Above, Dr. Jennifer Francis of Rutgers, and Dr. Jeff Masters of Weather Underground and the Weather Channel, on jetstream changes that may be responsible for changes in extreme weather events in the temperate zones.
“Since the 1980s, Arctic sea ice extent (SIE) has declined at a rate of about 8% per decade during September5, reaching a new record minimum in 2012. The area of summer sea-ice loss would cover over 40% of the contiguous United States6 . Snow-cover extent (SCE) on high-latitude, Northern Hemisphere land areas has also diminished during early summer. The rate of SCE loss during June from 1979 to 2011 of 17.8% per decade is even faster than the loss rate of Arctic SIE (ref. 7). “
Dr. Francis has a new paper just out reinforcing the sea ice connection with information about declining spring snow cover as well.
Abstract:
The past decade has seen an exceptional number of unprecedented summer extreme weather events in northern mid-latitudes, along with record declines in both summer
Arctic sea ice and snow cover on high-latitude land. The underlying mechanisms that link the shrinking cryosphere with summer extreme weather, however, remain unclear.Here, we combine satellite observations of early summer snow cover and summer sea-ice extent with atmospheric reanalysis data to demonstrate associations between summer weather patterns in mid-latitudes and losses of snow and sea ice. Results suggest that the atmospheric circulation responds differently to changes in the ice and snow extents, with a stronger response to sea-ice loss, even though its reduction is half as large as that for the snow cover. Atmospheric changes associated with the combined snow/ice reductions reveal 0 widespread upper-level height increases, weaker upper-level zonal winds at high latitudes, a more amplified upper-level pattern, and a general northward shift in the jet stream.
More frequent extreme summer heat events over mid-latitude continents are linked with reduced sea ice and snow through these circulation changes.
Andrew Freedman has more.
A new study for the first time found links between the rapid loss of snow and sea ice cover in the Arctic and a recent spate of exceptional extreme heat events in North America, Europe, and Asia. The study adds to the evidence showing that the free-fall in summer sea ice extent and even sharper decline in spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere is reverberating throughout the atmosphere, making extreme events more likely to occur.
–There is virtually no controversy among climate scientists and meteorologists that massive changes have occurred in the Arctic environment during the past three decades, and that those changes are largely due to manmade greenhouse gas emissions.
Since the 1980s, Arctic sea ice extent has dropped at a rate of about 8 percent per decade during September, which is when the sea ice cover reaches its annual minimum. Arecord minimum was set in 2012. For a size comparison, consider that the area of summer sea ice lost since the 1980s would cover about 40 percent of the continental U.S., the study said.
Spring snow cover extent loss during June has dropped even more precipitously than sea ice cover, the study found, at a rate of about 18 percent per decade since 1979.
The case for a connection between Arctic warming and summertime extreme weather events rests on the Arctic’s crucial role as a pacesetter and shapemaker of the jet stream, the powerful ribbon of upper level winds that steer weather systems from west to east across the Northern Hemisphere.
Because the temperature contrast between the frigid Arctic and the milder mid-latitudes is what drives the powerful jet stream winds that guide weather systems, what happens in the Arctic is bound to have some sort of influence on the world’s weather.
–The new study, along with other previously published research, showed that the decline in sea ice and snow cover has slowed the west-to-easterly component of the jet stream, thereby enhancing the north-to-south waviness of the jet, which leads to the creation of more stagnant or “blocked” weather patterns. In addition, the new study found an association between sea ice and snow cover decline and a northward shift in the jet stream, which allows more warm air to move into the U.S. and Europe during the summer.
Paradoxically, other studies, including work by the same team of researchers, has shown that Arctic warming can actually enhance cold weather extremes in the U.S. and Europe during the winter.
Jennifer Francis, a meteorologist at Rutgers University, co-author of the new study, and the most prominent proponent of the hypothesis that Arctic warming is leading to more extreme weather events, told Climate Central that this study adds further evidence to the growing body of research supporting her team’s conclusions.
“While an observational study cannot pin down the mechanistic cause of the response, our results show a strong relationship between ice and snow losses during summer with heat waves in mid-latitude continents where billions of people are affected,” Francis said in an email conversation.
The cause/effect between arctic change and jetstream is not settled, pound on the table science. Below, an exchange between Dr. Francis and Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a leading researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Dr. Trenberth is not yet ready to sign on with the theory, but agrees that extreme weather events are increasing, and that we are seeing a “new normal” in climate.
