Scientists say weather events can be linked to loss of sea ice in the Arctic.
Image: Flickr/NASA Goddard Photo and Video
A number of unusual atmospheric phenomena combined to form the massive "Frankenstorm" that was Superstorm Sandy. While many have said global warming fueled the storm's strength, it is unclear exactly how it played a role. But scientists are starting to see evidence that warm weather in the Arctic led to conditions that made the hurricane so incredibly powerful.
An article in the March issue of Oceanography, authored by scientists from Cornell and Rutgers universities, points to 2012's unprecedented Arctic sea ice melt as the root cause of the events that transformed a relatively modest storm into a destructive force (ClimateWire, Sept. 20, 2012).
A large kink in the jet stream, a high-pressure blocking pattern over Greenland and a mass of Arctic air pushing southward over North America's middle latitudes each contributed to Sandy's unusual strength.
An increasing body of research reveals that these weather events can be linked to loss of sea ice in the Arctic, said Charles Greene, professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Cornell University, who contributed to the article.
Other natural phenomena like high tides also came into play, but "greenhouse warming and Arctic sea ice loss stacked the deck in favor of the conditions that allowed something like Sandy to occur the way it did," Greene said.
Frigid air masses moved south
As Arctic sea ice shrank to record lows last year, newly exposed waters absorbed far more solar radiation than ice would have, allowing the ocean to store more heat. Greene explained that when fall and its cooler temperatures arrived in 2012, that heat was released into the atmosphere.
This lowered the temperature difference between the Arctic and the middle latitudes, calming the high-altitude cyclones that swirl above the northern latitudes. When these winds are strong, they hold cold air above the Arctic circle. But when temperatures in the Arctic are higher, the cyclones weaken, allowing masses of cold air to move south.
These cold air masses often cause nor'easters, winter storms that move up the Eastern Seaboard and dump massive amounts of snow on the East Coast, as with "Snowmageddon" in 2010. But in the case of Sandy, the cold air front added the characteristics of a nor'easter to the already potent hurricane, turning it into what Greene referred to as a "monster hybrid storm" (ClimateWire, Oct. 26, 2012).
Additionally, the lowered temperature gradient caused the jet stream -- a current of air that flows across North America at higher elevations -- to bend into a large "S" shape.
"When the jet stream slows down, it starts to form much bigger waves," explained Greene. "Kind of like a river -- if a river is going fast, it pretty much goes straight, but when it slows down, then it starts to wind and meander."
A sudden, late 'hard turn'
Greene and his partners believe this kink in the jet stream helped form an unusual blocking pattern over Greenland, which in turn shunted Sandy to the west -- just in time to slam into the East Coast.
"Most late-season hurricanes veer off to the east and don't make landfall, and nobody pays much attention to them," Greene said. "What Sandy did, which no late-season hurricane has ever done before, is it took a hard turn to the left. ... The blocking pattern that was in the northwest Atlantic just basically shut the door."
Superstorm Sandy can't be directly, indubitably linked to the massive amount of Arctic sea ice that melted in 2012, said Greene. However, he thinks the idea is just as probable as the theory that Sandy was caused by a coincidental series of unusual, but entirely natural, events.
See what we're tweeting about
31 Comments
Add CommentPlausible theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince the earth isn't going to get cooler any time soon, I guess we will see if the weather pattern repeats itself in coming summers.
If you believe in faries. What about all the previous similar storms? Here are a couple in just the past 75 years. http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/10/29/hurricane-sandy-will-join-other-storms-that-were-rare-freaks-of-nature/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSandy is most often being compared to a powerful hurricane that struck Long Island, New York and New England as a Category 3 storm on September 21, 1938. The U.S. Weather Bureau — the predecessor to today’s National Weather Service and National Hurricane Center — knew a hurricane had formed in mid-September. The storm strengthened as it moved westward across the Atlantic and at one point its winds may have exceeded 155 mph.
In March 1962, two storms merged to become a devastating nor’easter that caused havoc from North Carolina to New England.
