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
I would be curious to know how "extreme" is defined. Granted, I'm in the northeast US so my personal experiences have been limited to that area, but I don't feel like the weather has been extreme at all. Perhaps people may look at the events of the past few weeks and say "OMG, we've gotten several nor'easters in a row...the end of the world is coming." But if you look back over a couple of years, the winters haven't been particularly harsh on average.
I'd be interested in seeing the actual data.
In any event, the article title is very misleading when the source material is actually saying:
"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."
Hard to say if this is the usual tree hugger bias here or just sloppy reporting (or likely both...it is slashdot after all).
Here in NJ we had temperature-wise about average January, much warmer than average February and slightly below average March so far.
1 snow fall in January
a few medium snow storms in March
Back in 1996 we had extreme snowstorms
In 2011 lots of snow attributed to La Nina.
Really, this "global " scaremongering is getting tiresome.
I don't respond to or upvote ACs
Wow, really? It's all happening on the same fucking planet. There, I explained it.
#DeleteFacebook
They defined extreme weather under the Accumulated Winter Season Severity Index which looks primarily at rapid changes in temperature and unusually heavy snowfalls. The metric is a standard one you can find more about here http://mrcc.isws.illinois.edu/research/awssi/indexAwssi.jsp. Note that the AWSSI does not include wind, general precipitation, or most unusually high temperature events.
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.
"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.
Although that's a legitimate point of view in the sense of being internally consistent, it excludes a large number of scientific investigations. According to your definition, neither forensic pathologists nor historians would do science or be scientists. Fair enough, so they are doing science-2 and nothing is lost, because everybody already agrees that primarily historic, explaining disciplines are different from physics and chemistry. Obviously, mathematics is also not science according to your definition. Well, Alfred Nobel thought so, too, but in the end you're just arguing about terminology, which is pointless.
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"
Quote: "Being able to explain, what already happened does not make you a scientist."
Seriously? What have you smoked?
Geologist, Forensic, etc. ain't scientists... right.
No, not at all.
To qualify, that's not the definition of a scientist by any stretch of the imagination. Not even a little.
So, our company contracts long-term weather forecasts from DTN, which is a company that produces weather outlook for industrial utilities and agriculture in the US and Europe. They use a variety of information to estimate future weather (monthly to decade scale), and in the process, comment on how current year weather matches historical weather. They look at multi-decade trends, and point out how this season is very similar to the 1950s, etc.
The comment in last quarter's winter forecast had to do with the "polar vortex" event that is leading to the "extreme" cold snaps across the US over the last 4 years or so. There are two factors at stake here, one being the "tightness" of the high-altitude wind currents around the arctic, and a secondary "rotation" effect. Imagine that there is an oval above the arctic that oscillates short and wide, mostly centered over the pole. The boundary is like a ripple that we see as wind currents. When it is circular, cold air is trapped up by the pole, and we have mild winters in the northern continents. However, over time, the polar winds oscillate north and south, which leads to daily oscillations in weather over the winter. What we see as large temperature swings are just the wind currents oscillating past.
If the oval becomes elongated, it allows the cold air to be pulled farther south, what we call the "polar vortex" with "abnormally" colder weather than average. Cold air is pulled down from the north, then hot air is pulled up from the south, and the intersection results in more winter storms than average, depending on humidity. But that dip pattern is also not stationary, it rotates on a multi-decade-long scale. In the 1990s, the polar vortex was over Russia / East Asia, and they observed the temperature swings. The North Americans (in our short-sightedness) think that if it didn't happen here, it didn't happen. But now two decades later, the elongation has rotated over us, and suddenly we're all freaking out about catastrophic weather changes.
The forecaster's point was all of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.
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...
You mean like to correlation between cholesterol and heart disease....
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.
According to NOAA, the average number of Atlantic hurricanes per year in the 1968-2016 era was 6.2. with a standard deviation of 2.9
In the years 2000-2016, there were only 3 years with numbers of cyclones that exceeded the average by 1 sigma.
There were 2 years that had fewer numbers of cyclones (by more than 1 sigma). All the other years were average, within +/- 1 sigma.
See http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html
What the head-in-sand crowd doesn't realize is that all these spring snows on the east coast that have become frequent over the past ~20 years are caused by the southward loop in the jet stream shifting eastward from its traditional position, sucking down cold arctic air at the Atlantic coast. But while you're saying "What happened to global warming???", those of us out west are saying "What happened to winter???".