Freedman again:
Judah Cohen, lead seasonal weather forecaster at AER, a weather and climate consulting firm, said the possibility that Arctic climate change is leading to more extreme weather patterns has initiated a flurry of new studies. “I can tell you that I am busier now reviewing journal papers than I have ever been in my career and they are all on sea ice” he said in an email. “I think this will be a dominant area of research and discourse for years to come.”
For her part, Francis is continuing to keep a wary eye on the weather map, convinced that the evidence for Arctic-induced weather extremes will continue to mount.
“As we continue to emit ever-increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and as the Arctic continues to warm faster than mid-latitudes, we will see the case for the linkage strengthen,” Francis said. “I expect that with every year we will see a clearer response of weather patterns in all four seasons, and new modeling experiments will help elucidate the links in the chain, as well.”
I am at the American Geophysical Union meeting this week, and will be seeing and interview Dr. Francis, Dr. Masters and Dr. Trenberth, among others. Will have more updates and videos in coming weeks.
Yep…The climate, she be changing. The Earth has turner the temperature corner.
It’s high-time for you Alarmists to think to begin to carp about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Cooling.
Ponder this: http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2008/pr-manvleaf-010709.html
Post-pandemic reforestation in New World helped trigger Little Ice Age, Stanford researchers say
“Stanford University researchers have conducted a comprehensive analysis of data detailing the amount of charcoal contained in soils and lake sediments at the sites of both pre-Columbian population centers in the Americas and in sparsely populated surrounding regions. They concluded that reforestation of agricultural lands—abandoned as the population collapsed—pulled so much carbon out of the atmosphere that it helped trigger a period of global cooling, at its most intense from approximately 1500 to 1750, known as the Little Ice Age.”
There is also evidence that deforestation for agriculture triggered Medieval Warming. It looks like trees are Earth’s primary thermostat.
if this were true, tree planting would be the solution to climate change. unfortunately, the amount of carbon we can lock up in trees is not large enough to balance what we have/are adding to the atmosphere.
> It looks like trees are Earth’s primary thermostat.
or were…
I’ve been pondering this ever since I read Plows, Plagues & Petroleum (Ruddiman 2005) which first introduced this hypothesis. As a tree lover and planter, what stands out is how quickly reforestation can occur and cool the climate – within a few decades.
It can help. If you look up co2 contributions by nation, you will see some odd ones where you ask, but they have no industry. Then you see the column that shows deforestation. Deforestation is a contributor to imbalance between carbon sinks and sources, unfortunately, it is now swamped by human emissions. It could have worked, but the time tondo it was 40 years ago. Now it can help, but not reverse global warming. We are now on a path that demands we quit emitting co2 or the consequences are dire. Every Katrina, Sandy, Haiyan, drought, fire, and flood will be worse than the ones we have already seen. Sorry, man. I tried hard not to leave you a wrecked planet. At least more people think it matters than before.
We don’t have a ‘few decades’ to play with.
Afforestation will not be able to sequester atmospheric CO₂ in the time-frame needed to avoid the step-change to a new thermal equilibrium.
We cannot now get the genie back into the bottle, but we can try to mitigate the effect.
Does this sound alarmist kingdube:
A more luminous Sun is bad news for Earth.
In 1.1 billion years from now, the Sun will be 10% brighter than it is today. This extra energy will cause a moist greenhouse effect in the beginning, similar to the runaway warming on Venus. But then the Earth’s atmosphere will dry out as the water vapor is lost to space, never to return.
In 3.5 billion years from now, the Sun will be 40% brighter than it is today. It will be so hot that the oceans will boil and that water vapor will be lost to space as well. The ice caps will permanently melt, and snow will be ancient history; life will be unable to survive anywhere on the surface of the Earth. The Earth will resemble dry hot Venus.
No – it does not because it is so far into the future it does not seem important, if it were closer in time you would arguing against known solar physics .
Peter’s video is just climate science, it does not intend to alarm, just state current understanding under current practices, if you are alarmed by the conclusions then that is your own fear and interpretation. I do not feel alarm (just concern) would you prefer the scientists just tell kingdube’s version of the truth instead and make you feel comfortable ? Who are you trying to kid ?
k-dube, Do you realize that you are asserting that Earth is radiating more energy into space than it is absorbing from the Sun?
Believe it or not, I’ve seen dumber claims than that from climate denialists, and that was back before the Internet was public and Usenet ruled the world of globally-accessible discussion fora.
