Rapid arctic thaw portends warming

[FWBHurricane]

Global warming is hitting the arctic harder and faster. The melting is distablizing buildings on permafrost and threatening an oil pipeline in Alaska. Inuit hunters are reporting more cases of hunters falling through thinning ice in the Arctic Ice Fields. The Arctic reacts most to Global Warming, blamed largely on emmisions of gasses like Carbon Dioxide from fossil fuels from cars and factories. Partly because dark-colored water on Earth, Once exposed, soaks up heat far faster than regular white ice. Some parts of Alaska have heated up 10 times more than the global average. This result of rapid ice melting is causing the oceans of Earth to slowly rise in sea level. If this keeps up, parts of the continents will start to dissapear...The United Kingdom, Norway, Japan, The Philippines, Madagasgar, Indonesia, Hawaii, Alaska, California, New York, Long Island, Newfoundland, Bahamas, The Caribbean island, Florida....and so on..( you get the picture )

[Valkhorn]

Not much of Norway will disappear. That's Fjord country dude. Fjord's can hold a LOT of water

[USAwx1]

Global warming is hitting the arctic harder and faster. The melting is distablizing buildings on permafrost and threatening an oil pipeline in Alaska. Inuit hunters are reporting more cases of hunters falling through thinning ice in the Arctic Ice Fields. The Arctic reacts most to Global Warming, blamed largely on emmisions of gasses like Carbon Dioxide from fossil fuels from cars and factories. Partly because dark-colored water on Earth, Once exposed, soaks up heat far faster than regular white ice. Some parts of Alaska have heated up 10 times more than the global average. This result of rapid ice melting is causing the oceans of Earth to slowly rise in sea level. If this keeps up, parts of the continents will start to dissapear...The United Kingdom, Norway, Japan, The Philippines, Madagasgar, Indonesia, Hawaii, Alaska, California, New York, Long Island, Newfoundland, Bahamas, The Caribbean island, Florida....and so on..( you get the picture )

Im sorry to rain on this global warming parade here, but half of that is utterly ridiculous. The MAJORITY of the long term changes in climate are forced primarily by the decadal/multi-decadal scale cycles in the ATC, PDO, and the solar cycles. going beyond the 11 year solar maximum and minimum, there are even longer cycles of high and low activity which likely span centuries and have a profound impact on long term climate changes. consider the midevil warm period (coinciding with a period of above average activity), which was followed by the "little ice age" (below avg. activity) and so on.

Im not saying that CO2 emissions have nothing to do with it whatsoever, BUT at the same time, global climate change is FAR more complicated than just how much CO2 our huge SUV's are spewing into the atmosphere. Climate patterns such as those perviously mentioned are the REAL drivers of significant global climate change, what we contribute with our cars is minor. Remember also that the earth is constantly trying to balence its self out.

[FWBHurricane]

Hey..dont yell at me for this, complain to CNN they did the report. I just wanted to post it since it looked interesting and concerned Global Weather.

[FWBHurricane]

Now wait a minute...not all of global decaying is comming from the sun( kinda). Because we are polluting the atmosphere, the ozone layer is breaking apart. And some of the ozone layer has holes in it. Because of this..UV rays are entering our atmosphere and they cant get out which is called THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT. With so much warmth in the atmosphere, the Earth's temperture grows a degree each year. This is whats causing the global maelting of the ice caps and causing the sea level to rise and engulf whole countires.

[USAwx1]

Global warming is a SCAPEGOAT for every major climate change over the past 20 years. I'll use the example of the breakup of the LARSON-B ice sheat along the ERN peninsula fo antarctica in 2002.

the media automatically blamed global warming, for two likely reasons;

1) They have NO concept whatsoever about how climate patterns here on this planet work
2) Blaming GLOBAL WARMING is the fastest, and easiest way to justify climate change w/o doing the PROPER research, and the general public who does not study these things for a living, or have an interest in them, will believe that mindless bullcrap.

