Climate effects of Arctic hurricanes

[Trakar]

Public release date: 16-Dec-2012
[ Print | E-mail | Share ] [ Close Window ]

Contact: Janet Lathrop
[email protected]
413-545-0444
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Climate model is first to study climate effects of Arctic hurricanes

Now climate scientists at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and in England report the first conclusive evidence that Arctic hurricanes, also known as polar lows, play a significant role in driving ocean water circulation and climate

IMAGE:These polar storms can have hurricane-strength winds and are common over the polar North Atlantic, but are missing from climate prediction models due to their small size.
Click here for more information.

AMHERST, Mass. – Though it seems like an oxymoron, Arctic hurricanes happen, complete with a central "eye," extreme low barometric pressure and towering 30-foot waves that can sink small ships and coat metal platforms with thick ice, threatening oil and gas exploration. Now climate scientists at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and in England report the first conclusive evidence that Arctic hurricanes, also known as polar lows, play a significant role in driving ocean water circulation and climate.
Results point to potentially cooler conditions in Europe and North America in the 21st century than other models predict.
Geoscientist Alan Condron at UMass Amherst and Ian Renfrew at the University of East Anglia, U.K., write in the current issue of Nature Geoscience that every year thousands of these strong cyclones or polar lows occur over Arctic regions in the North Atlantic, but none are simulated by the latest climate prediction models, which makes it difficult to reliably forecast climate change in Europe and North America over the next couple of decades.
"Before polar lows were first seen by satellites, sailors frequently returned from the Arctic seas with stories of encounters with fierce storms that seemed to appear out of nowhere," says Condron, a physical oceanographer. "Because of their small size, these storms were often missing from their weather charts, but they are still capable of producing hurricane-force winds and waves over 11 meters high (36 feet)."
He and Renfrew say that despite the fact that literally thousands of polar lows occur over the Arctic region of the North Atlantic ocean every year, none are simulated by even the most sophisticated climate models. To understand the importance of these storms on climate, Condron and Renfrew therefore turned to a new, state-of-the-art climate model to simulate the high wind speeds associated with these "missing" storms.
"By using higher resolution modeling we can more accurately simulate the high wind speeds and influence of polar lows on the ocean," Condron says. "The lower-resolution models currently used to make climate predictions very much miss the level of detail required to accurately simulate these storms."
He and Renfrew find that by removing heat from the ocean, polar lows influence the sinking of the very dense cold water in the North Atlantic that drives the large-scale ocean circulation or "conveyer belt" that is known as the thermohaline circulation. It transports heat to Europe and North America.
"By simulating polar lows, we find that the area of the ocean that becomes denser and sinks each year increases and causes the amount of heat being transported towards Europe to intensify," Condron points out.
"The fact that climate models are not simulating these storms is a real problem," he adds, "because these models will wrongly predict how much heat is being moving northward towards the poles. This will make it very difficult to reliably predict how the climate of Europe and North America will change in the near future."
Condron also notes that other research groups have found that the number of polar lows might decrease in the next 20 to 50 years. "If this is true, we could expect to see an accompanying weakening of the thermohaline circulation that might be able to offset some of the warming predicted for Europe and North America in the near future."

###​

 

[SSDD]

Yet another example of how those who believe in climate modelling at present have put thier faith in a "science" that has scratched so little of the surface that it, at this point in time, can at best be called pseudoscience and with regards to making any prediction beyond the next few days can at best be called fraud.

Attempting to present itself as even being solidly in the first stages of understanding the forces that drive the climate is dishonest in the extreme.

 

[Old Rocks]

What is dishonest is that you people are still denigrating the efforts of the scientists to understand and predict what the effects of AGW will be. In 1896, Arnnhenius said that increasing the atmospheric CO2 would cause the Earth to warm. He was correct, even if you people were in total denial that there was any warming going on until 2000, when it was too apperant to everybody to deny any longer.

Then you people went into your, "oh, it's natural cycles" bullshit. Even though you cannot name said cycles. In fact, by the Milankovic Cycles, we should be slowly cooling.

In his 1981 paper Hansen made a number of predictions. Most have now come true. Sooner than expected. Yet you flap-yaps continually deny that the scientists have made a correct predictions at all. You lie purposely to prevent people from realizing just how far from reality your little political world has gone.

 

[SSDD]

What is dishonest is that you people are still denigrating the efforts of the scientists to understand and predict what the effects of AGW will be. In 1896, Arnnhenius said that increasing the atmospheric CO2 would cause the Earth to warm. He was correct, even if you people were in total denial that there was any warming going on until 2000, when it was too apperant to everybody to deny any longer.

What is dishonest is for climate science, at present to claim that it can make reliable predictions at all.

In his 1981 paper Hansen made a number of predictions. Most have now come true. Sooner than expected. Yet you flap-yaps continually deny that the scientists have made a correct predictions at all. You lie purposely to prevent people from realizing just how far from reality your little political world has gone.

Which of hansen's predictions have come true?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What is dishonest is that you people are still denigrating the efforts of the scientists to understand and predict what the effects of AGW will be. In 1896, Arnnhenius said that increasing the atmospheric CO2 would cause the Earth to warm. He was correct, even if you people were in total denial that there was any warming going on until 2000, when it was too apperant to everybody to deny any longer.

Then you people went into your, "oh, it's natural cycles" bullshit. Even though you cannot name said cycles. In fact, by the Milankovic Cycles, we should be slowly cooling.

In his 1981 paper Hansen made a number of predictions. Most have now come true. Sooner than expected. Yet you flap-yaps continually deny that the scientists have made a correct predictions at all. You lie purposely to prevent people from realizing just how far from reality your little political world has gone.

In 1896, people thought this was real science too

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Old Rocks why is the planet 8 degrees warmer than it was 14,000 years ago?

 

[IanC]

What is dishonest is that you people are still denigrating the efforts of the scientists to understand and predict what the effects of AGW will be. In 1896, Arnnhenius said that increasing the atmospheric CO2 would cause the Earth to warm. He was correct, even if you people were in total denial that there was any warming going on until 2000, when it was too apperant to everybody to deny any longer.

What is dishonest is for climate science, at present to claim that it can make reliable predictions at all.

In his 1981 paper Hansen made a number of predictions. Most have now come true. Sooner than expected. Yet you flap-yaps continually deny that the scientists have made a correct predictions at all. You lie purposely to prevent people from realizing just how far from reality your little political world has gone.

Which of hansen's predictions have come true?

climate models are useful and necessary to further our understanding of the climate. projections from those models are useless to predict the future but are a good indicator to see if our assumptions are somewhat correct. if the projections are correct then we may be getting closer to understanding some aspects of what controls the climate. unfortunately the projections have not come to pass therefore we need to rethink our assumptions.

 

[Dubya]

Yet another example of how those who believe in climate modelling at present have put thier faith in a "science" that has scratched so little of the surface that it, at this point in time, can at best be called pseudoscience and with regards to making any prediction beyond the next few days can at best be called fraud.

Attempting to present itself as even being solidly in the first stages of understanding the forces that drive the climate is dishonest in the extreme.

Speaking of dishonest, I've been to sites where scientists discuss climate modeling and have never seen one of them claim the models were great or could actually predict the future. In fact they criticize the models on a regular basis.

If you aren't being dishonest, find me evidence of a scientist saying the models can predict the future!

It's the common theme of a Denialista to make a baseless claim and then state his indignation to what is a product of his own imagination. If it bothers you that much, stop inventing the crap you object to!

 

[Trakar]

climate models are useful and necessary to further our understanding of the climate. projections from those models are useless to predict the future but are a good indicator to see if our assumptions are somewhat correct. if the projections are correct then we may be getting closer to understanding some aspects of what controls the climate. unfortunately the projections have not come to pass therefore we need to rethink our assumptions.

Actually, most projections made by current climate models are accurate within the range of accuracy of the factors they analyze. Of course they tend to be conservative in their estimations of these factors, and the greatest error thus far noticed in many generalized projections is that they tend to understimate speed and magnitude of changes occurring.

IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Other

http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_HIGH.pdf

National Academy of Sciences - climate modelling - Climate Modeling 101

 

[Dubya]

What is dishonest is that you people are still denigrating the efforts of the scientists to understand and predict what the effects of AGW will be. In 1896, Arnnhenius said that increasing the atmospheric CO2 would cause the Earth to warm. He was correct, even if you people were in total denial that there was any warming going on until 2000, when it was too apperant to everybody to deny any longer.

What is dishonest is for climate science, at present to claim that it can make reliable predictions at all.

In his 1981 paper Hansen made a number of predictions. Most have now come true. Sooner than expected. Yet you flap-yaps continually deny that the scientists have made a correct predictions at all. You lie purposely to prevent people from realizing just how far from reality your little political world has gone.

Which of hansen's predictions have come true?

I'm not aware of any past prediction by Hansen that could come true and haven't, so why don't you post one that hasn't come true? If Hansen is predicting things like Greenland can melt faster than expected, there is evidence to support that, but how can you logically ask for a future prediction to be proven at the present? You've made the case insinuating Hansen's predictions are lacking, so post where they have been wrong!

You Denialistas always manage to talk and not say or prove anything. There are serious issues in your positions, when it comes to using logic and it's generally disguised babble. If you were aware of something of substance to support your claims, you would post it.

 

[TNHarley]

Trakar, Old rocks and Gore need to have a threesome

 

[westwall]

"Alaska is going rogue on climate change.

Defiant as ever, the state that gave rise to Sarah Palin is bucking the mainstream yet again: While global temperatures surge hotter and the ice-cap crumbles, the nation's icebox is getting even icier.

That may not be news to Alaskans coping with another round of 50-below during the coldest winter in two decades, or to the mariners locked out of the Bering Sea this spring by record ice growth.

Then again, it might. The 49th state has long been labeled one of the fastest-warming spots on the planet. But that's so 20th Century.

In the first decade since 2000, the 49th state cooled 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

Widespread warming

That's a "large value for a decade," the Alaska Climate Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks said in "The First Decade of the New Century: A Cooling Trend for Most of Alaska."

The cooling is widespread -- holding true for 19 of the 20 National Weather Service stations sprinkled from one corner of Alaska to the other, the paper notes. It's most significant in Western Alaska, where King Salmon on the Alaska Peninsula saw temperatures drop most sharply, a significant 4.5 degrees for the decade, the report says.



The new nippiness began with a vengeance in 2005, after more than a century that saw temperatures generally veer warmer in Alaska, the report says. With lots of ice to lose, the state had heated up about twice as fast as the rest of the planet, in line with rising global greenhouse gas emissions, note the Alaska Climate Center researchers, Gerd Wendler, L. Chen and Blake Moore. After a "sudden temperature increase" in Alaska starting in 1977, the warmest decade on record occurred in the 1980s, followed by another jump in the 1990s, they note. The third warmest decade was the 1920s, by the way."








While the globe warms and people swelter, Alaska is chilling | Alaska Dispatch

 

[westwall]

Yet another example of how those who believe in climate modelling at present have put thier faith in a "science" that has scratched so little of the surface that it, at this point in time, can at best be called pseudoscience and with regards to making any prediction beyond the next few days can at best be called fraud.

Attempting to present itself as even being solidly in the first stages of understanding the forces that drive the climate is dishonest in the extreme.

Speaking of dishonest, I've been to sites where scientists discuss climate modeling and have never seen one of them claim the models were great or could actually predict the future. In fact they criticize the models on a regular basis.

If you aren't being dishonest, find me evidence of a scientist saying the models can predict the future!

It's the common theme of a Denialista to make a baseless claim and then state his indignation to what is a product of his own imagination. If it bothers you that much, stop inventing the crap you object to!

Show us a single computer model that can take all of the data available, crunch the numbers, and recreate the weather we had two days ago. Not one can even come close.

if you can't recreate what has allready occurred, with perfect knowledge of all the variables concerned then there is no way you can predict the future either.

 

[westwall]

What is dishonest is that you people are still denigrating the efforts of the scientists to understand and predict what the effects of AGW will be. In 1896, Arnnhenius said that increasing the atmospheric CO2 would cause the Earth to warm. He was correct, even if you people were in total denial that there was any warming going on until 2000, when it was too apperant to everybody to deny any longer.

