Arctic Ice: How Does It Influence Our Weather?

[Gray-Wolf]

We need to look at the elements that allowed this event to take place. A late season 'Cane is nothing unusual and it's sweep north is what generally occurs but the high over Greenland into Canada and the record setting Arctic plunge are what made this into a Superstorm.

Both of these features are within the scope of the impacts that low ice is now being linked with. For this to occur after a record ice loss year, with folk already predicting major Weather impacts, adds weight to the case for parts of this storm being driven by the ice loss.

Let us not forget that we have also had a minor version of this across Europe with the Med. storm hitting a cold plunge leading to very early snows across N. Europe (check snow cover between day 300 and day 301) again having all the hallmarks of a low ice event.

[pottyprof]

Both of these features are within the scope of the impacts that low ice is now being linked with.

So nothing that we can say for definite then GW?

Dismissing the current unique storm track by saying things like "the US has been hit by storms in the past" seems little more than wilful ignorance. Surely people should make at least a small attempt to learn a bit about these systems rather than this thread becoming just a battle of pre-concieved and baseless stances.

An actual discussion would be a nice change, other than dismissals and claims that we can never know.

I totally agree. This of course would also mean we leave the guesswork of what might be at the door and stick to facts. None of us have a time machine so we don't know what will happen in the future. Let's base this on what we know and what we can observe.

[Gray-Wolf]

I do not believe there are any 'definates' P.P. only probabilities?

We live our lives on these probabilities but not on 'facts'? Will the sun rise tomorrow? we do not know but we are 99.9999......% sure it probably will?

All of science is based within the constraints of the experiments parameters and we can never be sure that we 'know' all of those parameters.

I know this is a tad pedantic but we have to 'accept' certain parameters or accept we 'know' nothing as fact.

What we 'know' is that a lessening of the temp /Pressure Grad twixt pole and equator impacts the speed and amplitude of the polar jet and this in turn will impact the positioning and behaviour of pressure systems. We 'know' that the heat loss from the open water impacts the whole atmosphere above the Arctic basin. We 'know' the massive amount of energy that this open water absorbs and releases must have an impact on the climate system.

What we are finding out is how to weight these impacts within the general weather patterns of the northern hemisphere.

All of our knowledge comes from asking questions and imaging answers which we then test to see if they account for the 'event' we asked the questions about.

How can we do this if all we have at our disposal are your 'knowns' (whatever you imagine those to be?)

Without a time machine I'll make a stab at 'predicting that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Without a time machine I will 'predict' that the 'new energy' that low ice/open water over summer allows to amass in the northern hemisphere climate system will have impacts on the northern hemisphere circulation and this will have consequences in term of extreme weather events.

[Methuselah]

I have no doubt, whatever, that ice-melt will affect global weather-patterns...I'm just as certain of the undeniable fact that I don't know how and where...

One analogy I can imagine is that of putting a pot of water on the stove to boil: you know, with absolute certainty (provided you've paid your gas bill) that it'll eventually boil...But, trying to describe the minutiae of the heating-process with precision, on the temporal and molecular scales, is near impossible?

It is, as Gray-Wolf said, all down to probabilities...

[pottyprof]

I know this is a tad pedantic but we have to 'accept' certain parameters or accept we 'know' nothing as fact.

We don't have to "accept" anything that is not fact. Fact means we have evidence and is completely accurate. Anything else comes from people's imagination. Are you going to believe that Watts is telling the real story because you have to accept that some of his parameters are correct? That is what happens if we live by those rules.

Sorry GW but this is exactly why my previous post was worded like it was. A thread on here was created so that you could spare the rest of the threads from your crystal ball (I'll say it if nobody else will). I don't disagree with your posts that are based on fact. You know more than many people ever will. Lets leave the drama to facebook and TV though and deal with the facts. Surely it can't be that difficult?

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm confused now P.P.? Who decides what is 'fact' then?

To me it will only be a 'fact' as long as it is viewed within it's own context? (like the parameters of a repeatable experiment?)

Most of my time in the environment section has been spent trying to show folk what we 'know' is occurring and what will occur if these impacts are allowed to continue. Any prediction appear , to me at least, to fall into the same category as Pete's boiling water. It is not a wild guess but a logical progression of that event over time.

I have always tried to 'show my workings' and invite folk to show me where I have gone wrong in my thinking. Problems only arise when folk dismiss all climate impacts that can be attributed to mankind's pollution/destruction of the environment (which runs contrary to the scientific 'facts' of the emerging science)

I am flattered by you attributing me with a good grounding in general knowledge but it makes me wonder if this is where my issues arise from? What appears to you as a 'Crystal Ball' is no majik at all but mere common sense? (LOL)

When we are discussing 'future impacts' from our shifting climate we must surely take what we 'know' as fact today and project this forward within the existing climate system (as we do with the switch from old Arctic to the new 'seasonal' Arctic) to find out how these will impact our world?

The name 'Climate Change' suggests that this is a dynamic thing and so 'new' info is rapidly arriving month by month. We do not have the luxury of J's 30yrs period for trend spotting as the current impacts from the Arctic albedo flip are with us now after only 13yrs or so of snow/ice loss. If impacts are contributing to food production disruption then we need to know of these impacts now so we can better plan/predict them.

[jethro]

I'm confused now P.P.? Who decides what is 'fact' then?

To me it will only be a 'fact' as long as it is viewed within it's own context? (like the parameters of a repeatable experiment?)

Most of my time in the environment section has been spent trying to show folk what we 'know' is occurring and what will occur if these impacts are allowed to continue. Any prediction appear , to me at least, to fall into the same category as Pete's boiling water. It is not a wild guess but a logical progression of that event over time.

I have always tried to 'show my workings' and invite folk to show me where I have gone wrong in my thinking. Problems only arise when folk dismiss all climate impacts that can be attributed to mankind's pollution/destruction of the environment (which runs contrary to the scientific 'facts' of the emerging science)

I am flattered by you attributing me with a good grounding in general knowledge but it makes me wonder if this is where my issues arise from? What appears to you as a 'Crystal Ball' is no majik at all but mere common sense? (LOL)

When we are discussing 'future impacts' from our shifting climate we must surely take what we 'know' as fact today and project this forward within the existing climate system (as we do with the switch from old Arctic to the new 'seasonal' Arctic) to find out how these will impact our world?

The name 'Climate Change' suggests that this is a dynamic thing and so 'new' info is rapidly arriving month by month. We do not have the luxury of J's 30yrs period for trend spotting as the current impacts from the Arctic albedo flip are with us now after only 13yrs or so of snow/ice loss. If impacts are contributing to food production disruption then we need to know of these impacts now so we can better plan/predict them.

Whoa, hold on a minute. It's not my 30 year period, it's the industry standard applied to climate science. It's also the period required by you, when anyone mentions the stagnant temps of recent years. Shifting goalposts to suit the mood doesn't make anything more accurate or true.

As for when problems arise, I don't actually see anyone dismissing climatic impacts from mankind's contributions. What I see is folk questioning the degree of impact from mankind's contribution. It's all too easy to dismiss the questions from those sceptical as being in complete denial. It's also easy to dismiss claims that all climate change is down to AGW. However, ease of argument doesn't make it a correct or accurate argument.

What seems to be absolutely impossible, is discussion on the impacts from AGW without both sides resorting to black versus white argument. I wish everyone would be a little more accepting of the idea that we really don't know anything for certain, or even anywhere near certain.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Why aren't the same people here, complaining about folk linking sea ice with our weather, going into the model output discussion thread or the winter threads and criticising Steve Murr and Glacier Point for now taking it into account? Why not tell them how absurd they're being, factoring in sea ice when there are so many other variables?

There is nothing in this universe that is 100% understood to the point that you can predict everything about it with complete accuracy and it's effects on everything else in the universe with complete accuracy.

This thread is entitled "Arctic Ice: Will It Affect Our weather?" not "Arctic Ice: Describe with complete accuracy how it will affect of weather or GTFO!"

If complete accuracy in every sense means fact, and that's all we can discuss, then we might as well close the entire climate and environment area.

Scientific fact is different though. An example, is that if we expose an ocean surface the 24 hour direct sunlight, such as in the Arctic summer, the surface of the ocean will heat. It is a scientific fact, because it is repeatable (happens every year), can be measured in a number of ways and show the same result (satellite, buoy, ships, etc). It is beyond dispute.

-We can say the same about the heat being transferred to the cooler air during the polar night.

-We can then say the same about the temperature gradient further south being reduced if there is extra heating of the air.

-It's also a scientific fact that hot air expands, so if the air above the warmer oceans is warmer than usual... and so on and so on.

-It is a number of observable scientific facts that's leads to there being an energy balance between the Arctic and the lower latitudes.

