So, what's happening in the Arctic now is kinda crazy, but also really important to extreme weather throughout the northern hemisphere. Read my piece today on the topic, but here's a Thread:
yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/10/warmer…
First, the basics: there's a "positive feedback" (positive in the negative sense, Trump would say), like a mutually destructive relationship. Warming melts ice & snow in the Arctic, making the surface less reflective -> absorb more sunlight -> warm more -> melt more -> etc. 1/n
As a result, the Arctic is warming 3x faster than the global avg, and sea ice is disappearing fast. Half Arctic sea ice surface area and 75% of its volume disappeared in summers between 1979 and 2012.

Then 2014–2020 were the 7 hottest years on record. Guess what happened? 2/n
Polar scientists kept expecting a new record summer minimum Arctic sea ice low, but no! There were new record lows in winters and springs, but something kept happening in August/September to preserve some ice and prevent a new summer minimum record. 3/n
The 2012 summer Arctic sea ice minimum record still stands, as this great visualization from @ahaveland illustrates 4/n
So, what the hell? The hell, posit Jennifer Francis and Bingyi Wu in a new paper, is that the melting Arctic snow and ice are disrupting the jet stream, often causing low-pressure cloudy systems to linger in the Arctic in Aug/Sep, keeping temps cool & winds spreading the ice 5/n
But this doesn't happen every year. It didn't happen in 2019 and 2020, which, as you can see in the @ahaveland video above, both nearly broke the summer sea ice minimum record. The melting snow & ice are ironically creating conditions to preserve some summer sea ice, but...6/n
This effect is only enough to temporarily slow the 'Arctic sea ice death spiral.' Global warming is relentless, whereas the summer cloudy Arctic weather systems are sporadic. Another new paper predicted ice-free Arctic summers beginning somewhere between about 2030 and 2050 7/n
So what's up with the jet stream? The temp difference between the Arctic & lower latitudes creates a force that moves it along. Like a river current, air currents tend to go straight when fast & meander when slow. Faster warming in Arctic = less temp diff = slower jet stream 8/n
Slower, wavier jet steam means the air current doesn't move weather systems along, so they tend to get stuck in the jet stream waves. Like the low-pressure cloudy summer Arctic systems, but also high pressure systems in Scandanavia, Canada, etc., creating nasty heatwaves 9/n
Other papers have linked these Arctic-connected wavy jet stream patterns to winter high-pressure ridges off the coast of California, like the one that contributed to the state's worst drought in a millennium in 2012–2016, or the one that caused Europe's deadly 2003 heatwave 10/n
There are lots of other examples in this 2018 study led by @MichaelEMann of these 'quasi-resonant amplification' jet steam wave events being connected to extreme weather events (11/n):
advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/10/e…
There's a fast-growing body of climate science research on these connections between changes in the Arctic, the jet stream, and extreme weather events getting stuck. Hurricanes may even be slowing down & wreaking more havoc as a result, though we need more research on that (12/n)
Anyway, it's all very fascinating stuff. To abuse the cliché, what happens in the Arctic doesn't stay in the Arctic. Now, if you haven't yet, read my article! (13/13)
yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/10/warmer…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dana Nuccitelli

Dana Nuccitelli Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @dana1981

1 May
Today @CC_Yale published my article debunking Michael Moore & Jeff Gibbs' garbage anti-clean energy film.

Fellow environmentalists, I'd like to have a word. Please read my piece and then step into my Twitter office, if you would.
yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/05/michae…
We've been fighting for climate action (without a lot of success) for over 30 years now. The reason we haven't won isn't that @algore or @billmckibben are secret evil villains, as Moore and Gibbs would have us believe.

It's that THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY ARE ACTUAL VILLAINS!!
Fossil fuel companies have spent billions of dollars undermining climate policy proposals, international climate negotiations, and spreading doubt about climate science among the public, even as their own scientists warned them about climate change before I was even born.
Read 9 tweets
21 Apr
There is soooooooo much misleading junk in this film. Most of it is focused on biomass from wood, which supplies 2% of energy in the US. And wind turbines are bad because ... they only last several decades and NIMBYs don't like them?

I yelled at the screen 3 times watching this.
The film's solution is, I guess don't use any energy because no source of energy is perfect? There's no comparison of pros and cons, no consideration of benefits at all. It only looks at the downside of every source of energy and thus basically concludes that civilization is bad.
My favorite part was when they looked at a former solar farm location in Daggett, CA, now just sand, and declared the revelation that it's become a "solar wasteland."

I pulled up Google Maps and found Daggett in the Mojave Desert. It's all sand out there!!! WTF?!
Read 8 tweets
15 Oct 19
@sarahknapton You should have dived deeper, because this article is full of inaccuracies.

1) "the warming trend is slower than most climate models have forecast."

False: skepticalscience.com/comparing-glob…
@sarahknapton 2) "In 1990 the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted that temperatures would rise by 0.54F (0.3C) per decade."

False: skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-p…
@sarahknapton 3) "Yet, some scientists argue that [CO2] is not capable of producing the extreme temperature rises seen in recent decades."

You can also find "some scientists" who argue the Earth is flat. There's a 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming.
skepticalscience.com/global-warming…
Read 32 tweets
8 Oct 19
Really interesting report on California GHG emissions by @Next10: next10.org/publications/2…

A thread follows, with lots of pretty charts!

Overall, CA is doing well, already beating its 2020 target of bringing emissions below 1990 levels (1/n)
@Next10 But emissions cuts will need to accelerate in order to meet the state's aggressive 2030 and 2050 targets
@Next10 Transportation is California's Achilles heel, now over 40% of the state's overall GHG emissions.
Read 12 tweets
15 Mar 19
Wow, @AOC is the only one in the room (including Wilbur Ross and his lawyers) aware that 1) the proposed census citizenship question wording is substantively different from the previous version, and 2) such wording changes must be submitted to Congress law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/13…
For those interested in the details of the law that @AOC references, it says Secretary Ross must submit one report to Congress detailing the subjects to be included in the census [Section (f)(1)], and a second report with the census questions [Section (f)(2)] ...
Those are the 2 reports Ross answers that he submitted. But Section (f)(3) says that if the census topics or Qs have changed, he must submit a third report explaining to Congress why he decided to change it. @AOC caught Ross failing to do that after adding the citizenship Q.
Read 4 tweets
15 Feb 19
A president who declares climate change a national emergency can then:

1) suspend all offshore oil leases
2) take steps to support 'critical technologies' like batteries & EVs
3) potentially restrict fossil fuel transport
4) regulate fossil fuel companies
legal-planet.org/2019/01/14/usi…
Redirecting military funds as @realDonaldTrump is trying to do for the border wall would be tricky. Doing so would need to 'require use of Armed Forces' to redirect Army civil works projects funds to 'projects that are essential to the national defense.' law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33…
or similarly, still making the case that use of the armed forces is necessary, authorize projects 'that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces.' law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10…
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!