Image: Flickr/clagnut
Shrinking Arctic sea ice may have helped cause unusually snowy winters that have blanketed parts of the Northern Hemisphere in recent years. That's the conclusion of a new study that suggests such winter blasts may become more frequent as warming further shrinks sea ice.
"We think there's probably a linkage between the record decline of Arctic sea ice and record snowfall over much of the northern continents," said lead author Jiping Liu, a senior research scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, whose work was published yesterday by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Large portions of the United States were battered by heavy snowfall during the winters of 2009 and 2010, while much of Europe has been unusually snowy this year. At the same time, the Arctic's sea ice cover has receded rapidly. The area covered by sea ice shrunk to its lowest extent on record in the summer of 2007, and subsequent years round out the list of the five lowest sea ice extents on record since satellite monitoring began in 1979.
Liu and his colleagues believe there are two processes that link the thawing Arctic and harsh winters at lower latitudes, based on their analysis combining records of Arctic sea ice cover and climate modeling.
A 'wavier' Jet Stream
"If there is a dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice, the westerly winds that blow across the North Pacific and North Atlantic oceans are weakened," he said. "This means we will have a wavier Jet Stream."
That wavier Jet Stream brings more cold air to lower latitudes, including the northern United States, central and eastern Europe, and northern and central China, even as it warms Greenland and northeastern Canada.
Receding sea ice also leaves more ocean surface exposed to warm surface air in the summer and autumn, which leads to more water vapor in the atmosphere -- water vapor that is funneled south via the Jet Stream, where it fuels heavy snows.
The new study suggests that a summer thaw of 1 million square kilometers of Arctic sea ice corresponds to a 3-12 percent increase in snow cover in parts of the United States, Europe and China. Liu is reluctant to ascribe the phenomenon to climate change, however, noting that the rapid decline in Arctic sea ice began just five years ago, in 2007.
"If we see this pattern year after year, then we can say it's due to climate change," he said.
Previous studies have linked the recent drop in Arctic sea ice cover and thickness to man-made warming. They include a series of annual "Arctic report cards" issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which have found widespread evidence that climate change is driving the continued decline of Arctic summer sea ice, shortening the region's snow season, warming land surfaces and permafrost and changing the population and habitat of Arctic wildlife.
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
30 Comments
Add CommentIf you look at the data in context like you're SUPPOSED to, you'll see a dramatic decrease in ice area and volume since 1980. You can't cherry-pick your way out of this overwhelming proof of climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut really, wouldn't the presence or absence of snowy winters, warm winters, cold winters, or any weather event of any kind be indicative of climate change for the true believers competing for those big-money grants. Isn't the main point to just panic now and empower the radical environmentalist to tax the world into one green scam-hole after another? Madoff must admire this one. Lies, distortions, corruption and millions and millions of dollars in dirty money-- these are the stock and trade of so-called climate "science." True believers know that the sky is falling and the only way to stop it is more and more and more taxes. The snake oil industry is thriving.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisData are not SUPPOSED to be falsified, but time and time again we see that this is the modus operandi of climate evangelists who are paid nicely to find that the sky is falling and shunned into oblivion if they find otherwise. I think we should abandon these discussions and let the thieves at the UN handle it. They know what's best for us. Plus I am worried about Algore's millions of green-scam investments. He's more and more breathless these days... Oh and yes-- the standards discaimer...overwhleming consensus--over whelming consensus--overwhelming consensus--say it with me everybody.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps you should share your intimate knowledge of falsified data and the well paid climate change "evangelists". There are several people who are paid nicely by the Koch brothers. Are you one of them?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Charles G. Koch foundation paid $150,000 to fund a study by Richard Muller, a Berkeley physicist and self-proclaimed climate skeptic. The foundation apparently did not get it's money's worth since the study flatly concludes that "global warming is real".