There is some speculation that what this article is talking about is the cause of the shift in the jet stream, but AFAIK it isn't certain yet.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Tell me about that natural change in the climate https://xkcd.com/1732/
No, we're scientists, thanks. We are tested by scientific principles, and we make what are in fact "predictions". The problem is that the naive do not know that a prediction is not a temporal ordering but rather the ability to generate a piece of information from within a system that has not been an input for that system. For example, the existence of the CMB is a prediction of cosmology - it's existence was calculated stated it was seen, but after it was produced. As was the relative abundance of light elements in the universe. Temporally, of course, the Helium-Hydrogen ratio was set in place long before even stars formed, but in terms of how we tested our scientific theories, these were not inputs into cosmology, but in fact statements that cosmology made about the universe. Calling us historians and saying that this cannot be tested by scientific principles just betrays your ignorance of what science actually is. Start with Popper and get reading.
This just points out that we can't really rely on our existing models of global warming and the weather changes it might bring. The entire system is so complex that our current understanding of it is woefully incomplete. We're at the stage where, while we know a lot, there's still too much of 'we don't know what we don't know' for us to make detailed predictions with any confidence.
We need to be putting A LOT more money and effort into understanding and predicting these changes and their associated timeframes. First, we'll need to plan how to protect ourselves. Second, all that data and understanding will increase our chances of finding and evaluating safe ways to slow, and perhaps reverse, AGW.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Science: CO2 absorbs infrared Not Science: because CO2 absorbs infrared, adding it to our atmosphere will increase the temperature of our atmosphere, which will cause more water to evaporate, which will also absorb more infrared, which will further increase the temperature of our atmosphere, creating a runaway greenhouse effect OMG we're going to destroy the planet!
and Siberia gets a bit warmer, Russia will be able to get to all those untapped resources (way more than the US) and the US will lose pretty much its main geographical advantage, the one that is responsible for most of its wealth (a comprehensive river transport system linked to prime agricultural land).
I was reading that the hegemony of the US will probably last another 2-300 years, but climate change is probably the most likely thing to change that.
It is obvious these articles usual coincide with some extreme weather event. But in truth weather across the US has been mostly tame the last few years. There is less snow fall for example:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-in...
Weather isn't an indicator of global warming. When people use it it always blows up in their faces and makes people question its existance. Stop doing that! The caps could melt, we could be ten feet under water, but it may be a sunny day.
Thank you for the post!
It's been a long time since I've seen a Slashdot post that was informative and not critically partisan.
Whether your conclusion is right or wrong makes no difference - that can be discussed. It was a great post.
The ice cores don't have the resolution to show a 40-50 year lag. You have two deniertrollidiot mantras mixed up: ice core lags of 800 years and solar irradiance lags (that don't exist for half the satellite record that deniers cite to "prove" the lag exists').
The viking farms were not under ice.
So both things don't exist. Why should the nonexistent be explained?
I should have added that none of the above applies to Climate Science, since of it does make predictions, just like metereologists do for weather instead of climate. In that sense my reply was a bit pointless.
I've noticed even in my remote city that climate change is hitting us hard. In the last few years, we've seen a massive increase in sever downpours that I'm sure didn't happen in my youth. It's caused almost a million dollar deficit in the city funds because of all the upgrades they've had to make to handle these new storms so I definitely notice a change.
And to be honest it's not that hard to battle climate change, even small efforts help a lot. I've switched all my lights to high quality LEDs for example, it's lowered my power bill, bulbs never burn out. I couldn't afford a pure electric car and they don't work too well in my cold climate so I ended up getting a Volt and it works. It runs gas free through the entire summer almost. But the key is folks need to try. Too many folks seem to think they can't change and sadly many of these efforts end up saving time and money as well.
You left out solar. Way more powerful than wind or anything else except nuclear. Oil and coal are chemically stored solar. It is true that massive power is spread out over the whole daytime surface of earth... but space has a lot more if you can transmit it (remember intensity is higher; and duh... space.) Furthermore, we do not utilize most solar spectrum with today's PV.
Every 1 calorie of food we eat takes 10 calories of fossil fuels... and I never found a good estimate on calories of solar... but it must take a massive amount of calories to grow a plant... and keep everything from absolute zero! The atmosphere is our daily thermal battery.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
[ sarcasm ] Yay, this means there'll be more opportunities for entrepreneurial spirited Americans to invest in creating economic activity in:
[ / sarcasm ]
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
Because some bastard has move the Jetstream out of our path, we in the UK have had heavy snow (compared to our normal "virtually no snow in winter" and not to US or Canada levels) in the past few weeks and apparently due some more soon.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
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.