Anyway, if you look at this graphic:

Figure1

Of mean temperatures over the period spanning 1958-2003, from Vostok which is located in antarctica you can see that COOLING actually took place during the late 90s, and that period was cooler than the 60s and 70s. In similar fashon, temperatures at the SOUTH POLE (at the Amundsen-Scott Observatory) has actually fallen since the early 1980s, even as CO2 and so called GREENHOUSE GAS emissions were frying the planet.

Heres a Look at SFC temperature --- departure from normal (DEG C) over Antarctica since NOV 2001:

Figure2

Notice MUCH of the continent is COOLER to SIGNIFICANTLY cooler than average, with only isolated warm pockets.

But, getting back to the LARSON-B breakup in 2002, much research has been done over the past 10 years especially relating the cycles in the PDO (which i described in my last post) to Southern Hemispheric Ice extent. Heres a Nice PDO graphic showing both the warm and cold phase:

http://tao.atmos.washington.edu/pdo/img ... m_cool.jpg

and a graph of values over the past 100 or so years:

http://tao.atmos.washington.edu/pdo/img/pdo_latest.jpeg

Antarctic Ice depletion appears to occur during the PDO negative cycle, as the changes Sea surface temp configurations over the PAC. During the Negative cycle, warmer than average SSTA are found over the southern Pacific, which can regulate ice coverage. During the positive phase the patterns is more or less the exact opposite, w/ colder than average SSTA in the same region, which would promote cooler temperatures and ice expansion.

During the winter of 2001-02, the PDO was Negative, which is consistent with ice depletion and the breakup of LARSON-B/

2001 .60 .29 0.45 -0.31 -0.30 -0.47 -1.31 -0.77 -1.37 -1.37 -1.26 -0.93
2002 0.27 -0.64 -0.43 -0.32 -0.63 -0.35 -0.31 0.60 0.43 0.42 1.51 2.10

Since 1997, the PDO has gone back into the negative phase, which is likely to favor further ice depletion, until the cycle reverses sometime once again in the next 10 to 15 years. A Negative PDO can also favor a more active Atlantic hurricane season, both on a decadal and seasonal scale, MORE, STRONGER, and LONGER LASTING La nina events (w/ favorable reduced lower tropospheric wind shear, so more Intense hurricanes are likely and further south), and mitigated E PAC tropical cyclone activity.

At the present time the PDO has been going through a short-term positive spurt within the longer term negative cycle, which may actually favor severe winter storms across the ERN of the US during the northern hemisphere winter.

The changes in ozone you mentioned may actually be related to the size and intensity of the Southern hemispheric PV, which during 2002, became VERY compact. The chemical reaction on ozone caused by the clouds which formed in association with the PV were responsible for further ozone depletion. 10.7 CM Solar flux can have a similar chemical effect on ozone which corresponds to a strengthenig of the height field across the mid-latitudes and sub-tropcs. Similar geomagnetic activity --- produced by large colonial holes during the period following the solar maximum, which is directed at the earths magnetic poles will force a weakening of the Aleutian low and intensification of the Icelandic low during the winter season. My case-in-point would be the Late Summer, fall and winter of 2001-02. Check out these 10.7 CM flux values from that year:

2001 1666 1467 1777 1781 1479 1737 1313 1631 2338 2081 2127 2356
2002 2273 2050 1803 1898 1784 1487 1735 1839 1758 1670 1687 1572

[USAwx1]

Hey..dont yell at me for this, complain to CNN they did the report. I just wanted to post it since it looked interesting and concerned Global Weather.

And i was NOT coming down on you specifically, Matt, I just want everyone to understand that global climate changes DON'T completely revolve around the concept of greenhouse warming produced by CO2 emissions.

Think of it like this, Global climate change is like a puzzle, CO2 emissions, the PDO cycles, ATC, solar flux, and solar cycles are pieces to that puzzle. when we figure out where each one of those pieces fits to complete the puzzle, then we will know how our complete climate system works, in addition to the role of terrestrial climate factors (the ATC, PDO etc...), extra-terrestrial climate factors (solar cycles), and human influences (CO2, and others) on the complete system.

[Stormsfury]

Let's not forget major volcanic eruptions ... part of the reason also that it has "apparently" ... well, actually, it has recently, is the lack of MAJOR volcanic activity ...

Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 erupting 26 times, with the largest one ejecting a mushroom cloud (and pyroclastic flow) 12 miles into the atmosphere ... the resultant eruptions rained ash all the way past Minila (some 60 miles away which also ended up being struck by a typhoon while this was ongoing). The gaseous cloud eventually enveloped the entire globe causing a reduction in the average temperatures by 1ºC GLOBALLY in a relatively short period of time. The effects of a major eruption such as Pinatubo generally last between 2-4 years (time for the sulfuric ash to dissolve completely enough as to not be a factor).

Oddly enough, I've noticed a possible correlation with major volcanic eruptions and resultant "superstorms". 1991-Pinatubo, 1993 Superstorm about 18-20 months later. An odd correlation of Krakatoa - August 27th, 1883 ... BLIZZARD of 1888 ...

However, at the same time, closer to home, Mt. St. Helens in 1980 (May 18th, 1980 @ 8:32 am PDT), short term ... well, 1980 featured a MAJOR HEAT and DRY period across most of the U.S., but the next 3 winters featured some BITTERLY cold outbreaks ... same thing regarding 1993 and particularly 1994 when state records fell by the wasteside in the Northern U.S.

IMHO, it's a balancing act occurring all the time ... unless some major catastrophic event disrupts the balance.

Just my opinion.

SF


SF

[FWBHurricane]

Ok USA, Sorry about getting attitude with you

[USAwx1]

Ok USA, Sorry about getting attitude with you

thats alright....it happens.

Let's not forget major volcanic eruptions ... part of the reason also that it has "apparently" ... well, actually, it has recently, is the lack of MAJOR volcanic activity ...

Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 erupting 26 times, with the largest one ejecting a mushroom cloud (and pyroclastic flow) 12 miles into the atmosphere ... the resultant eruptions rained ash all the way past Minila (some 60 miles away which also ended up being struck by a typhoon while this was ongoing). The gaseous cloud eventually enveloped the entire globe causing a reduction in the average temperatures by 1ºC GLOBALLY in a relatively short period of time. The effects of a major eruption such as Pinatubo generally last between 2-4 years (time for the sulfuric ash to dissolve completely enough as to not be a factor).

Oddly enough, I've noticed a possible correlation with major volcanic eruptions and resultant "superstorms". 1991-Pinatubo, 1993 Superstorm about 18-20 months later. An odd correlation of Krakatoa - August 27th, 1883 ... BLIZZARD of 1888 ...

However, at the same time, closer to home, Mt. St. Helens in 1980 (May 18th, 1980 @ 8:32 am PDT), short term ... well, 1980 featured a MAJOR HEAT and DRY period across most of the U.S., but the next 3 winters featured some BITTERLY cold outbreaks ... same thing regarding 1993 and particularly 1994 when state records fell by the wasteside in the Northern U.S.

IMHO, it's a balancing act occurring all the time ... unless some major catastrophic event disrupts the balance.

Just my opinion.

SF


SF

the earth is CONSTANTLY trying to balence it's self out, and the only way it can do so is through the even distributation of planetary heat and energy (something it will never acheive), and is largely the reason why we have weather patterns on earth.

ummm, and you forgot MT. ST. HELENS 1980, was followed 3 years later by the blizzard of '83. a DCA-BOX special. So yes, i do think your onto something. Excellent catch. It may work similarly to the connection between Low QBO values of +/- 5.00, and short term positive jumps in the PDO within the longer term negative cycle.

Also, WRT volcanic eruptions, were well overdue for a significant one. if you look at ash and areosol loading, its low, and the atmosphere is relatively clean.

[Stormsfury]

the earth is CONSTANTLY trying to balence it's self out, and the only way it can do so is through the even distributation of planetary heat and energy (something it will never acheive), and is largely the reason why we have weather patterns on earth.

you know what I mean .. LOL .. (in terms of averages ...)

ummm, and you forgot MT. ST. HELENS 1980, was followed 3 years later by the blizzard of '83. a DCA-BOX special. So yes, i do think your onto something. Excellent catch. It may work similarly to the connection between Low QBO values of +/- 5.00, and short term positive jumps in the PDO within the longer term negative cycle.

