Wobbles in the Barriers: Arctic Oscillation (4)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 4:22 PM GMT on October 14, 2013

Share this Blog
29
+

Wobbles in the Barriers: Arctic Oscillation (4)

This is a continuation of my series on the Arctic Oscillation / North Atlantic Oscillation. Links to background material and previous entries are at the end.

In the last entry I suggested that if you were on a bridge overlooking a swiftly flowing creek then you would notice that twigs floating in the water did not move across the current. They are carried downstream along the edge of the current. The purpose of that comparison was to demonstrate how fast-moving, concentrated flows have the effect of isolating one side of the creek from the other. This is true in the creek, and it is also true about jet streams in the atmosphere.

One way to understand the Arctic Oscillation is to think of it as the variation of an atmospheric jet stream. For the Arctic Oscillation the jet stream of interest is the southern edge of vortex of air that circulates around the North Pole (see previous entry). Air inside the vortex often has characteristics different from air outside it. Intuitively for the Arctic, there is colder air on the side toward the pole. If you look at trace gases, like ozone, they are different across the edge of the vortex. The takeaway idea is that the edge of the vortex is a barrier. It’s not a perfect barrier, but the air on one side is largely separated from the air on the other side. In this blog, I describe the difference between a strong and a weak vortex – which is the same as the difference between the positive and negative phases of the Arctic Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation.



Figure 1: This figure is from the point of view of someone looking down from above at the North Pole (NP). Compare this perspective to Figure 1 in previous blog. This represents a strong, circular vortex centered over the pole, which encloses cold air, represented as blue. The line surrounding the cold air is the jet stream or the edge of the vortex.

Figure 1 shows an idealized schematic of the North Pole as viewed from above. This is the strong vortex case, when there is exceptionally low pressure at the pole. Low pressure is associated with counterclockwise rotation in the Northern Hemisphere. This direction of rotation is called cyclonic. This strong vortex case is the positive phase of the Arctic Oscillation. During this phase, the vortex aligns strongly with the rotation of the Earth, and there are relatively few wobbles of the edge of the vortex – the jet stream. I drew on the figure two points, X and Y. In this case, the point X is hot and the point Y is cold. It is during this phase when it is relatively warm and moist over, for example, the eastern seaboard of the United States.

Figure 2 compares a strong vortex and a weak vortex. In both cases, the circulation around a central point is counterclockwise or cyclonic. However, in the weak vortex case, the vortex does not align as strongly with the rotation of the Earth and there are places where the edge of vortex extends southwards. The vortex appears displaced from the pole; it is not centered over the pole.



Figure 2: Examples of a strong, circular vortex and a weak, more wavy vortex. See text for a more complete description.

Whether the vortex is stronger or weaker is determined by the atmospheric pressure at the pole. In the winter, an important factor that determines the circulation is the cooling that occurs at polar latitudes during the polar night.

What determines the waviness or wobbles at the edge of this vortex? The structure at the edge of vortex is strongly influenced by several factors. These factors include the structure of the high-pressure centers that are over the oceans and continents to the south of jet stream. One could easily imagine a strong high-pressure center over, for example, Iceland, pushing northward at the edge of the vortex. This might push a lobe of air characteristic of the middle latitude Atlantic Ocean northward. Since the edge of the vortex is something of a barrier, this high-pressure system would distort the edge of the vortex and, perhaps, push the vortex off the pole. This would appear as a displacement of the vortex and its cold air over, for example, Russia. If the high grew and faded, then this would appear as wobbles of the vortex.

Other factors that influence the waviness at the edge of the vortex are the mountain ranges and the thermal contrast between the continents and the oceans. The impact of mountains is easy to understand. Returning to the creek comparison used above, the mountains are like a boulder in the stream. The water bulges around and over the boulder; the air in the atmosphere bulges around and over the mountain ranges. The Rocky Mountains in the western half of North America are perfect examples of where there are often wobbles in the atmospheric jet stream.