On March 6, a powerful winter storm formed over Iowa and moved eastward, dumping more than two feet of snow in some places. In Great Storms of the Jersey Shore, authors Larry Savadove and Margaret Buchholz said that the storm brought snow to Alabama, and in Miami the temperature dropped to 31 degrees.
look, one of the climate "faries" has spoken.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisget off it, AGW is a fact, you betted against it, you lost, your pride is hurt.
it's a mystery how you can believe your owm comments (do you?), it is another mystery how you manage to hold on to your "job" (or the owner has a weird sense of humour).
Holy shit, I hope this melting Arctic Sea Ice and blocking pattern don't return next winter it was friggin' bone-numbing cold this winter, started in November and still ain't over.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe need to start incorporating the damages that GHG emissions cause into the cost of the fuels that release them. Currently, fossil fuels are artificially cheap since they have a hand in causing and worsening extreme weather events like Sandy, but the cleanup & repair costs are borne by the whole of society. This is just like if I got rich by dumping my garbage into a lake and then expected everybody that was sickened by drinking the water to deal with the consequences by themselves. Doesn't seem all that fair...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA modest carbon tax could remedy this shortcoming in our economic system while also giving clean energy alternatives a fair shot. Since the traditional and dirty energy sources like coal and oil don't have to account for the effects of the pollution they cause, the benefits of clean energy aren't accounted for by the market. Fix this market failure and we'll be able to lower the number / severity of superstorms in the future compared to just doing nothing to prevent these disasters.
Apart from abuse, what exactly do you contribute to debate on these pages? At least others like sault, with whom I frequently disagree, put up arguments that can be debated. You contribute nothing except shots fired at those you dislike. You do not seem to realise that your water pistol is dribbling out the barrel. Without ideas, your shots merely leave a damp patch & have no measurable impact. You must be an embarrassment to your own team.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjctyler didn't put it as eloquently as I would have, but the physics on climate change is clear: more CO2 = more warming. We've increased it's concentration by 40% already with no signs of slowing down. Due to this increased warming, we've seen the Arctic ice cap reach record low coverage and its volume continues to crash. We are now making linkages to GHG warming and the increased severity / likelihood of disasters like superstorm Sandy. 95% of glaciers are in retreat, droughts, fires, floods and damaging storms are becoming more frequent and powerful. Accordingly, the world's ENTIRE scientific establishment agrees with the conclusions of the IPCC, 98% of the world's climate scientists and EVERY NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION that GHG emissions are dangerously changing the climate and that we need to reduce them to prevent future calamities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook, the only people saying that we need to study this issue more are the fossil fuel companies and their mouthpieces they've paid off to keep their artificially cheap fuels selling at the multi-trillion-dollar level annually. There is NO debate in the ACTUAL scientific community on whether GHG emissions need to be reduced or not, ok? This is why the deniers can NEVER provide a peer-reviewed paper showing where they got the information they're peddling and merely link to unsubstantiated BLOGS as "proof" of whatever denying or delaying talking point is hot that day. Sorry, but this is NOT how science works.
So yeah, the debate on whether we should reduce GHG emissions is over. Now either provide meaningful solutions on HOW we can achieve those reductions or step aside and let the REALISTS solve the big problems of the 21st Century, ok?
How is the question. Billions are being wasted on non solutions such as this: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=norway-shows-the-way-with-electric-cars&posted=1#comments
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKarst,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have the wrong article. I believe you are referring to this article:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gorgeous-photos-show-an-arctic-worl-2013-03
Don't worry. This error isn't as bad as your belief that IR backscatter is the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.
What greenhouse effect? No heating for at least ten years. Possibly even cooling. Probably explains why so many of your persuasion are so nasty & bitter in their posts. Now that is a scientific observation for you. Can't stand the cold.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you attempting to claim that the greenhouse effect does not exist even in global cooling or during a glacial period?
Are you also attempting to claim that IR backscatter is the mechanism of the greenhouse effect?
