The Ice Age Cometh! Forget Global Warming!

[paralleloscope]

There is also a guy with an interesent theory about it :

_http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/04/sudden-stratospheric-warmings-causes-effects.html

That link was quite helpful for getting my head around how relatively warmer air can get dumped into the polar vortex, thanks.

Here's a 3d animation of a 2009 SSW event. Nice top-down view of temperature gradients mixing and vortex developments:

http://<iframe width="560" height="...5w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[angelburst29]

Rare event: Russian lake freezes for first time in ten years
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/rare-event-russian-lake-freezes-for-first-time-in-ten-years.html

Siberian Times is reporting that Kurile Lake in the Russian Far East has frozen over after an unusually long period of frigid temps,
despite misleading claims by NOAA that 2016 is already the warmest year on record. The lake, also known as Kurilskoye Lake, is located in the Southern Kamchatka Wildlife Refuge in the Russian Far East on the Kamchatka Peninsula. The last time this rare event happened was ten years ago. This unusual freezing event is also causing problems for the local wildlife. Especially the Steller's sea eagle, a long-beaked bird of the eagle family that relies on the lake to hunt for fish (see slideshow).

The freezing of Kurile Lake has forced the sea eagles to "relocate because the ice holes in which they catch fish have frozen over." The Stellar and other birds have been "forced to relocate to Avacha Bay, near Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky." The lake is about 30 square miles in size and one of the largest freshwater lakes. The thick layer of ice is impenetrable to these giant raptors, which can weigh anywhere from 11 to 20 pounds. It's one of the largest eagle birds, with a long yellow beak and sharp talons.

Despite temperatures around the lake dipping to below minus 20 degrees Celsius (-70° F), the Kurile Lake rarely freezes. But "two weeks of calm weather and low temperatures in February ... shackled the surface of the lake with a thick layer of ice." Two reasons it rarely ices over are its warm thermal waters and the "warming effect of the nearby Sea of Okhotsk."

The lake formed in the calderas from two large volcanic explosions, one that occurred 41,500 years ago and the other around 6,440 B.C. There are some hot mineral springs nearby but access to the lake is limited due to its remote location. A nearby volcano occasionally burps out ash (see slideshow), but there hasn't been a cataclysmic eruption for over 8,000 years.



Heat From Deep Ocean Fault Punches Hole in Arctic Ice Sheet
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/heat-from-deep-ocean-fault-punches-hole-in-arctic-ice-sheet.html

Back dated November 6, 2015 - As winter begins to settle in across the Arctic Ocean and sea ice extent rapidly expands a very interesting high temperature and low salinity hole has just been punched in the sea ice at a very telling location: directly above the deep ocean Gakkel Ridge Rift / Fault System (Figures 1, 2, and 3).

This world class plate tectonic pull-apart rift is a 1,000-mile-long fault system on the seafloor that has in recent past pulsed massive amounts of heat into the overlying ocean and thereby melting large portions of the ice that floats above the heated ocean column.

So what if anything is to be learned from the recent October 12 geologically induced deep-ocean floor heat pulse that punched a small hole in the Arctic sea ice? Many things, most of which have surprisingly large implications concerning the entire climate change discussion.

The small geologically induced deep-ocean heat and fluid flow event of October 12 eloquently demonstrates that geological forces are still active and have the power to alter Arctic climate and climate-related events, melt sea ice.

Keep in mind this latest October 12 event is not associated with obvious earthquake swarms and proven volcanic eruptions as was the case during the 1999 – 2007 event. This earlier event was powerful but not obvious to those who did not understand its true nature. Even though it was associated with an extensive low intensity earthquake swarm, a huge methane release, and a significant series of volcanic eruptions along the Gakkel Ridge it was, and still is dismissed as insignificant by most climate scientists advocating the theory of man-made global warming.

However many other scientists now realize that the 1999-2007 Gakkel Ridge heat and chemically charged fluid flow event was the root cause of accelerated the Arctic sea ice melting rate. An event that fits well with the Plate Climatology Theory, geological forces strongly influence climate.

 

[Eol]

That link was quite helpful for getting my head around how relatively warmer air can get dumped into the polar vortex, thanks.

Happy that it can help you ;D.


I can't reach the image that i published previously. I don't know if it's the same thing for you, so i re-introduced it with few others.

[Kumar et al., 2000]

Our results are strong evidence that turbulence, both via turbulent heating and downward heat transport, is a factor in maintaining inversion layers.

[Lehmacher et al., 2006]

Downward heat because the layer above the mesosphere is the thermosphere wich warms by rising at high altitude.