Figure 3: This figure is from the point of view of someone looking down from above at the North Pole (NP). This represents a weak, wavy, wobbly vortex displaced from the pole. The vortex encloses cold air, represented as blue. The line surrounding the cold air is the jet stream or the edge of the vortex. (definition of vortex)

Figure 3 shows an idealized schematic of the North Pole as viewed from above. This is the weak vortex case, when the low pressure at the pole is not as low as average and the pressure is much higher than the strong vortex case of Figure 1. This weak vortex case is the negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation. During this phase, the alignment of the vortex with the rotation of the Earth is less prominent, and there are wobbles of the edge of the vortex – the jet stream. In this case, the point X is cold and the point Y is hot. It is during this phase where it is relatively cool and dry (but potentially snowy) over, for example, the eastern part of the United States.

These figures help to explain the prominent signal of the Arctic Oscillation discussed in the earlier entries (specifically, this blog). That is, when the vortex is weak and wobbly, then there are excursions of colder air to the south and warmer air to the north. This appears as waviness and is an important pattern of variability - warm, cold, warm, cold.

The impact of the changes in the structure of edge of the vortex does not end with these persistent periods of regional warm and cold spells. The edge of the vortex or the jet stream is also important for steering storms. Minimally, therefore, these changes in the edge of the vortex are expected to change the characteristics of how storms move. Simply, if the edge of the vortex has large northward and southward extensions, then storms take a longer time to move, for example, across the United States from the Pacific to the Atlantic Oceans. In the positive phase of the Arctic Oscillation they just whip across. In the negative phase, the storms wander around a bit. A more complete discussion of this aspect of the role of the Arctic Oscillation will be in the next entry. (Note use of dramatic tension and the cliffhanger strategy of the serial.)

r

Previous entries:

Barriers in the Atmosphere
Behavior
Definitions and Some Background

August Arctic Oscillation presentation

CPC Climate Glossary “The Arctic Oscillation is a pattern in which atmospheric pressure at polar and middle latitudes fluctuates between negative and positive phases.”

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 707 - 657

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30Blog Index

Quoting 706. Xulonn:
To believe that both handles belong to the same person would require a high level of incompetence and no ability to think critically. There may be some sockpuppets on the side of science, but they are rare and not at all like like the horde of rabid cockroaches that emerge from the denialist cyberverse to infest the world of AGW/CC blogs....The identity of one commenter at an internet blog isn't going to change the science - nor are multiple denialist sockpuppets at other sites going to change the science...


Incompetence? Inability to think critically? Ok, well not necessarily. Without context and previous experience, it would probably jump out to most that a person responded for someone else. Technically, we are all posting behind internet handles to provide some sort of anonymity (although I chose mine back when I had others with a full name), so it's not always straight-forward to prove who is who.
I don't agree with Doug on much - it shouldn't come as a surprise - as I think he sometimes comes in here with vague accusations and doesn't get specific. Katrina was directly caused by climate change, anyone?
But what I will say is that a situation like this could, at least to some, beg the question. Even though we disagree with him often, I'm not sure that it warrants people piling on the insults. This particular post was probably one of the least-nice ways to convey disagreement. Contrary to many other times, he did actually provide the "proof" he was referring to specifically. How many actually double-checked to see if they were real? I did, and they were right there.

I'm not in a place to explain it one way or the other, but maybe we can try to play nicer.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Gee Doug, you're funny - you've made the most asinine series of posts I've ever seen here. It absolutely reeks of desperation and a futile attempt to save face. Nea and John Lonergan are one and the same?? Give me a break!

To believe that both handles belong to the same person would require a high level of incompetence and no ability to think critically. There may be some sockpuppets on the side of science, but they are rare and not at all like like the horde of rabid cockroaches that emerge from the denialist cyberverse to infest the world of AGW/CC blogs.

Science is science - AGW/CC is based on overwhelming evidence and detailed analysis, and you refuse to accept it. The identity of one commenter at an internet blog isn't going to change the science. - nor are multiple denialist sockpuppets at other sites going to change the science.

Besides, your AGW/CC denial is not even of interest to the scientists - there is no debate - they've moved on, and are continuing to study AGW/CC and what it might do to human civilization...leaving you to tilt at windmills.

Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1547
I say that ice held up pretty good this summer,gonna be one hell of a winter up there!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 697. BrownWeather:

Big John. Let's not tease Dougie now. Go easy on the big fella.


I just realized that all of us are mere figments of dougie's imagination.
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 735
The 2012 State of the Climate is easily misunderstood

Every year the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides a kind of health check of Earth's climate. They take its temperature and see how the rest of its vital signs are doing, but just as many of us would make diagnostic mistakes if we read a doctor's charts, some news reports have totally misinterpreted the results of the latest health check.