Please provide a link to one of my so-called "nasty & bitter" comments and then we can compare it to any of your comments.
There is ample proof that global warming ceased increasing at least a decade ago. This site deletes links to the most credible site for honest & in depth analysis so have a look at this & follow the embedded links. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/so_many_years_of_no_warming_means_its_time_to_rethink/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, your comment was fairly innoxious on second reading. My apologies.
Unless melting arctic sea ice was able to change the phase of the moon to allow the storm to hit at precisely the moment of the highest of high tides, I doubt that it had any effect whatsoever.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWithout the unfortunate timing of high tides, Sandy would have been nothing to speak of.
Wow, maybe we should start calling them denier-ignoramuses because the lack of scientific knowledge contributes to their science denial and vice-versa in a feedback loop of stupidity!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course there is a greenhouse effect almost entirely driven by water. Otherwise the Earth would be an ice ball. CO2 is a very minor contributor. Otherwise we would be seeing the dramatic temperature rise forecast by the IPCC that have failed to materialise. Just look at this graph comparing the predicted with the actual. Remember, CO2 levels have continued to increase during this period: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/has-the-world-started-cooling-hints-from-4-of-5-global-temperature-sets-say-it-might-have/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe 10, 14, 16 year theory. . . . A common misconception from the "deniers", such as you. Why do you continue to be a proponent of such a simplistic understanding of global climate?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm
Joanne Nova has a degree in biology, not climate science. Ironically, she states that, "carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that adding more to it will warm the planet, yes, absolutely, that's all well proven solid science known for years, yes. I have no disagreement with any of that."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI may also mention that Joanne Nova's publications are promoted by the Heartland Institute. I wonder why?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm glad you have acknowledged that there is a greenhouse effect and that both CO2 and H2O are greenhouse gases.
Yes, I am aware CO2 levels have continued to rise while temperature has not since 1998. From your first sentence I would think you would understand that other factors affect global temperatures other than only CO2.
One factor is the oceans which have a much great heat capacity than the atmosphere. Take a look at the ENSO cycles and notice the correlations with temperatures. Here's what timeframes you should look at:
1) late 1940s to late 1970s
2) late 1970s to late 1990s (like 1998)
3) late 1990s to the present.
Here are a graph of Multivariate ENSO Index:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ts.gif
Here a graph of global temperature anomalies:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2012.svg
Notice anything?
There are several different things here that deniers like Carlyle fail to grasp.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. The Earth's climate system has A LOT of thermal inertia and over 93% of the excess heat that humanity's GHG emissions are trapping is going into the oceans instead of warming land / air temperatures. Accordingly, the climate does NOT immediately respond to GHG forcing, especially in the way of higher air temperatures. The time constant of the climate system is probably several decades.
2. Natural variability is still occurring. If you filter out the effects of the La Nina dominance and other natural forcings over the last 5-6 years, the anthropogenic warming signal becomes glaringly apparent.
3. Choosing the MONSTER El Nino year of 1998 as your starting period for measuring warming is a CLASSIC cherry-pick. REAL climate science uses periods spanning multiple decades to determine trends instead of just picking a year that is convenient for a predetermined conclusion like the deniers do. If we mistakenly did things like the deniers, we would have erroneously thought that global warming stopped in 1889, 1915, 1944 or any number of local maxima that were superseded sometime later.
You need to keep in mind that the world has still probably warmed on average over the last 16 years since the center of the uncertainty range in temperature trends over this period is still positive. And like I said above, filter out the natural variability that has mostly favored cooling recently and the anthropogenic warming signal just out clear as day.
WRONG:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 1022 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C. This warming corresponds to a rate of 0.27 W m−2 per unit area of earth's surface. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–700 m layer increased by 16.7 ± 1.6 × 1022 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 W m−2(per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18°C. The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051106/abstract
Denial is not just a river in Egypt!