What is dishonest is for climate science, at present to claim that it can make reliable predictions at all.

In his 1981 paper Hansen made a number of predictions. Most have now come true. Sooner than expected. Yet you flap-yaps continually deny that the scientists have made a correct predictions at all. You lie purposely to prevent people from realizing just how far from reality your little political world has gone.

Which of hansen's predictions have come true?

I'm not aware of any past prediction by Hansen that could come true and haven't, so why don't you post one that hasn't come true? If Hansen is predicting things like Greenland can melt faster than expected, there is evidence to support that, but how can you logically ask for a future prediction to be proven at the present? You've made the case insinuating Hansen's predictions are lacking, so post where they have been wrong!

You Denialistas always manage to talk and not say or prove anything. There are serious issues in your positions, when it comes to using logic and it's generally disguised babble. If you were aware of something of substance to support your claims, you would post it.

Not that you'll pay the slightest bit of attention but here you go. I believe this qualifies as an epic fail....


Extreme weather means more terrifying hurricanes and tornadoes and fires than we usually see. But what can we expect such conditions to do to our daily life?


While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

And so far, over the last 10 years, we’ve had 10 of the hottest years on record.


Not one of those claims has come true......



Stormy weather - Salon.com

 

[SSDD]

If you aren't being dishonest, find me evidence of a scientist saying the models can predict the future!

IPCC AR 1-5 for starters. Are you going to try and tell me that no predictions were made based on models?

 

[Dubya]

What is dishonest is for climate science, at present to claim that it can make reliable predictions at all.



Which of hansen's predictions have come true?

I'm not aware of any past prediction by Hansen that could come true and haven't, so why don't you post one that hasn't come true? If Hansen is predicting things like Greenland can melt faster than expected, there is evidence to support that, but how can you logically ask for a future prediction to be proven at the present? You've made the case insinuating Hansen's predictions are lacking, so post where they have been wrong!

You Denialistas always manage to talk and not say or prove anything. There are serious issues in your positions, when it comes to using logic and it's generally disguised babble. If you were aware of something of substance to support your claims, you would post it.

Not that you'll pay the slightest bit of attention but here you go. I believe this qualifies as an epic fail....


Extreme weather means more terrifying hurricanes and tornadoes and fires than we usually see. But what can we expect such conditions to do to our daily life?


While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

And so far, over the last 10 years, we’ve had 10 of the hottest years on record.


Not one of those claims has come true......



Stormy weather - Salon.com

You claim to have been a Geologist, but you are an epic failure at proving anything. Proving something means you find Hansen making the predictions and prove them false. It's means you quote Hansen and not some secondary "he said/she said" source, based on someone else's interpretation of what is said.

The general theme of what many scientists have said is there will be more exceptional weather and it will happen to the point where exceptional weather will become the new norm.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yet another example of how those who believe in climate modelling at present have put thier faith in a "science" that has scratched so little of the surface that it, at this point in time, can at best be called pseudoscience and with regards to making any prediction beyond the next few days can at best be called fraud.

Attempting to present itself as even being solidly in the first stages of understanding the forces that drive the climate is dishonest in the extreme.

Speaking of dishonest, I've been to sites where scientists discuss climate modeling and have never seen one of them claim the models were great or could actually predict the future. In fact they criticize the models on a regular basis.

If you aren't being dishonest, find me evidence of a scientist saying the models can predict the future!

It's the common theme of a Denialista to make a baseless claim and then state his indignation to what is a product of his own imagination. If it bothers you that much, stop inventing the crap you object to!

Show us a single computer model that can take all of the data available, crunch the numbers, and recreate the weather we had two days ago. Not one can even come close.

if you can't recreate what has allready occurred, with perfect knowledge of all the variables concerned then there is no way you can predict the future either.

Well there are too many variables and the system is too complex. All we know for certain is that a wisp of CO2 is melting the ice caps and so the Warmers must appoint themselves as guardians of the planet and shut down the US economy, its right there in the model

 

[westwall]

I'm not aware of any past prediction by Hansen that could come true and haven't, so why don't you post one that hasn't come true? If Hansen is predicting things like Greenland can melt faster than expected, there is evidence to support that, but how can you logically ask for a future prediction to be proven at the present? You've made the case insinuating Hansen's predictions are lacking, so post where they have been wrong!