The report looks at everything from ice on mountains to where and how heavily it's been raining. Perhaps the biggest story of 2012 was the incredible disappearing Arctic sea ice, which ended up covering 3.3 million square kilometres (about 5 Texases) less area than it usually does.



Mostly, this regular check just adds another year of data and sees how it fits in with past patterns. Global surface temperatures were the 8th or 9th highest recorded, partly because the first two months were cool-ish thanks to a La Nina in the Pacific, where cooler waters sit on the top of the ocean and suck up heat from the atmosphere.

Kevin C's excellent trend tool shows us what the new data mean for the surface temperature trend since 1970: it's about 0.17 C per decade, but there's a range in that because short term wiggles are caused by things like the El Nino-La Nina cycle in the Pacific which warm or cool the atmosphere by storing or releasing heat from the oceans. The trend is most likely to be warming of 0.17 C per decade, but really it's between 0.14 and 0.20 C per decade.


igure 2: The global warming trend since 1970 according to the UK Met Office data. The vertical axis is temperature in degrees C measured as the difference from a climate average.

However, this isn't the full story because some areas don't have their temperatures reported, such as the Arctic which is one of the fastest warming areas on the planet (remember how 5 Texases worth of ice have disappeared?).

The newer UK Met Office data (HadCRUT4) uses more thermometers closer to the pole, but there is still a lot missing in the Arctic (Morice et al., 2012). So really, the truth is that that trend is only where the UK Met Office reports temperatures.


Figure 3: Maps of the measurement coverage of the old ('HadCRUT3') and new ('HadCRUT4') UK Met Office record of surface temperatures. Darker red means that the area has warmed quickly and blue that it has cooled. The newer version includes measurements from more thermometers, especially in the far North where warming has been fastest.

Read More >>
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3677
There are so many things that I don't understand
There's a world within me that I cannot explain
Many rooms to explore, but the doors look the same
I am lost I can't even remember my name

[Hook]
I've been, for sometime
Looking for someone
I need to know now
Please tell me who I am

[Verse 2]
There are so many things
That I don't understand
There's a world within me
That I cannot explain
Many rooms to explore
But the doors look the same
(where are the locks to try the key)
I am lost I can't even remember my name
(and I wonder why)


Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129906
Quoting 694. GiovanniDatoli:

You totally got it wrong, Dougie. Take the propaganda like glasses off your face. Remember--science, my friend.



Friend....right...
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 670
Quoting 695. BrownWeather:


Backpeddling some more there, I see. You're a regular at it.



Huh? Are you delusional?
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 670
Quoting 691. schwankmoe:


WHAT DID YOU KNOW AND WHEN DID YOU KNOW IT?



EVERYTHING, ALWAYS




rAMEN
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3677
Quoting 691. schwankmoe:


WHAT DID YOU KNOW AND WHEN DID YOU KNOW IT?

I know everything and always did.

Oh, great. Now I'm John Lonergan!
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
See you fellas later. I know. Don't let the door hit ya ...or some such insult.
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 670
Quoting 686. JohnLonergan:


Should I take the fifth or drink it?


WHAT DID YOU KNOW AND WHEN DID YOU KNOW IT?
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 735
Quoting 686. JohnLonergan:


Should I take the fifth or drink it?


Sup Nea?
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 670
Quoting 679. PensacolaDoug:



Keep making excuses for your hero..he's so busted.


you're a regular james bond.
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 735
Quoting 683. ScottLincoln:


And where were you, Mr. Lonergan, on the morning in question?



Should I take the fifth or drink it?
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3677
Quoting 679. PensacolaDoug:



Keep making excuses for your hero..he's so busted.

I'm over seven. I don't do the hero thing.

Oh, great. Now, I'm schwankmoe!
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 654. schwankmoe:


not over one word in one post, no.



Not over one word. That makes no sense.
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 670
Quoting 682. JohnLonergan:
They believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns, too.

-puts on mock trial hat-

And where were you, Mr. Lonergan, on the morning in question?

-end mock trial-

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 681. Birthmark:

Hilarious how yall accept whatever explanation pleases you most, regardless of the lack of evidence. Meanwhile, well-substantiated scientific theories get derided.

