Heat Dome Moves Over Arctic

July 28, 2019

Posted by greenman3610
Filed in Crock of the Week

8 Comments »

8 Responses to “Heat Dome Moves Over Arctic”

grindupbaker Says:

July 28, 2019 at 8:09 pm
Thanks. I’ve calculated that 24% of the effect on northern hemisphere mid-high latitude air circulation patterns due to less summer ice cover on the Arctic Ocean has already happened (from Peter Wadhams’ power fluxes) so 76% still to occur as the Arctic Ocean moves to no sea ice on June 22nd (I just chose summer start as an exemplar). The full 100% I calculated is:
When the Arctic Ocean has essentially zero sea ice in mid-late June I’ve calculated that the warming over 90 days of summer averages 87 w / m**2, which is:
60 w / m**2 additional solar radiation absorbed.
27 w / m**2 instead of latent heat of ice.
——————
87 w / m**2 Total
The 60 w / m**2 is for latitude 75.6N the approximate median of the Arctic Ocean (it should be re-done at 74.4N to account for Hudson Bay properly) using an albedo plot for multple conditions from a posting on Skeptical Science (SKS).
According to Peter Wadhams 21 w / m**2 has happened since ~1980 so that’s 66 w / m**2 to happen yet, so that’s 24% has happened and 76% is to happen yet, then the effect is completed.
63 w / m**2 is my fairly good approximation of average heat to the Arctic Ocean from lower latitudes in spring/summer/autumn based on 20-190 w/m**2 annual variation (Kevin Trenberth but a poor video quality).
So if all air to the Arctic Ocean stopped in response to the +87 w / m**2 (which would cause huge change in mid latitude northern wind patterns) then it would be 87-63=24 w / m**2 warming the Arctic Ocean in summer/autumn such as the ESAS but I’m sure part of the 63 w / m**2 will still be sent there. I’ll not be able to estimate how much, I think that requires climate modelling (the expensive stuff that has cost hundreds of millions, not me) and fancy schmancy climate scientists with floppy hats. Just for example suppose it still sends half then there’s 87-31=56 w / m**2 warming the Arctic Ocean in summer/autumn. You can easily work out how much that will warm the water to ~30m depth (maybe).
——————
As sea ice declines in summer and Arctic Ocean absorbs more sunshine the lower latitudes will send less heat to the Arctic Ocean. That’s actually what this wonky Jet Stream cause is all about (that and the Coriolis Effect and that the Coriolis Effect is exponential because west–>east acceleration, not west–>east velocity, is proportional to south–>north velocity).

Reply
- grindupbaker Says:
  
  July 28, 2019 at 8:11 pm
  I forgot to add that I haven’t a clue whether this European summer heat event is part of the air circulation pattern changes I mention above.
  
  Reply
redskylite Says:

July 29, 2019 at 1:49 am
Unfortunately most Arctic events are not well reported by most news outlets, so good on PBS and the Washington Post for publicizing the heat dome over the Arctic event.

On top of the unprecedented wildfires, it will have a profound effect. Atmospheric CO2 has been climbing up a bit higher of late and this won’t help. Rampant wildfire in the lungs of the North.

Good on Think Progress for reporting it to.

The Arctic’s on fire and now it’s going to be hit by a heat wave
Things aren’t looking good.

https://thinkprogress.org/arctic-fire-heat-wave-europe-climate-change-melting-bad-89735ea2c172/

Reply
- redskylite Says:
  
  July 29, 2019 at 1:54 am
  And the Siberian Times for a view from the East . . . If we worry about the Amazon rain-forest we should worry about the Northern Tundra too.
  
  “Some 784,931 hectares of wildfires are raging on permafrost zones including the Arctic in Yakutia – officially Sakha Republic – and the Khanty-Mansi autonomous region, causing possibly irreparable damage to the tundra.
  
  Other infernos are sweeping through boreal forests which are known as the lungs of the Northern Hemisphere.
  
  Here, centuries-old cedar, pine and larch trees are turn to ashes.
  
  In many – indeed most – areas the authorities acknowledge they will not be able to extinguish the fires because the areas are too remote or do not threaten people or strategic facilities.
  
  The cost of putting them out is seen as too great.
  
  https://siberiantimes.com/ecology/others/news/more-than-two-million-hectares-on-fire-in-siberia-with-turndra-on-fire-destryoing-the-permafrost/
  
  Reply
Raymond Horstman Says:

July 29, 2019 at 2:59 am
for this single day I find nothing to worry about. For Antarctica the temperature anmaly is -2.1 degrees celsius.

Reply
- Sir Charles Says:
  
  July 29, 2019 at 3:36 am
  Where in the Antarctica? It’s a continent, dude. So you’re puling your well-being right out of your butt.
  
  Reply
  - dumboldguy Says:
    
    July 29, 2019 at 8:55 am
    Not to overstate the obvious, but Antarctica does not (yet) have the impact that “doings” in the Arctic have. The Arctic is intimately interwoven with the weather of the northern hemisphere and should be our main focus.
    
    Reply
- grindupbaker Says:
  
  July 29, 2019 at 11:24 am
  Although a bit simplistic, part of the strategic picture is that the warming (or much of it) is happening underwater around Antarctica, such as ~800 m below the surface. See/hear https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSVM_4tNeY0 (I have 3 comprehensive Eric Rignot talks on Utube bookmarked but I see now that all have been “removed by user” in the last 3 months).
  
  Reply