From your link. Do you think these people gave themselves enough room to make adjustments. What a joke.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe provide updated estimates of the change of ocean heat content and the thermosteric component of sea level change of the 0–700 and 0–2000 m layers of the World
Ocean for 1955–2010. Our estimates are based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, and bathythermograph data corrected for instrumental biases. We have also used Argo data corrected by the Argo DAC if available and used uncorrected Argo data if no corrections were available at the time we downloaded the Argo data.
Silly deniers...the fact that you think a BLOG carries more weight than THOUSANDS of peer-reviewed scientific papers speaks volumes about your ignorance. Sorry, but you'll just have to keep this nonsense to yourself and let the realists around here tackle the major problems of the 21st Century.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem to have a high level of certainty that the "missing heat" of the last decade is not in the oceans.
Your certainty about the 3300 Argos not being able to find the "missing heat" is not what was found by Von Schuckmann and Le Traon in 2011:
http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/8/999/2011/osd-8-999-2011.pdf
And Loeb et al confirms this:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1375.html
If you need something that comes more from the gut, here's an article from Anthony Watts:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/06/energy-content-the-heat-is-on-atmosphere-vs-ocean/
The 3300 Argos are great -- we need them. However, when considering the confidence of their temperature data, one should consider this line from the
Anthony Watts article:
"If you were to transfer enough ocean energy directly to the atmosphere to create 4 degrees of atmospheric warming, how much would that change the average
temperature of the Earth’s water?
Would you believe – 0.001 Degrees C of ocean temp change?"
To put another way: The missing 0.04 C temperature rise in the atmosphere since 1998 is an equivalent to a 0.00001 C rise in the ocean temperatures.
Do you think the 3300 Argos should have found that?
Correction, I meant:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe missing 0.4 C temperature rise in the atmosphere since 1998 is an equivalent to a 0.0001 C rise in the ocean temperatures.
[I meant 0.4C to be on the extreme side (and it is a simple order of magnitude difference from 4 C). Would there be a debate now, if the global temperature increased by 0.4C since 1998? Or what did you mean when you said, "Time will tell" (Carlyle)?]
A couple of points. I am gratified to see that your comment has not been removed by the editors. I hope I have not spoken too soon. Climatewire is notorious for removing comments. Any links to WUWT is likely to suffer from the sensors pen from many authors of SIAM articles. May I suggest you save your comment to a file on your compute.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact is that global temperature has not increased the way the IPCC predicted, in lock step with CO2 increases. Shock shock their models were wrong. Explanations to date are weak. Data that conflicts with the models is being ‘adjusted’ or ignored.
Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are reasonable explanations of why the models referenced by the IPCC could not predict the last 15 years. It is simple. Models are unable to predict the ENSO cycle. We can not predict over the next decade if there will be more El Ninos or more La Ninas.
As I suggested before, look at the graph of Multivariate ENSO Index:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ts.gif
Notice the following time periods:
1) late 1940s to late 1970s: Period predominated by La Ninas corresponds to no significant increases in global temperatures.
2) late 1970s to late 1990s: Period predominated by El Ninos corresponts to significant increases in global temperatures.
3) late 1990s to the present. Period with more La Ninas corresponds to no significant increases in global temperatures.
Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn whatever you observe, it seems you do not consider all the factors (e.g. you believe temperatures should increase "lock step" with CO2 for IPCC to be correct). You seem to believe that Climatewire deletes most articles with WUWT links. There is a significant correlation that a comment that has a WUMT link will also have ad hominems. The cause of the deletion of the comment is most likely the ad hominem, and not the WUWT link that went with it.
Well, I suggest you continue to put links to WUWT in your posts, as carefully crafted as you like & experience the censors pen for yourself. Try one of Boraz articles & see how you go.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, I've noticed that SCIAM blocks a lot of sites that are pro-Nuclear, Climate Change Skeptic, anti-SuperRich/Plutocracy, anti-Renewables or pro-Development.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'Whatever'. Next year there will not be a 'Superstorm'...no headline saying 'No superstorm'. No headlines saying 'no drought in USA'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe cherry picking continues.
It's climate when it suits the global warming cultists, 'weather' when not.