-Another load of scientific facts also state that the jet stream is the result of this energy imbalance, and the transfer on energy from the tropics to the poles.

-The scientific fact that the jet stream drives much of the weather at the surface, means that you cannot change one without changing the other.

-Common sense then dictates that if we drastically change that energy balance, we will affect the jet stream and the weather at the surface.

I can go on, if anyone hasn't managed to join the dots yet.

If we have papers discussing how the sea ice and snow cover changes impact the Jet Stream and NAO/AO, and we know that the unprecedented (yes, I went there!) path of Sandy was influenced by, guess what, the Jet Stream and NAO, why must people battle against discussion of the link!? Would they have been the same people shouting down those who connected smoking with lung cancer, just because so many other things cause cancer?

A little more thought and a little less fingers in ears would probably help turn this into an actual intelligent discussion rather the usual pitiful situation we have once more.

[Gray-Wolf]

I remember saying after TAR4 came out that surely the 'debate' as to whether we were altering the climate was now over giving the sureties it gave as to how sure we were that man was indeed impacting his world.

As it is I now see the 'on the fencers' altering their stance from 'Juries out' to 'Yes we are altering climate but by how much?' This has to be a step forward?

The 'Straw-man ' will become that the likes of myself were arguing that it was all Man made change (which , of course, has never been the case). Sadly, the likes of me now sees mother N. taking up the reigns and driving the pace of the changes. We have built in the extra carbon to allow a warmer world but she will release the carbon locked up since the last warm interglacial on top of this and impose the circulation (ocean/Atmosphere) alterations to achieve the fastest transition to this new point of balance.

All in all I see the future of climate shift firmly in the hands of nature. We just let that Jin out of the bottle.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Gray-Wolf

[Methuselah]

But I'm still nowhere near convinced that Sandy's unusual track can be directly attributed to any specific changes in the Jet Stream (it meanders anyway!) that in turn results from any specific reduction in Arctic sea-ice extent...

IMO, the data simply are not there.

[Gray-Wolf]

Then your opinion cannot be based around the current understanding/data/facts Pete?

There was a flurry of posts earlier in the year linking to the studies (around the time of the floods here?) that show how the Jet's speed and positioning was reacting to the loss of ice? I remember a conversation with J' when I highlighted the AGU lecture (from this time last year and her complaining that her comp didn't do UTube?) that presented one researchers data from the past 12 years showing the development of the effect Esp. post 07's historic low ice level.

The studies is ongoing (of course) and so this years data will be being worked into the study as we speak so this years AGU will again highlight where we are in our understanding.

I do not think either BFTV or myself are talking from our imagination about the known impacts of ice loss on N.Hemisphere Circulation patterns but rather from the data we have seen regarding the impacts of the state of the Arctic?

Do have a dig around the old News and Research thread Pete as the doc's are all in there?

[Methuselah]

Only once something has happened can data be available, Ian. So, I'll wait for the data, re Sandy, to become available. I'm not going to pre-empt that data...

[Gray-Wolf]

Sorry Pete ! got my wires crossed . thought you were refering to the broader understanding/observation of the low ice/snow impacts on N.hemisphere Circulation.

As for Sandy and the High and cold plunge check out Weather underground for a good overview as to why the High/cold plunge are linked into the current Arctic Amplification (Dr Masters blog?)

[stewfox]

Why aren't the same people here, complaining about folk linking sea ice with our weather, going into the model output discussion thread or the winter threads and criticising Steve Murr and Glacier Point for now taking it into account? Why not tell them how absurd they're being, factoring in sea ice when there are so many other variables?

I cant see anyone that has suggested a massive reduction in summer sea ice wont have an affect on the weather, its the when/how much etc.

There is too much 'theory' been treated as 'fact' .

The Hype of global warming in the last 10 years unfortunately means its not on the USA Election agenda, which is a kind of pitty.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/10/30-8

Have a read of the above and see if we can agree that " Global Warming Systemically Caused Hurricane Sandy "

[jethro]

http://www.commondre...ew/2012/10/30-8

Have a read of the above and see if we can agree that " Global Warming Systemically Caused Hurricane Sandy "

Well a quick glance through provoked a laugh, a smile and a naughty word or three......To sum my thoughts up briefly, coming up with a new buzz word or catch phrase " Systemic Causation" may win brownie points in quick fire journalism but it won't make it through the Peer Review system. When the data has been collected, when it has been analysed by the appropriate government departments and scientists, then and only then will I consider the cause.