What the head-in-sand crowd doesn't realize is that all these spring snows on the east coast that have become frequent over the past ~20 years are caused by the southward loop in the jet stream shifting eastward from its traditional position, sucking down cold arctic air at the Atlantic coast. But while you're saying "What happened to global warming???", those of us out west are saying "What happened to winter???".
There is some speculation that what this article is talking about is the cause of the shift in the jet stream, but AFAIK it isn't certain yet.
"all these spring snows"? Please cite them.
Changes in the amount and duration of daylight received in any day (rotational period) on the Earth are due to the Earth wobbling back and forth on its axis.
This is what causes seasons. In the Norther hemisphere, seasons work like this:
Summer Solstice - the longest day
Autumnal Equinox - equal day and night
Winter Solstice - the shortest day
Vernal Equinox - equal day and night
The Vernal Equinox typically aligns with the start of Spring in terms of temperature, plant growth, etc. The Equinox is on March 20th this year for the Northern hemisphere. We've got 6 days before Spring starts, and then another 6.5 weeks before we're in the middle of Spring. Neither the weather nor the climate have ever stuck to your schedule.
The fact that most people consider the Equinox the start of Spring, and not the middle of Spring, should clue you in. Astronomically, the peak of Summer should be the Summer Solstice. But in terms of weather, we consider it to be the start of Summer. This is because there's a lag between the tilting of the planet and warming. In a perfect and unchanging system it would align nicely with even spacing, and the peak of a Season in terms of temperature would be approximately 6.5 weeks after the Solstice/Equinox.
But the Earth is not such a system, nor has it ever been. So I ask you. Do you also complain when "April showers" extend into May? Or when "June Gloom" extends past the Summer Solstice?
Drummed up by globalist to get to the "one world order" nonsense. The SUN is in a QUIET period. Lack of sunspots, lack of disturbances in the corona, lack of coronal mass ejections, lowering of the sun output, has a DIRECT impact on our little rock. When we have little electromagnetic disruptions to our sphere, the weather patterns change. Couple that with the movement of the magnetic pole and you get problems of "climate change". Well of course our climate changes...but man doesn't have the impact you think it does. But, considering the LACK OF education, and the PROMOTED indoctrination of the youth today, it surprised me not, that a of of the hipster types believe this garbage.
This is the contorted, tortured logic by desperate believers of the Church of Global Warming to explain away record cold temperatures and winters which contradict their global warming religion. [...]
In what way are record cold temperatures in some particular spot incompatible with an increase in the planet-wide average temperature? An *average* says nothing about the highs and lows of the individual numbers!
Heck, even for a single location, you could have new records for both highs and lows and still see their yearly average go either up or down.
Your argument isn't just a logical fail, it's bad elementary school math - congratulations on making the worst argument seen in a while!
How's life in the hypocrite lane?
That's exactly NOT what has been shown to be happening. There is no positive feedback loop with water. In fact, the exact OPPOSITE happens. Thunderstorms form when a surface temperature threshold is passed. They move MASSIVE amounts of heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere, where there is NO CO2. That heat is then radiated out into space. Thunderstorms are like an air conditioner unit for our atmosphere, keeping heat from building up past a specific threshold. There is no runaway warming.
Calling deniers deniers is not anti-science. Deniers calling themselves skeptics are anti-science. It's pretty easy to tell the difference: deniers will adopt any conceivable idea as an explanation as to why global warming isn't happening, because it would violate a quasi-religious belief. If someone tells you they don't think it's happening, but haven't really looked at it, that's a skeptic. If someone tells you that worldwide science is a political conspiracy related to things primarily in the US, and that the scientists are frauds, that's a denier.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If there's no runaway warming, why are we seeing it?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Being something of a science buff and something of a history buff, you're wrong. That's not how history works, although scientific reasoning is useful at times. I have no idea what fields you're not ignorant in.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Weather isn't climate. Climate is something like the integral of weather. Individual extreme events are weather. How often they happen over the years is climate. Similarly, the temperature outside the window right now is weather. What temperature range we tend to get in mid-March here is local climate.
The poster you refer to talked about what happened in his little area of the globe. By his reasoning, rains of fire and brimstone and snakes wouldn't be an extreme event, as long as it was outside New Jersey.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes