And still it continues! The tropospheric polar vortex redevelops over the arctic to give some bitterly cold temperatures near the surface.

It is really quite stark the contrast between the low latitude warmth (not just here, also the US/Europe e.c.t.) and the relative cold over the arctic.

The 'cold arctic, warm continents' pattern was one I thought I might never see again. Relegated to nostalgia along with alot of other things from the 90s!

And still it continues! The tropospheric polar vortex redevelops over the arctic to give some bitterly cold temperatures near the surface.

 

 

Will it unlock and send a tidal wave of cold south tho?

 

 

Will it unlock and send a tidal wave of cold south tho?

Not the answer you want to hear, but there is no sign of this pattern coming to an end.

Over the last decade we've had a mix of mild and cold winters. But even in the mild winters the polar vortex has been relatively weak, and it has been the atlantic that has scuppered our chances of cold, not the arctic. But this year it's not so much a case of 'America and Russia freeze while we bake' but nowhere in the low latitudes is getting much of a winter.

Frankly unless the pattern changes back to the more common (in recent times in any case) 'warm arctic, cold continents' I suspect not much will change.

It is interesting to see how with some of the colder Arctic air forecast to be injected into the mid lats (more especially N.America) over the coming 7 days that NH and global temps are set to fall by as much as 0.5 degrees, at least according to the most recent CR run. This is nothing unusual of course, just unusual for this particular winter. 

ECM192. Northerly winds in all the high latitude peripherals (Baffin, Barents, Bering, Kara)

Hard to think of a pattern that is better for the sea ice than this.

Edit: If I was god, designing a plan for the sea ice I'd probably want this pattern to dissipate sometime in mid february so there is enough time to build up some snowcover before spring starts.

I was a bit surprised to see on the ASI forum that CAA, CAB and Bering-into-Beaufort sea ice thicknesses are all still well short of where we were a year ago.

That's comparing modelling with reanalysis, though, so hopefully the modelling is underestimating at least a little!

We really could with a shakeup in the weather patterns by early spring to reduce the snow cover deficits in N. Europe especially. 2007 and 2012 showed us what becomes possible otherwise, during the melting season.

Who knows, though - the weather patterns could be friendlier this year. Fingers crossed!

From the January edition of the RMetS journal "Weather": "In supporting decision makers across the Arctic region in this seemingly ever warming world, the new Arctic Regional Climate Centre Network now provides climate outlooks in May and October for the forthcoming summer and winter seasons respectively. The latest session, hosted by the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, concluded with a forecast suggesting the upcoming period of November 2019 to January 2020 inclusive would see average surface air temperatures above normal for the entire Arctic region, albeit with low confidence for some southern Arctic regions such as southern Alaska, parts of Canada, Europe and eastern Siberia." So that turned out well - not! I suppose it just shows that we still don't really have a handle on seasonal forecasting.

It is interesting to see how with some of the colder Arctic air forecast to be injected into the mid lats (more especially N.America) over the coming 7 days that NH and global temps are set to fall by as much as 0.5 degrees, at least according to the most recent CR run. This is nothing unusual of course, just unusual for this particular winter. 

Related question: as far as cooling the planet overall goes (i.e. maximising radiative losses into space), is it better to have all the cold air bottled up in the Arctic, or to have it dissipate into the NH as a whole? Or doesn't it matter as the overall heat still gets averaged out?

 

 

Related question: as far as cooling the planet overall goes (i.e. maximising radiative losses into space), is it better to have all the cold air bottled up in the Arctic, or to have it dissipate into the NH as a whole? Or doesn't it matter as the overall heat still gets averaged out?

At a guess: black body radiation is proportional to 4th power of absolute temp. So if you have two equal areas one at high temp, one at low, you will lose more by radiation than if you had all the area at the same temp. 

But then there's the question of whether that radiation is of the frequency to be absorbed by the atmosphere. and the earth is not an ideal black body anyway, and if the low temp area is covered by ice that would reduce the total radiation further.

Or am I talking b*****cks?

 

At a guess: black body radiation is proportional to 4th power of absolute temp. So if you have two equal areas one at high temp, one at low, you will lose more by radiation than if you had all the area at the same temp. 

But then there's the question of whether that radiation is of the frequency to be absorbed by the atmosphere. and the earth is not an ideal black body anyway, and if the low temp area is covered by ice that would reduce the total radiation further.

Or am I talking b*****cks?

Yes I was thinking (from my long-ago physics classes) that more areas at a higher temperature would result in more heat loss. But then it would presumably be the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) that would be radiating out to space, and as we know the temperature of the strat is pretty much unrelated to the temperature at the surface!

Popped into this thread a few times, and I'm not sure whether "unusually cold" is referring to air aloft or temperatures at the surface?

Above is the daily mean temperature and climate north of the 80th northern parallel estimated from the average of the 00z and 12z ECM analysis for all model grid points inside that area. 

Popped into this thread a few times, and I'm not sure whether "unusually cold" is referring to air aloft or temperatures at the surface?

 

Above is the daily mean temperature and climate north of the 80th northern parallel estimated from the average of the 00z and 12z ECM analysis for all model grid points inside that area. 

Is that not a relatively small proportion of the Arctic?

 

Is that not a relatively small proportion of the Arctic?

It's the High Arctic, yes - but is there an anomaly of above average temps there and below average elsewhere in the arctic circle then? Genuine question!

 

It's the High Arctic, yes - but is there an anomaly of above average temps there and below average elsewhere in the arctic circle then? Genuine question!

Genuine answer. No idea  (but it’s a fair question and my point was just to suggest that what you are asking is at least in theory a possibility, but I have not checked).

Popped into this thread a few times, and I'm not sure whether "unusually cold" is referring to air aloft or temperatures at the surface?

 

Above is the daily mean temperature and climate north of the 80th northern parallel estimated from the average of the 00z and 12z ECM analysis for all model grid points inside that area. 

Yes this is a little confusing. A few points to clear it up

a) DMI is only the region around the North pole not the arctic ocean as a whole. The north pole has been slightly less cold than, for example, the beaufort or barents.

b) Even above average can mean 'unusually cold'. The arctic is warming so rapidaly that every single year sees winter temperatures 10+C above the line on DMI. Compare it to some previous years and you will see what I mean! If you did, say, a linear fit of the arctic temperature over the last 40 or so years you'd get a steep positive line. 2020 would be well below that line though even if it is well above an average from the 80s, 90s or even 00s.

c) And even if there are positive anomolies over the arctic there are even higher positive anomolies on the NHem continents. Most recent winters you see insanely high positive anomolies in the arctic and neutral or negative anomolies on the continents. This year it has flipped.

 

Genuine answer. No idea  (but it’s a fair question and my point was just to suggest that what you are asking is at least in theory a possibility, but I have not checked).

Thanks , I'm hoping for an anomaly chart posting from someone who's got a better bookmark collection than me.

 

Yes this is a little confusing. A few points to clear it up

a) DMI is only the region around the North pole not the arctic ocean as a whole. The north pole has been slightly less cold than, for example, the beaufort or barents.

b) Even above average can mean 'unusually cold'. The arctic is warming so rapidaly that every single year sees winter temperatures 10+C above the line on DMI. Compare it to some previous years and you will see what I mean! If you did, say, a linear fit of the arctic temperature over the last 40 or so years you'd get a steep positive line. 2020 would be well below that line though even if it is well above an average from the 80s, 90s or even 00s.

c) And even if there are positive anomolies over the arctic there are even higher positive anomolies on the NHem continents. Most recent winters you see insanely high positive anomolies in the arctic and neutral or negative anomolies on the continents. This year it has flipped.

 

Thanks Q 

Oh one final point.

2m temps are strongly related, also, to the thickness and quality of the sea ice. This is largelly the reason why Global warming affects the arctic ocean more strongly than any other reason.

So even below average 850hpa temps (compared to say the 80s) may well give above average 2m temps because the sea ice is only 1m thick compared to 3m thick.

If this were to verify for next weekend (and a high chance that it won't) it would make it the lowest temp anom over the greater Arctic region (60 N)  for this time of year since 1989!