 

[Laura]

Heat From Deep Ocean Fault Punches Hole in Arctic Ice Sheet
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/heat-from-deep-ocean-fault-punches-hole-in-arctic-ice-sheet.html

Back dated November 6, 2015 - As winter begins to settle in across the Arctic Ocean and sea ice extent rapidly expands a very interesting high temperature and low salinity hole has just been punched in the sea ice at a very telling location: directly above the deep ocean Gakkel Ridge Rift / Fault System (Figures 1, 2, and 3).

This world class plate tectonic pull-apart rift is a 1,000-mile-long fault system on the seafloor that has in recent past pulsed massive amounts of heat into the overlying ocean and thereby melting large portions of the ice that floats above the heated ocean column.

So what if anything is to be learned from the recent October 12 geologically induced deep-ocean floor heat pulse that punched a small hole in the Arctic sea ice? Many things, most of which have surprisingly large implications concerning the entire climate change discussion.

The small geologically induced deep-ocean heat and fluid flow event of October 12 eloquently demonstrates that geological forces are still active and have the power to alter Arctic climate and climate-related events, melt sea ice.

Keep in mind this latest October 12 event is not associated with obvious earthquake swarms and proven volcanic eruptions as was the case during the 1999 – 2007 event. This earlier event was powerful but not obvious to those who did not understand its true nature. Even though it was associated with an extensive low intensity earthquake swarm, a huge methane release, and a significant series of volcanic eruptions along the Gakkel Ridge it was, and still is dismissed as insignificant by most climate scientists advocating the theory of man-made global warming.

However many other scientists now realize that the 1999-2007 Gakkel Ridge heat and chemically charged fluid flow event was the root cause of accelerated the Arctic sea ice melting rate. An event that fits well with the Plate Climatology Theory, geological forces strongly influence climate.

Interestingly, the Cs mentioned a volcanic eruption under arctic ice back in 1995. They said it would occur in 1996 and, I believe, a small eruption was reported then. After that, the topic got rather quiet though there have been others reported almost in passing, but no one every gave it much attention. What this remark suggested to me was that there was a lot more to so-called human caused global warming than met the eye and that may certainly be why it is somewhat suppressed. Can't have people knowing that ice melt is NOT due to human causes because there's no political capital in that.

Much later, I read the sci-fi novel, "Mother of Storms" which starts off with an atomic explosion in the arctic that melts the ice and releases a massive amount of methane which causes a sudden global warming which then leads to a sudden need for "heat exchange" in the global weather system, which leads to the superstorms that nearly destroy the earth. Very sci-fi, but it made me think.

But, the above article brings a bit of perspective to this matter. Since so many other undersea events have been reported over the past ten to fifteen years - bubbling up of gasses, swelling of domes, discovery of whole chains of undersea volcanoes going active, it is really surprising that more attention hasn't been given to this and, concomitantly, that a lot more people aren't getting worried by it! I've been saying for years that I think the heat of "global warming" is coming from INSIDE OUR PLANET mainly, and in some kind of dynamic interaction with the cosmic environment, and certainly not from human causes.

 

[Windmill knight]

Heat From Deep Ocean Fault Punches Hole in Arctic Ice Sheet
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/heat-from-deep-ocean-fault-punches-hole-in-arctic-ice-sheet.html

...

However many other scientists now realize that the 1999-2007 Gakkel Ridge heat and chemically charged fluid flow event was the root cause of accelerated the Arctic sea ice melting rate. An event that fits well with the Plate Climatology Theory, geological forces strongly influence climate.

...

But, the above article brings a bit of perspective to this matter. Since so many other undersea events have been reported over the past ten to fifteen years - bubbling up of gasses, swelling of domes, discovery of whole chains of undersea volcanoes going active, it is really surprising that more attention hasn't been given to this and, concomitantly, that a lot more people aren't getting worried by it! I've been saying for years that I think the heat of "global warming" is coming from INSIDE OUR PLANET mainly, and in some kind of dynamic interaction with the cosmic environment, and certainly not from human causes.

Two years ago the hardcore warmists (including some involved in the Climategate) were upset because of the lack of warming for the last 18 years or so, so they decided to come up with an explanation for that. They said that there was indeed warming, but that it was manifesting in the oceans and not the atmosphere, probably due to some wind and surface water temperature exchange phenomenon. That was, in spite of the fact that the warming seemed to be happening in deeper waters, rather than on the surface. It was a sad case of fitting the square peg on the round hole. And of course it never occurred to them that there could be other causes for the warming of deep sea waters, such as an overall increased volcanic activity.