The bitterly cold winters but damn, I did forget about the 1983 blizzard ... musta been the time I started experimenting with something else ... But on a serious note, what I believe, and this is only a theory, is that the regions greatly affected are the Northern (or Southern) portions of the Hemisphere (since the prevailing winds eventually seems to pool and collect sulfuric ash particles further north (or south) in time, but I'm not positive on that) thus, which seems to lead to a greater volitaty to the atmosphere, and thus, trying to balance itself becomes more severe. Volcanic eruptions in the 1810's (there were 3 MAJOR eruptions) which lead to one of the coldest decades of modern record, and the infamous "year without a summer" in 1816.

Also, WRT volcanic eruptions, were well overdue for a significant one. if you look at ash and areosol loading, its low, and the atmosphere is relatively clean.

Which explains the overall large scale temperature theme on the warmer side with maximum insolation even with lower 10.7cm solar flux ...

SF

[USAwx1]

The bitterly cold winters but damn, I did forget about the 1983 blizzard ... musta been the time I started experimenting with something else ...

LMAO .... i know what you mean but that didn't start until the early-mid 90s for me. I was only 4yrs old in FEB of 1983. LOL

Which explains the overall large scale temperature theme on the warmer side with maximum insolation even with lower 10.7cm solar flux ...

and another reason why 2001-02 was even that much warmer than your average solar max winter, 1979-80 was similar WRT solar numbers, but I'm pretty sure ash levels were MUCH higher, which may have prevented things from getting as warm as they did in 2001-02. eventhough on the same note there was all sorts of WARM water NW of Hawaii and ENORMOUS cold pool in the GOA which kept the EPO mainly positive, bolstering the effect geomagnetic activity has on weakening the Aleutian low.

Geomagnetic activity killed any chances to get a sustained -NAO set up due to a stronger Icelandic low, plus the chemical effects of the 10.7 cm flux on heights across the mid latitudes.

Which brings me to my next point, the ATC was in the strong cycle in 2001-02, which under normal circumstances SHOULD favor a negative NAO in the means during the northern hemispheric winter season. However, the effect of the geomagnetic activity all but crushed any chances to get a sustained -NAO set-up EXCEPT in the period following OLGA in DEC 01. This leads me to assume, and in some ways this may be common sense, that the Solar cycles have a more profound effect on climate patterns here on earth than do any other terrestrial climate factors. it just so happened, that this high solar activity winter coincided with a strong positive phase of the EPO, making the pattern that much more UNFAVORABLE for severe cold shots or major winter storms.

Heres an (unfortunate) reminder of what the North PAC looked like during the winter of 2001-02:









and a reminder of what 500mb heights looked like early in the month, note the strong ridge over the EUS and below normal heights over Greenland w/ blocking over SCAND, not to mention any signs of an Aleutian low and pronounced RNA pattern

4 DEC 2001 --- 12z

[USAwx1]

notice how the NAO and AO remained almost stagnantly positive, and PNA negative during the 2001-02 winter, w/ the ONLY real significant deviation from that immediately following OLGA in late DEC 01, and early JAN 02.





Even NWP guidance was hampered by the high solar activity in 2001-02.

[Anonymous]

Boy am I glad we have several meteorologists that can straighten out this topic very quickly !


An article from theweatheroutlook.com indicates that the Arctic is THICKENING in the last TWO years. I also would like to mention that Greenland glaciers are growing at an unprecedented 7.2 MILES per year ! In Russia, several glaciers are surging ! This was mentioned in the BBC as well. I can assure you, all that stuff on melting ice and global warming is utter nonsense and junk science !

Some more news:

Since 1980, there has been an advance of more than 55% of the 625 mountain glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring group in Zurich. (From 1926 to 1960, some 70-95% of these glaciers were in retreat.) This is from the latest issue of 21st Century Science and Technology, written by Lawrence Hecht, editor-in-chief. )

One of Greenland’s largest glaciers has already doubled its rate of advance, moving forward at the rate of 12 kilometers (7.2 miles) per year. To see a transcript of the documentary, go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... rans.shtml


Russian glaciers surging:
On September 20, 2002, a huge 22-million ton piece of the gigantic Maili Glacier broke loose and crashed down a steep gorge into the village of Kami killing more than 150 people and injuring hundreds more.

