't care. It's a small data point in a MUCH larger problem.
Back in 1996 we had extreme snowstorms
So what? Weather != Climate. The point is that "extreme" events become MORE COMMON, not that they didn't happen before. The point is that the the average is moving.
Really, this "global " scaremongering is getting tiresome.
Right because New Jersey = all of Earth. (Insert eyeroll here)
I like how you use "Weather != Climate" and then immediately state that weather is climate because "extreme" events are more common. I particularly like it because "extreme" events are not more common, the poster you're replying to pointed this out, and the story itself is a classic example of the "weather = climate (when it suits us)" argument from climatards like yourself.