Yet more moronic claims for the warmist bible. Since supposedly the arctic sea ice has never had any sort of melting in the past, according to warmists, then there is no way they can prove what the actual affect the sea ice has on the jet stream. Their claims are total speculation. Then you get to further nonsense. Since the Sea Ice prior to 1980 as sault indicates is the baseline, then how does the warmist explain the harsher and more insane winters of the late 70s. I was alive and living in Illinois back then and there was a heck of a lot more snow on the ground, blizzards multiple times a year and all of it far worse than what has happened recently. By the logic of this article, the huge mass of sea ice in the 70s, compared to today should have prevented any blizzards back then. I know I know, always inconvenient to point out to a warmist their data is flawed by their choice of baselines, like 1980 and completely disregard the fact that winter was significantly worse in the few years before 1980, the little ice age or ignoring any other data that is contrary to their beliefs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me know when there is actual data showing this effect and how it works by experiment. Just looking at satellite data, ignoring winters prior to 1982 and totally speculating a causal effect is not proof of anything at all other than you want another chapter in your warmist bible to justify your Armageddon claims.
I live in Canada and we've had below averagde levels of snow this winter. I suppose, even though we are larger than Europe, we don't fit into the exaggeration and therefore don't count.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot very appealing argument's when invoking "labels", a very passive aggressive way of not name calling, and by itself' a maddening manner altogether!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMoisture on the ground evaporates, then rises being carried by the jet stream, hence, falling down to the ground again and repeating. More moisture on the ground more evaporation, more ice, less moisture-less evaporation, etc., etc..
Weather IS cyclical and is also changing and is also effected by everything, fauna, moisture, solar, MAN.
... And I suppose that you failed to properly read the full article! Perhaps you should keep off the science sites and stick to celebrity gossip.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease provide examples where the data has been falsified and not empty rhetoric. I also note the irony of calling those that are concerned about climate change 'evangelicals,' as a form of insult, while many of the deniers are, in fact, evangelicals. Congratulations! You are in the proud company of such esteemed intellectuals as Rick Santorum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real Bible-thumpers want their Armageddon back - on God's terms, not climatologists'. All these scientists sure are stealing His thunder...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"What record decline in arctic ice? It is at the same level as it was in 2007."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-----
January 2012 compared to past years
Arctic sea ice extent for January 2012 was the fourth lowest in the satellite record. Including the year 2012, the linear rate of decline for January ice extent over the satellite record is 3.2% per decade.
Based on the satellite record, before 2005 average January ice extent had never been lower than 14 million square kilometers (5.41 million square miles). January ice extent has now fallen below that mark six out of the last seven years. <http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/>
Guys,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet us get scientific about this. If the average temperature of Earth is rising one would expect that there would be a reduction in the insulation between the Polar regions and the adjacent temperate zones. Thus we would expect to see cold air heading South and warm air heading North, in the case of the Northern Hemisphere, the reverse for the Southern Hemisphere. So, if we see cold northerly winds producing freezing conditions in say Europe, then the compensating warm winds heading north are melting the ice.
That, people, is a marker for global warming.
Similarly the reverse is the case for global cooling.
cheers Juan
So how does the Ice extent stand today? How does it stand averaged over the past 12 months? Why is it that it is obviously not going to disapear from the arctic this coming arctic summer as predicted. As a matter of fact, day by day the extent is increasing the gap.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo matter what happens, AGW wins with some people it seems.
A few days after that story broke the US government approved another $100M for AGW climate change proponents.You claim bias? How much has the US paid to fund research into the holes in the AGW hypothisis? 000000000.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle- And Heartland's entire budget is $4.6 million. I sure would like to know where all those billions of big oil dollars went. I just read they gave most to the AGW crowd. Just another straw man argument by the warmers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll that oil-soaked Exxon money going to the Heritage Foundation is funding enough for the science deniers whose job it is to lie.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswho is doing the cherry picking now. 1980? How about when the north passage was open in 1930? Did you forget about that or just conveniently decide to leave it out?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjust like those who claim there is a consensus where there is in fact not. funny how it is easier to attack the source than the message. however, if you discredit the source then the information must be in error or have some agenda. i love it that you war mists will hold up the work of the age people and completely ignore the legitimate arguments of the other side and explain them away with nothing more than an attack on the source.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisexactly. they will attack the source rather than the 'inconvenient' facts. thereby they can go on living in their computer generated fantasy world where their models are more reliable than the actual data. like I always say when I see suspect science at work: there is no reason to let the data get in the way of a good story.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are things called decadal oscillations in the weather that have a sometimes dramatic impact. What the authors are referring to is simply the Arctic Decadal Oscillation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis peak in the Arctic Decadal Oscillation was exacerbated by a strong La Nina. Contrary to the author's depiction of _excessive waviness_ of last year's jet stream, this year the jet stream has been unusually flat. Last year's deep, wavy jet stream sine wave created a sort of venturi effect which sucked the Arctic oscillation down through the centre of North America. This created a bitter winter in much of North America as well as an unusually strong tornado season.