The 500-foot wall of ice had been growing for six years. The Maili Glacier is just one of several glaciers in the North Caucasus Mountains that have been EXPANDING at an alarming rate. Other towns in the region have been partially buried by these advancing walls of ice. One local scientist in southern Russia said, "we may be seeing the beginning of a new great ice age!!!" (Thanks to climatologist Cliff Harris and meteorologist Randy Mann for this info.)

The Nisqually Glacier on Washington's Mt. Rainier is growing thicker at the rate of more than 18 feet per year. With all of the added weight, scientists expect the glacier to begin advancing within this decade (Washington Geology, p. 24, Sep 2000).



http://www.theweatheroutlook.com/othnew ... elease=326

We've been watching developments closely during the last few months, and think there is evidence to suggest a major pattern change in the weather in western europe could now be beginning to take place. January 1987 brought the coldest weather the UK had experienced for hundreds of years, but since then temperatures have progressively warmed up across western europe, culminating in the 100F barrier being smashed in several UK locations last summer. Climate has natural variability built into it, and for example the 1940's , 60's and 80's brought colder weather, while the 1970's, and 90's generally brought milder conditions. What's interesting now is there is evidence to suggest that the Arctic ice pack has been expanding during the last couple of years, and this could be partly responsible for the increasing tendency for winds to blow from the north across the UK and the near continent recently. With a lot of residual heat to the south, we think this summer is still likely to be warmer than average, but with an increasing tendency for thundery conditions as the contrast between air masses is likely to be greater. Looking further ahead, there could be an increased chance of a colder than average winter in west europe.
Issued 03/05

Ken

[Anonymous]

also I heard last week from an unknown source that we are actually seeing more radiation being reflected into space now than being absorbed in the atmosphere. This could mean overall long term cooling. I don't know the exact source yet, I'll have to check into that.

Ken

[PurdueWx80]

Anyway, if you look at this graphic:

Figure1

Of mean temperatures over the period spanning 1958-2003, from Vostok which is located in antarctica you can see that COOLING actually took place during the late 90s, and that period was cooler than the 60s and 70s. In similar fashon, temperatures at the SOUTH POLE (at the Amundsen-Scott Observatory) has actually fallen since the early 1980s, even as CO2 and so called GREENHOUSE GAS emissions were frying the planet.

You are not going to see global climate change in a 20 year record at one location unless there is some sort of abrupt change from one regime to another. The amount of warming and cooling has a lot of noise, and there is nothing in the Vostok time series that shows warming or cooling. If you could put a trend line to that you might be more capable of seeing one or the other. Also, taking the record at one spot is hardly indicative of the rest of the globe. Remember, most of what change is occuring right now is in the Northern Hemisphere, where it is completely clear that warming has taken place.

Heres a Look at SFC temperature --- departure from normal (DEG C) over Antarctica since NOV 2001:

Figure2

Notice MUCH of the continent is COOLER to SIGNIFICANTLY cooler than average, with only isolated warm pockets.

This image shows warming over the northern hemisphere's polar regions...perhaps something changed from what you intended to post?


To those of you who don't know much about climate, there have and always will be changes in the climate of our planet. I'm not arguing for or against human-induced change right now, I'm just saying that there is natural variability and evidence of major shifts between warm and cold in the past. It has been argued over the last few years/decades that human-induced change is inevitable, but the question remains - is it something that will push our climate into a rapid change that will affect economies and environments worldwide, or is it something that will only slowly change over the course of centuries? The point is, our climate is going to change no matter what we do to it. But, there is ample evidence, as I have seen in my current climate theory course, that warming has occurred at the poles recently, and that it is likely due to anthropogenic effects. No matter what, we have to fund research that will address how to cope with any sort of change, and we are nowhere near a complete understanding of the climate system and all of its inherent feedbacks. Is a runaway greenhouse effect inevitable? Probably not. Should we be prepared for it and any other change? Absolutely!