Weird.
They believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns, too.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3677
Quoting 677. ncstorm:
hilarious how yall dance around the evidence..one word that is significant in evidence of multiple handles..earth has cycles..

have a good night..LOL!!


Hilarious how yall accept whatever explanation pleases you most, regardless of the lack of evidence. Meanwhile, well-substantiated scientific theories get derided.

Weird.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 678. schwankmoe:


i just copied yours in an attempt to confuse everyone. and i woulda got away with it too, if it weren't for you meddlesome kids.

Trying to get the next conspiracy theory to involve me. Just what I need.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 662. schwankmoe:


A mistype. A poster confused and thinking that they are being referred to and not the other person. A poster who feels like sticking up for someone else.



Keep making excuses for your hero..he's so busted.
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 670
Quoting 674. ScottLincoln:

Heh. I don't dance.
Did you type a comment at the same time, or did it just duplicate mine and give one to your name?


i just copied yours in an attempt to confuse everyone. and i woulda got away with it too, if it weren't for you meddlesome kids.
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 735
hilarious how yall dance around the evidence..one word that is significant in evidence of multiple handles..earth has cycles..

have a good night..LOL!!

Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 16225
Wait. There's pudding?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 669. schwankmoe:


it's because you're my sockpuppet. I OWN YOU DANCE FOR ME, PUPPET

Heh. I don't dance.
Did you type a comment at the same time, or did it just duplicate mine and give one to your name?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Verizon, FCC & Net Neutrality: What You Need to Know (PC Mag)


Big Deal Big Money (Commoncause.org)


(does not directly apply to Climate Change - but definitely could affect the info that is "free" today)
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 963
Somebody help me out here. Why am I supposed to care about all this junk?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 665. ScottLincoln:

??? how did it take my comment and merge it into yours?


it's because you're my sockpuppet. I OWN YOU DANCE FOR ME, PUPPET
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 735
O Noes, # 666 the anti-post'

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129906
Quoting 666. BrownWeather:

DealWithIt is NOT JohnLongeran. I can assure you.

You don't have to assure me. Read "/" as "vs." :)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 662. schwankmoe:


A mistype. A poster confused and thinking that they are being referred to and not the other person. A poster who feels like sticking up for someone else.

??? how did it take my comment and merge it into yours?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 658. ScottLincoln:

A mistype. A poster confused and thinking that they are being referred to and not the other person. A poster who feels like sticking up for someone else.

Having checked back four or five days, I can rule out the JohnLonergan/DealWithIt altercation hypothesis...at least over that time-frame.

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 640. Birthmark:

That is not the only possible explanation. Did you check back in the thread to see what, if any, interactions took place between DealWithIt and John Lonergan? If not, it might be worth a look since you seem interested.

A link to the thread might help bolster your position, too.



This is everything after about 6AM or so.

Time (GMT); Poster; Blog; Post; Page; Comment

10/17/2013 09:36 Nea Masters 2556 10 480
10/17/2013 11:37 Nea Masters 2556 11 506
10/17/2013 11:39 Nea Masters 2556 11 509
10/17/2013 11:59 J_L Rood___ 276 4 168
10/17/2013 12:43 J_L Rood___ 276 4 169
10/17/2013 13:10 J_L Masters 2556 11 537
10/17/2013 13:30 J_L Rood___ 276 4 170
10/17/2013 14:12 J_L Masters 2556 12 556
10/17/2013 14:39 J_L Rood___ 276 4 172
10/17/2013 15:39 Nea Masters 2556 12 580
10/17/2013 15:56 J_L Rood___ 276 4 178
10/17/2013 16:05 Nea Masters 2556 12 582
10/17/2013 17:42 Nea Rood___ 276 4 185
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 636. PensacolaDoug:



How would you explain it?


A mistype. A poster confused and thinking that they are being referred to and not the other person. A poster who feels like sticking up for someone else.
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 735
I'm so confused I'm watching The Big Bang Theory on CBS.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129906
Quoting 659. BrownWeather:


So, we've gone from "proof" to "reasonable people wondering." That's some serious backpedalling in a short period of time.



i see what you did there.
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 735
Quoting 636. PensacolaDoug:



How would you explain it?

A mistype. A poster confused and thinking that they are being referred to when they aren't. A poster who feels like sticking up for someone else.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 707 - 657

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.