This year the jet stream has been flat blocking the outflow of the lingering Arctic oscillation into North America. Consequently it has been subsiding into Russia and Europe.
Astute readers of this post will notice that I am really just describing what the authors of the article said. Except for one thing. There was no need to bring in global warming to explain these natural processes.
There are Atlantic and Pacific Decadal Oscillations as well as century long oscillations. Blaming last year's winter in North America and this year's brutal European weather on the effects of global warming on the sea ice is as foolish as blaming the Katrina hurricane season on global warming heating up the Caribbean. That year was the peak of the Atlantic oscillation which always warms up the Caribbean and produces lots of hurricanes.
Predicting the length and intensity of the oscillations can be difficult. They can have their presence modified by other climate influences. Their energy can be enhanced or dissipated by things like El Nino or La Nina. But they are observable and have been around for a long time.
Where I live was under 2,000 feet of ice 10,000 years ago. The last glacier that I can see from my living room may well disappear this century although others in the region will persist for a long time. It is definitely warmer now than it was then.
I don't think my S.U.V. had anything to do with that.
Thank you. Returning sanity to the debate is so difficult but so important on so many fronts. Not least the return of respect for science. I know this is not a genuinely scientific forum. The tragedy is that it once was, before it was subverted. I wish to see it returned to a position of honour & respect. The only way I know is to continually point out absurdities & errors of fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot mentioned is any weakening of the thermo-haline circulation - theory is that rapid melting of land ice releases a layer of fresh water on top of northern Gulf Stream. This layer inhibits the cooling, sinking and return South of this water, thus weakening the Gulf Stream and cooling Europe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour comments would be more persuasive if you offered some facts or analysis rather than just name calling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe rivers are cleaner, the air has less pollutants and the green revolution has produced more plant growth than 200 years ago. Rather than dying, the earth is more productive now than it has been since the middle ages.
Perhaps you are referring to the increased amount of C02 in the atmosphere. If so, you should note that C02 is colorless. Its effect on humans is benign except under those circumstances where people are in a contained environment where the C02 can end up replacing the oxygen. Obviously that is not the case with the atmosphere where C02 is but a small part of the total gases and man made C02 is a much, much, much smaller part.
Like many posting on this board I am not American and in my case formed my skeptical attitude towards institutional science advocacy long before Fox became available where I live.
Northern Guy- "Your comments would be more persuasive if you offered some facts or analysis rather than just name calling"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat (name calling) is all they have left. The rest of your comment is part of the reason, and very true.
My heart goes out to you. How abslutely dreadfull it must be. To know so much but to be surrounded by those who know so little.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy heart goes out to you. How abslutely dreadfull it must be. To know so much but to be surrounded by those who know so little.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisG'day Postman. How ya going. Keep that beer on ice :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStop in, buddy, the race is about to start and the beer is cold!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"So how does the Ice extent stand today?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--------
As in January, sea ice extent in February was low on the Atlantic side of the Arctic, but unusually high on the Pacific side of the Arctic, remaining lower than average overall.
February 2012 compared to past years:
Arctic sea ice extent for February 2012 was the fifth lowest in the satellite record. Including the year 2012, the linear rate of decline for February ice extent over the satellite record is 3.0% per decade.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Climate scientists are wrong. Decline in Arctic sea ice is due to global cooling not warming. This is because global cooling means less snow is falling in the Arctic. Earth has cold poles and a warm equator, and so heat transfer between the hot and cold areas occurs by convection and moisture transfer, which appears as wind and rain and snow. This means that less heat causes less snow in the Artic, and less snow in Canada this year.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMeasuring average temperature at the surface of the Earth (in the Artic) does not provide a correct impression of warming or cooling. This is because clouds shade the surface, and so fewer clouds can mean a higher surface temperature but actually a cooler average temperature.
We know that CO2 does not affect climate. Dr. Hertzberg has a file about the lynching of carbon dioxide, which can be viewed at http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/hertzberg.pdf.