I'm surprised at you GW, if stuff from Watts and the like is unacceptable for the sceptical argument, why on earth are you peddling rubbish like that? Let's play on a level playing field eh.

[Methuselah]

http://www.commondre...ew/2012/10/30-8

Have a read of the above and see if we can agree that " Global Warming Systemically Caused Hurricane Sandy "

Ian, you know what my beliefs/expectations are, regarding all things AGW. But, one thing that my years' studying natural sciences (including Climate Change) taught me, is that you cannot expect to fully explain (whilst simultaneously describing as 'unprecedented') an individual phenomenon, prior to having collected all the data...

You can guess, you can envision, you can even make provisional diagnoses based on the data you've collected so far - but you cannot know. That would be (I think) epistemologically impossible?

IMO, all we can do, just now at any rate, is wait and see?

[Gray-Wolf]

C'mon J'! for the sake of discussion and in lieu of the final evidence it would enable us to jog on with the conversation of the impacts as we see them this Autumn/early winter?

If we all accept that the energy that AGW and the albedo flip/ice loss has introduced into the climate system has a part in all of the weather occurring around the world a.t.m then we can move into fine tuning just how much of an impact that is for individual events?

I'm sure we all agree that the probabilities of extremes like the Russian Heatwave/American Heatwave/Flooding/Drought/record temps etc/etc are increased under the remit of AGW so the next logical step is being able to measure just how much each event is added into by Climate shift?

With Super storm Sandy we have the High Pressure, the Cold Plunge, the excessive SST's up the Eastern Seaboard all adding into what would have been a 'normal' late season 'Cane that should have been ex-trop. and well off the coast by the time it reached NYC. The only issue that Brooklyn should have faced was the Full moon tide and some storm swell from an old storm out at sea (IMHO)

EDIT: I fully agree with you Pete and i don't think that this is what folk are trying to do? I believe we are discussing the 'possible' forcings that went into the event. We are not trying to say "This is what happened" without having the weight of the scientific investigation behind us but we are trying to say that everyone needs to embrace the fact that climate shift is real and will add into/help create the weather extremes from here on in (even if it is just skewing the frequencies of such events?)

Edited October 30, 2012 by Gray-Wolf

[pottyprof]

You can guess, you can envision, you can even make provisional diagnoses based on the data you've collected so far - but you cannot know. That would be (I think) epistemologically impossible?

This is what I was trying to get to. You can't speculate and treat it as fact. There is nothing wrong in speculating provided it is used as just that. It is after all how ideas get tested, proven or dismissed. The thing is though it is constantly getting in the way of facts and positive conclusion.

If we have papers discussing how the sea ice and snow cover changes impact the Jet Stream and NAO/AO, and we know that the unprecedented (yes, I went there!) path of Sandy was influenced by, guess what, the Jet Stream and NAO, why must people battle against discussion of the link!?

Again, this is speculation. There are also studies that link solar events to this phenomenon. Can we prove conclusively that either one is responsible at this moment in time? No..... Just because there are scientific papers that speculate on the various observations it doesn't mean they are right in their conclusions.

[jethro]

C'mon J'! for the sake of discussion and in lieu of the final evidence it would enable us to jog on with the conversation of the impacts as we see them this Autumn/early winter?

If we all accept that the energy that AGW and the albedo flip/ice loss has introduced into the climate system has a part in all of the weather occurring around the world a.t.m then we can move into fine tuning just how much of an impact that is for individual events?

I'm sure we all agree that the probabilities of extremes like the Russian Heatwave/American Heatwave/Flooding/Drought/record temps etc/etc are increased under the remit of AGW so the next logical step is being able to measure just how much each event is added into by Climate shift?

With Super storm Sandy we have the High Pressure, the Cold Plunge, the excessive SST's up the Eastern Seaboard all adding into what would have been a 'normal' late season 'Cane that should have been ex-trop. and well off the coast by the time it reached NYC. The only issue that Brooklyn should have faced was the Full moon tide and some storm swell from an old storm out at sea (IMHO)

EDIT: I fully agree with you Pete and i don't think that this is what folk are trying to do? I believe we are discussing the 'possible' forcings that went into the event. We are not trying to say "This is what happened" without having the weight of the scientific investigation behind us but we are trying to say that everyone needs to embrace the fact that climate shift is real and will add into/help create the weather extremes from here on in (even if it is just skewing the frequencies of such events?)