You Denialistas always manage to talk and not say or prove anything. There are serious issues in your positions, when it comes to using logic and it's generally disguised babble. If you were aware of something of substance to support your claims, you would post it.

Not that you'll pay the slightest bit of attention but here you go. I believe this qualifies as an epic fail....


Extreme weather means more terrifying hurricanes and tornadoes and fires than we usually see. But what can we expect such conditions to do to our daily life?


While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

And so far, over the last 10 years, we’ve had 10 of the hottest years on record.


Not one of those claims has come true......



Stormy weather - Salon.com

You claim to have been a Geologist, but you are an epic failure at proving anything. Proving something means you find Hansen making the predictions and prove them false. It's means you quote Hansen and not some secondary "he said/she said" source, based on someone else's interpretation of what is said.

The general theme of what many scientists have said is there will be more exceptional weather and it will happen to the point where exceptional weather will become the new norm.

Oh you poor little troll you. You wanted proof, I gave it to you. You can also look up his 1988 Congressional testimony where he likewise made predictions that in the course of time have been up to 300% off.

Game, Set, Match.

Now, run along boy. I only converse with adults.

 

[Dubya]

Not that you'll pay the slightest bit of attention but here you go. I believe this qualifies as an epic fail....


Extreme weather means more terrifying hurricanes and tornadoes and fires than we usually see. But what can we expect such conditions to do to our daily life?


While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

And so far, over the last 10 years, we’ve had 10 of the hottest years on record.


Not one of those claims has come true......



Stormy weather - Salon.com

You claim to have been a Geologist, but you are an epic failure at proving anything. Proving something means you find Hansen making the predictions and prove them false. It's means you quote Hansen and not some secondary "he said/she said" source, based on someone else's interpretation of what is said.

The general theme of what many scientists have said is there will be more exceptional weather and it will happen to the point where exceptional weather will become the new norm.

Oh you poor little troll you. You wanted proof, I gave it to you. You can also look up his 1988 Congressional testimony where he likewise made predictions that in the course of time have been up to 300% off.

Game, Set, Match.

Now, run along boy. I only converse with adults.

You are the one who acts like a child.

Hansen didn't say any of that in his 1988 Congressional testimony, so there is no way of knowing what Hansen said without it written down in his own words. There is a difference between knowing and believing that you right-wingers can't figure out.

You can find evidence of transcripts or video statements by Hansen, so where is the proof?

You saying something or someone writing something is not proof.

 

[Trakar]

...While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

And so far, over the last 10 years, we’ve had 10 of the hottest years on record.

Not one of those claims has come true......"

Stormy weather - Salon.com

Your source is mistaken, and your intent is to misrepresent.

Facts are easy to check.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_SingingInTheRain.pdf

"...

Michaels refers to greenhouse gas scenarios A, B, C in our 1988 paper, failing to note that precisely measured greenhouse gas climate forcing since 1988 fall almost exactly on our scenario B, which we had described as the most likely. Our climate model did a good job of simulating global temperature change, predicting a warming that so far is about 1/3 greater than observations​

​

​

​

– just about what we should expect, because the model used in that paper had sensitivity 4.2°C for doubled CO2, while we now know that real world sensitivity is 3°C.
​

Michaels also has the facts wrong about a 1988 interview of me by Bob Reiss, in which Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO​

​

​

​

2 doubled in amount. Michaels has it as 20 years, not 40 years, with no mention of doubled CO2. Reiss verified this fact to me, but he later sent the message: "I went back to my book and re-read the interview I had with you. I am embarrassed to say that although
the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years. What I asked you originally at your office window was for a prediction of what Broadway would look like in 40 years, not 20. But when I spoke to the Salon reporter 10 years later - probably because I'd been watching the predictions come true, I remembered it as a 20 year question." So give Michaels a pass on this one -- assume that he reads Salon, but he did not check the original source, Reiss' book..."​