Everybody else here understands that an energy balance like that means the earth will warm, right? And it’s been going on for eons. So if the earth was constantly warming due to this geothermal imbalance, how come its cooler now than 65 million years ago?
Wow, there are a number of whoppers in your post – I’ll just point out the major ones. First, the Earth hasn’t been warming for eons – independent paleoclimate reconstructions all show a gradual cooling trend over the past several thousand years until the Industrial Revolution. Second, global warming has nothing to do with a “geothermal imbalance” – geothermal energy is orders of magnitude too small to cause measurable global warming – the observed TOA energy imbalance is between solar energy incoming and LW radiation outgoing. Third, and lastly, it’s foolish to compare today’s global temperature with the temps 65 million years ago without factoring in the differences in atmospheric composition, continental locations, ocean circulation, solar insolation, and so forth. The Earth was a VERY different place 65 million years ago.
You get it. Let’s see if king doobie gets it.
Did I just fall for a Poe?
I certainly do!!
Estimates are that the Earth as a whole is exothermic to the tune of 44-66TW. That’s 44-66 million megawatts.
We’d enjoy seeing a reputable source for your assertion.
I won’t wait, here it is.
http://geophysics.ou.edu/geomechanics/notes/heatflow/global_heat_flow.htm
Average global geologic heat flux is 0.075 W/m2. (Watts per meter squared)
the daily average irradiance for the Earth is approximately 250 W/m2 (i.e., a daily irradiation of 6 kWh/m2), taking into account the lower radiation intensity in early morning and evening, and its near-absence at night.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation
There is a greater than four order magnitude difference between average global heat flux density of solar vs geologic. Making the kings comment, … Well… Irrelevant.
Just to be clear, are you saying that the Earth is cooling at the approximate rate of .09 to .13 watts per meter squared of surface area? That would be a Nobel Prize worthy breakthrough.
He’s talking about the geothermal heat flux from Earth’s leftover energy of collapse plus later radioactive decay. There’s no dispute that it exists.
I’m not sure what he IS trying to dispute, except that he has to rely on innumeracy to make his case. No way do geothermal fluxes account for 2 W/m² of forcing, and they wouldn’t have changed much over the last million years anyway.
Absolute BS.
The Earth is accumulating energy enough to bring the whole 12,232km³ of Lake Superior to the boil every 6 months precisely because the CO₂ and CH₄ blanket has increased.
That’s the same energy as boiling away a Sydney Harbour’s worth of water every 96 minutes, or 40 olympic swimming pools per second.
What a sad, pointless and conscienceless existence you must have to waste so much time actively trying to sabotage Humanity’s attempts to protect the biosphere from scum like you.
Be a man and show your real identity.
Do you even want to know why that is a very stupid idea?
It’s because we have satellites in space that have been very accurately measuring the amount of energy coming from the sun ->towardfrom<- the Earth.
And they show us very clearly that more energy comes into the Earth than radiates off of it.
Which means the Earth is in an energy imbalance.
Which means it IS heating up.
Measured.
Proven.
For ears.
Confirmed.
Beyond any shadow of a doubt.
A very basic fact which you seemed to have missed.
Jeezum. My reply got ruined twixt comment and display.
We have satellites that measure the energy from the sun hitting the Earth. And, we have satellites measuring the energy escaping from the Earth back into space.
And your notion, dube, is exactly wrong. More energy hits the Earth than radiates off it back into space. The Earth is unquestionably heating up, not cooling down.
The measurements you are speaking to involve a narrow range of radiation (5-20um) that is intended to evaluate the greenhouse effect. And even here the results are a bit murky. However, when the overall energy balance is evaluated, the Earth as a whole is and has been exothermic.
I believe you are incorrect. The measurements include a wide range of frequencies, including visible, UV and IR. Please see:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
What you point to is an evaluation of the long-wave-radiation that is relevant to the GHE. And like I said, the results in this range are a bit murky.
Radiation into and out of the Earth is measured over a much broader range and over this broad range the results are indisputable. The Earth is net exothermic.
I’m curious, if you think that we are in a cooling phase and more heat is exiting our planet, then why do the approximately 3600 ARGO floats show that the Ocean temperature is trending upwards ? do you consider ARGO float measurements/data as “murky” too ?
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html
kingdube, the Earth as net exothermic is also my understanding too!
Thanks.
But, I’m having a hard time right now putting my finger on that data and the paper confirming it. I used to have it but just can’t find it.
