Warming Arctic May Be Causing Jet Stream To Lose Its Way
Mark Twain once said: "If you don't like the weather in New England now, just wait a few minutes."
He was making an unknowing reference to the , which drives the weather over North America and Europe like a high-altitude conveyor belt. But increasingly, the jet stream is taking a more circuitous route over the northern latitudes, meaning weather systems hang around longer than they used to. And a warming Arctic is probably to blame, says , a professor at Rutgers University's Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences.
Francis — who says it's too early to know if the well-established Arctic warming is caused by man or some natural phenomenon — was speaking during a session on Arctic change at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago on Saturday.
The wayward jet stream could account for the persistently severe winter weather this year in the U.S. and Britain, as well as California's long drought.
In all of the talk recently about the "," you've already heard some of this. But as explains:
"The strength of the jet stream is directly proportional to the difference in temperature between the poles and the tropics. When it's strong, the jet stream tends to take a straighter path, but when it's weak it meanders. As the Arctic is experiencing warming at faster rates than the tropics, that difference is getting smaller, so the jet stream is weakening along with it.
"What that means for mid-latitudes, where Britain [and the U.S. are] located, is weather that stays in place for longer. Weather patterns will be more likely to get 'stuck' over a location, yielding long periods of rain and sun rather than Britain's traditional 'changeable' skies."
"The temperature difference between the Arctic and lower latitudes is one of the main sources of fuel for the jet stream; it's what drives the winds. And because the Arctic is warming so fast, that temperature difference is getting smaller, and so the fuel for the jet stream is getting weaker," Francis says. "When it gets into this pattern, those big waves tend to stay in the same place for some time. The pattern we've seen in December and January has been one of these very wavy patterns.
"It doesn't mean that every year the U.K. is going to be in a stormy pattern," she adds. "Next year you could have very dry conditions, and for that to be persistent. You can't say that flooding is going to happen more often. Next year may be dry, but whatever you get is going to last longer."
Mark Serreze, the director of the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center, was on the panel along with Francis. He says the idea that changes in the polar north could influence mid-latitude weather, was a new and lively area of research.
"Fundamentally, the strong warming that might drive this is tied in with the loss of sea-ice cover that we're seeing, because the sea-ice cover acts as this lid that separates the ocean from a colder atmosphere," Serreze says.
"If we remove that lid, we pump all this heat up into the atmosphere. That is a good part of the signal of warming that we're now seeing, and that could be driving some of these changes."
I can't seem to find a source right now, but I've read that one of the global warming models predicts that the jet stream could change directions. Europe would be royally fucked.
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.
Wait... my Congress woman was on Meet The Press this weekend saying there is no such thing as global warming
This makes me ragey. It is also why I can't take the republican party seriously. You can't ignore scientific facts and then expect me to trust anything else you have to say. It is such clear BS. If you are going to lie about this to me, what else are you lying about?
Wait... my Congress woman was on Meet The Press this weekend saying there is no such thing as global warming
This makes me ragey. It is also why I can't take the republican party seriously. You can't ignore scientific facts and then expect me to trust anything else you have to say. It is such clear BS. If you are going to lie about this to me, what else are you lying about?
I'm sure she learned a lot of science has a home ec major at Mississippi Sate.
This makes me ragey. It is also why I can't take the republican party seriously. You can't ignore scientific facts and then expect me to trust anything else you have to say. It is such clear BS. If you are going to lie about this to me, what else are you lying about?
I'm sure she learned a lot of science has a home ec major at Mississippi Sate.
Wait... my Congress woman was on Meet The Press this weekend saying there is no such thing as global warming
This makes me ragey. It is also why I can't take the republican party seriously. You can't ignore scientific facts and then expect me to trust anything else you have to say. It is such clear BS. If you are going to lie about this to me, what else are you lying about?
Our state climatologist gave a guest lecture to a disaster management class I took in college. He expressed extreme global warming skepticism. I was like
This makes me ragey. It is also why I can't take the republican party seriously. You can't ignore scientific facts and then expect me to trust anything else you have to say. It is such clear BS. If you are going to lie about this to me, what else are you lying about?
Our state climatologist gave a guest lecture to a disaster management class I took in college. He expressed extreme global warming skepticism. I was like
I can only hope that you were in college about 40 years ago.
Our state climatologist gave a guest lecture to a disaster management class I took in college. He expressed extreme global warming skepticism. I was like
I can only hope that you were in college about 40 years ago.
Wait... my Congress woman was on Meet The Press this weekend saying there is no such thing as global warming
This makes me ragey. It is also why I can't take the republican party seriously. You can't ignore scientific facts and then expect me to trust anything else you have to say. It is such clear BS. If you are going to lie about this to me, what else are you lying about?
I'm here, too. I used to be more nuanced about individual Republicans, but it seems lately the examples of science denial are so pervasive you wonder what's left.
My MIL majored in it back in the day. It's basically a way to get your MRS degree or become a home ec teacher if I recall.
My mother got a home ec degree from one of the top universities in the US and it was a science degree. Not all home ec majors were crap.
Really, maybe we'll have to bring this up in another thread, but I'm intrigued. What kinds of focus is there in that major? Is it a little bit of everything like finance, psychology, teaching and other stuff?
I live a sheltered life. I never knew there was a degree for this. I should google this.
To bring us back to the topic though, the Great Lakes are over 80% frozen, and that hasn't happened in 20 years. All kinds of odd stuff going on.
But I'm sure it's just the planet's natural cycle....
Is this having implications for shipping?
It wouldn't surprise me if it doesn't have at least some effect. My FIL was expecting to be laid off soon for awhile from his railroad job up north, but instead the hours have picked up. I can't help but wonder if that's partially related. But I can't pretend to speak knowledgeably about the shipping habits up there either. I don't pay close enough attention to it.
My MIL majored in it back in the day. It's basically a way to get your MRS degree or become a home ec teacher if I recall.
My mother got a home ec degree from one of the top universities in the US and it was a science degree. Not all home ec majors were crap.
Another anecdote - My mother also got a home ec degree from a school in the Big Ten. I don't know if it was crap or not, but I do know some of her coursework involved space planning (interior design) and textile chemistry. I think some of the courses were crap but some were definitely not fluff classes. She ended up being a buyer for a department store.
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.
I get it, and believe we are now a huge player in the crazy patterns (to put it nicely), but I was just referring to the article. I found this quote odd and out of the ordinary.