No. You're jumping to conclusions. And as for impacts from ice loss impacting weather all around the globe......IMO and genuinely with the greatest of respect, it is this kind of nonsense which turns folk off from wanting to even listen to the argument in favour of AGW, let alone agree with it.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Again, this is speculation. There are also studies that link solar events to this phenomenon. Can we prove conclusively that either one is responsible at this moment in time? No..... Just because there are scientific papers that speculate on the various observations it doesn't mean they are right in their conclusions.

Speculation based on known and understood scientific principals, not that it matters here.

Once more, all I'm asking for is discussion of the link, not a statement of fact. Another once again, the effect of the Arctic on the jet stream and NAO is strongest in Autumn, the same can't be said for solar. The evidence for the changing Arctics influence on mid-latitude weather is much more clear than the suns too.

It really is amazing, in a thread about how sea ice may influence our weather, discussion of the very topic is dismissed and called absurd!

Look, nobody is claiming anything definite, other than the Arctic must be having some effect. If people disagree with that, then they don't understand how weather works, plain and simple. But I don't think anyone disagrees with that, surely?

Anywho, one of the possible links between the Arctic sea ice loss and mid-latitude weather is through the effect on the jet stream. Therefore, discussion on how the Arctic influence on the jet stream may have been involved in the unique path of Sandy is a reasonable discussion and is not, I repeat, not, a statement of fact.

The refusal of the sceptics to even discuss the possibility doesn't help the label of deniers that they so complain about.

[pottyprof]

Anywho, one of the possible links between the Arctic sea ice loss and mid-latitude weather is through the effect on the jet stream. Therefore, discussion on how the Arctic influence on the jet stream may have been involved in the unique path of Sandy is a reasonable discussion and is not, I repeat, not, a statement of fact.

The refusal of the sceptics to even discuss the possibility doesn't help the label of deniers that they so complain about.

I don't think that any genuine sceptic will refuse to discuss any part of the climate change subject. If they refuse then they are not doing things in the true spirit of science. My objection is about speculation being referenced as fact. People need to know what is fact and what is speculation. The lack of clarity turns many people off the subject. They don't know what to believe. Is it really that difficult to discuss elements of climate change without speculation? Edited October 31, 2012 by pottyprof

[BornFromTheVoid]

I don't think that any genuine sceptic will refuse to discuss any part of the climate change subject. If they refuse then they are not doing things in the true spirit of science. My objection is about speculation being referenced as fact. People need to know what is fact and what is speculation. The lack of clarity turns many people off the subject. They don't know what to believe. Is it really that difficult to discuss elements of climate change without speculation?

Speculation is not being referred to as fact, except in the sceptics accusations.

I'd say the calling posts "bonkers" and "absurd" for trying to discuss something puts more people off.

I'd say twisting the definition of fact, speculation and discussion as seemingly a means to quash talk on the very thread subject puts people off.

Accusations and insults about creating drama, looking through crystal balls, shifting goalposts and pedalling rubbish are probably putting people off.

Than calling peer reviewed scientific studies "specualtion", is putting people off.

Wow, just wow.

[Gray-Wolf]

I don't think that any genuine sceptic will refuse to discuss any part of the climate change subject. If they refuse then they are not doing things in the true spirit of science. My objection is about speculation being referenced as fact. People need to know what is fact and what is speculation. The lack of clarity turns many people off the subject. They don't know what to believe. Is it really that difficult to discuss elements of climate change without speculation?

and this was my point in attempting to clarify the proposition further up the thread which was instantly pounced upon and rudely (To me) dismissed.

To keep the distinction 'clear' between fact and unconfirmed observations we need terminology that does not give folk free reign to mis-interpret and take umbrage.?) Systemically give us a broad enough remit to examine the impacts without folk needing to demand 'proof' , right here, right now, for every single event that has an AGW impacting element to it.

The latest study into the Russian Heatwave (2010) makes it plain that there was as much AGW to the event as 'natural' and goes further to say that the event would have been unlikely to occur without the impacts of AGW (being a rare weather phenomena).

This has been my stance in the debate all along. Whilst accepting the 'natural' side of any 'extreme' (i.e. rare/once in a lifetime etc) weather event the frequency that we now encounter them is only possible with the AGW element added into the mix. So, whilst not causing the event the probability is there that the event would not have taken place without the inclusion of the AGW element. Surely this is enough for folk to take very seriously the future that lies ahead in our AGW tainted world?

[pottyprof]

You failed to answer my question....

Is it really that difficult to discuss elements of climate change without speculation?