Could you help me out?
Thanking you in advance!
My answers are in moderation.
Shelama,
Google Kanani Lee, First measurements of Earth’s core radioactivity and KamLAND.
We have known for a long time that the Earth is exothermic and to an extent that would easily cause the primordial interior to go cool long before its 4.5B year’s age.
The earth originated as a molten ball that was entirely molten through and through. We strongly believe that heavy elements like iron and nickel gravitationally precipitated to the center. But what about even heavier elements like thorium and uranium? These radioactive materials would have precipitated to the center of the center. And we also know that sufficient quantity of these radioactive elements with, most importantly, sufficient proximity-density, will spontaneously chain react to generate enormous heat.
This explanation becomes the simple answer to the question: “just where is it that the enormous amounts of heat energy come from that drive ongoing continental drift, tens of thousands of volcanoes, the circulation of the vast internal mantel and all the Earth’s repeated earthquakes?” This energy is not residual primordial heat and it certainly cannot be explained by solar phenomena.
http://www.thespacerace.com/forum/index.php?topic=944.0
http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.4667
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/june-2013/journey-from-the-center-of-the-earth
http://neutel11.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/hiroko-watanabe-kamland-results/
ARGO has been operational since early 2000’s and that makes extraordinarily difficult any long term trending.
“Freezing is an exothermic process and melting is an endothermic process.”
Melting of the Arctic, record minimum in 2012 ? Surface Temperature pre ARGO all murky too ?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
Are you related to Ken Ring, my local denier ?
Dear fortranprog,
As water freezes to ice it absorbs energy – endothermic process.
As ice melts it gives up energy – exothermic process.
Dear Shelama Leesen,
http://www.thespacerace.com/forum/index.php?topic=944.0
http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.4667
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/june-2013/journey-from-the-center-of-the-earth
http://neutel11.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/hiroko-watanabe-kamland-results/
Dear fortranprog,
As water freezes to ice it absorbs energy – endothermic process.
As ice melts it gives up energy – exothermic process.
In my long journey of life I have learnt one and only one very important fact, which is a true expert in any field can convey a very complex fact to a layman in simple crisp terms that the layman can understand. A bullshitter or non expert cannot. Why do you guys persist with the obfuscation nonsense ?
Oh, so *that*’s why you put a block of ice in an ice chest! It’s to keep food warm, not cold.
As the ice melts, it gives up energy — thereby heating the food in the ice-chest.
Suffering from hypothermia? Then sit on a block of ice. It will warm you up as it melts!
obviously I misspoke here.
ONLY here? It’s good that you recognize one rather egregious “misspeak”. Should we now expect that you will own up to the near countless other “misspeaks” you have inflicted on us?
Try taking his numbers for the total geologic energy and dividing by the earths surface area to get heat flux density. Oughta be the same as the published number. Now compare geologic heat flux density to solar heat flux density. Dada! Where’s my Nobel prize? What does this prove? You tell me. You know, lately, I think the question to ask deniers is, what exactly is your point? The earth is exothermic? And where does that get you? The reason it’s omitted from most discussions of global warming is because it’s irrelevant. It’s too small compared to solar. I know it came up historically, because someone calculated that the earth would be very cold, centuries ago. Then they discovered geothermal. But that was before greenhouse effect was appreciated. I don’t think we want to retro our science back a few centuries.
It’s an important point to recognize that the Earth is net-exothermic. Why? Because it alerts the casual observer to the fact that a lot more is at play than atmospheric CO2. It’s not so that the recent warming is strictly a function of more solar heat entering than leaving. More heat than solar-enters is always leaving. And CO2 is playing a tertiary role in this process, at best.
It is similarly important for the layman to recognize that natural radioactive processes are at work to make the Earth exothermic. Why? Because it diminishes the fear of nuclear energy to know that Mother Gaia has been using it throughout all history. So why shouldn’t we?
You still haven’t responded to the fact that geothermal is much less than solar heat flux density. Do you understand that? Or are you going to go on as if your error failing to recognize that fact has been unnoticed by any of the readers who have made the same comment, to wit Engineer Poet, Phillip Shaw. If we have noticed it, I think the major scientists have figured it out already. Meanwhile, you are still tripping all over your ” own goal” for citing a contribution to warming that is too small. Are you noticing your mistakes and just changing subject or are you ignorant? And yet you think that in all your magnificent glory, you and only you have discovered …. Wait for it….. Geothermal energy! And if geothermal was there all along, why did temperature change in 1970? Ought a be easy to prove. Geysers would be spouting and volcanoes erupting all over the planet like mad, much more than the preceding time frame. Did that happen? No. Are you going to go on spouting nonsense? Yes. Yet you speak loftily of the layman as if you are in some rarified atmosphere of intelligentsia. Stupid is as stupid does. Diminishing fear. I think scientists are not actually in that business. For diminishing fear, a psychologist would be more appropriate.
Here is good one. You might benefit.
http://theclimatepsychologist.com/?p=156
Don’t know whether to say “what?” or “wow!”, so………….
WHAT? WOW!
How long do you think he will go on before he realizes. He’s like a guy with his zipper open or a six foot length of toilet paper dangling out his behind. Its almost embarrassing. Did you know you are a layman, fox? I have not seen such pride in ignorance since Dan Quayle tried to correct schoolchildren spelling potato? Can you spell potato? Maybe we need a global warming spell checker. You know, one that corrects denier mistakes before they type them. I’m channeling Ralph from Homer Simpson. You know, the one where chief Wiggums says, “He’s a dumb kid,
but an above average dog.” But we have seen more of that “inability to not understand” lately:)
ALMOST embarrassing? I will paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen again and say “We all knew Dan Quayle, Dube, and you’re no Dan Quayle”. The Dube makes Dan “Potatoe” Quayle look like Einstein.
Been shoveling snow for the second day here in VA—think I’ll go downstairs where I can be closer to that “natural radioactive exothermism” of Dube’s and warm up my toes.
What are the implications for agriculture when the arctic is ice-free over northern winter?
I would think that the excursions will be exaggerated further and the rate of movement of the Jet Stream will be made even slower. This would, it seems , lead to completely unpredictable growing seasons, with the potential that every year may well bring catastrophic crop failures almost anywhere, due to either freezing snaps and/or drought and burnout.
And such a situation should last for a millennia or two.
Climate alarmism may well be completely justified.
Let me try again. The Earth is exothermic. That is a fact. More energy is leaving the system than is entering it.
Now we are lead to believe that CO2 is inhibiting the emission of heat from the Earth. But it still remains so that more is leaving than is entering.
Christopher has his panties in a bunch that geothermal is small compared to solar influx. And this is so, he is right, geothermal is tiny compared to solar input.
But as the Earth remains net-exothermic, that means that whatever energy emission is inhibited by elevated CO2, this inhibition is small when compared to the tiny geothermal contribution. Get it now!
One more time:
If the hypothetical CO2 retained energy was just as large as geothermal, then the in and out would balance. But since the Earth remains exothermic, the amount of CO2 retained energy must be small compared to geothermal.
CO2 is playing a tertiary role in this process, at best.
Lord love a duck, but The Dube is obtuse! I need a translator—is The Dube actually saying that “more” energy is “leaving” the earth than is “entering”? If so, would someone please point out to me the spot in his rantings where he acknowledges that is in direct contradiction of the fact that the earth seems to be, on average, getting measurably warmer? (And is not ALL of it getting warmer, lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, biosphere?)
Am I missing something?
No you are not missing anything. Yes he actually maintains that more energy is leaving the earth than entering it. I think he means the core of the earth to the surface. not to space, and he calls that exothermic. But you cannot translate nonsense. In his nonsensical world, since inhibition from CO2 does not stop the earth (geologic) from being exothermic, that magically means CO2 is playing a tertiary role. What’s tertiary here? It means three, but what three? Sorry, I can’t do any more with that. Right off, its hard to communicate with someone who thinks thermal flows are governed by something other than temperature difference. To stop the core from being exothermic to the surface of the earth, the surface would have to be 5700K. From hot to cold, thats what I was taught. More is leaving than entering. That means cooling to me, too, but leaving what? The net flow is to space. OK. If the earth is getting warmer, you are talking dynamics. That means the net flow has to change and more gets trapped on the surface and in the atmosphere, yes. He thinks its all coming from geothermal. What he hasnt explained is how this geothermal just happens to coincide with the present warming or shown any evidence that the geothermal heat has changed to provide a new temperature. Is this his latest crock pottery, a recent one, or has this been his misguided obsession for a long time? And all this overcomes the fact that solar heat flux density is higher than geothermal. Breathtaking colossal stupidity. I have to agree with you. Even though the others win the medal in other facets, doobey has this one covered, particularly from the standpoint of not recognizing errors of thought.