 

[angelburst29]

Heat From Deep Ocean Fault Punches Hole in Arctic Ice Sheet
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/heat-from-deep-ocean-fault-punches-hole-in-arctic-ice-sheet.html

Back dated November 6, 2015 - As winter begins to settle in across the Arctic Ocean and sea ice extent rapidly expands a very interesting high temperature and low salinity hole has just been punched in the sea ice at a very telling location: directly above the deep ocean Gakkel Ridge Rift / Fault System (Figures 1, 2, and 3).

Interestingly, the Cs mentioned a volcanic eruption under arctic ice back in 1995. They said it would occur in 1996 and, I believe, a small eruption was reported then. After that, the topic got rather quiet though there have been others reported almost in passing, but no one every gave it much attention. What this remark suggested to me was that there was a lot more to so-called human caused global warming than met the eye and that may certainly be why it is somewhat suppressed. Can't have people knowing that ice melt is NOT due to human causes because there's no political capital in that.

Much later, I read the sci-fi novel, "Mother of Storms" which starts off with an atomic explosion in the arctic that melts the ice and releases a massive amount of methane which causes a sudden global warming which then leads to a sudden need for "heat exchange" in the global weather system, which leads to the superstorms that nearly destroy the earth. Very sci-fi, but it made me think.

But, the above article brings a bit of perspective to this matter. Since so many other undersea events have been reported over the past ten to fifteen years - bubbling up of gasses, swelling of domes, discovery of whole chains of undersea volcanoes going active, it is really surprising that more attention hasn't been given to this and, concomitantly, that a lot more people aren't getting worried by it! I've been saying for years that I think the heat of "global warming" is coming from INSIDE OUR PLANET mainly, and in some kind of dynamic interaction with the cosmic environment, and certainly not from human causes.

October 1996 Ice–volcano interaction of the 1996 Gjálp subglacial eruption, Vatnajökull, Iceland
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v389/n6654/full/389954a0.html

[...] observations from the fissure eruption at Vatnajökull ice cap, Iceland, in October 1996. In the 13 days of the eruption 3 km3 of ice were melted and the erupted magma fragmented into glass forming a hyaloclastite ridge 6–7 km long and 200–300 m high under 500–750 m of ice. Meltwater of temperatures of 15–20 °C flowed along a narrow channel at the glacier bed into the Grímsvötn subglacial lake for five weeks, before draining in a sudden flood, or jökulhlaup. Subsidence and crevassing of the ice cap occurred over the eruptive fissure and the meltwater path, whereas elsewhere the glacier surface remained intact, suggesting that subglacial eruptions do not trigger widespread basal sliding in warm-based glaciers.


June 26, 2008 Fire under the ice: volcanic eruption under the Arctic
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=9103.0
http://www.sott.net/article/160630-Fire-under-the-ice-Gigantic-


Feb. 18, 2016 Scientists are floored by what’s happening in the Arctic right now
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/18/scientists-are-floored-by-whats-happening-in-the-arctic-right-now/

New data from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration suggest that January of 2016 was, for the globe, a truly extraordinary month. Coming off the hottest year ever recorded (2015), January saw the greatest departure from average of any month on record, according to data provided by NASA.

But as you can see in the NASA figure above, the record breaking heat wasn’t uniformly distributed — it was particularly pronounced at the top of the world, showing temperature anomalies above 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than the 1951 to 1980 average in this region.

“We’ve got this huge El Niño out there, we have the warm blob in the northeast Pacific, the cool blob in the Atlantic, and this ridiculously warm Arctic,” says Jennifer Francis, a climate researcher at Rutgers University who focuses on the Arctic and has argued that Arctic changes are changing mid-latitude weather by causing wobbles in the jet stream. “All these things happening at the same time that have never happened before.”


Feb. 19, 2015 - Arctic Heat & Sea Ice Collapse Has Split the Polar Vortex in Two Sending El Niño Rains to Alaska
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/19/1487234/-Arctic-Heat-Sea-Ice-Collapse-Has-Split-the-Polar-Vortex-in-Two-Sending-El-Ni-o-Rains-to-Alaska

Intense storm after intense storm is spinning way, way above normal sea surface temperatures from the Gulf Stream around the deep cold subpolar gyre into the Arctic. Sea ice on the Atlantic side has retreated towards the pole to record low area and extent for January through mid-February. Arctic temperatures have extraordinarily warm for six weeks.

[...] Profound changes have taken place in the north Atlantic since 1997. Recent research by Dr. Stephan Rahmsdorf has found evidence of a long-term slow down in deep water formation in the Labrador and Greenland seas. This is commonly referred to as a “Gulf Stream slowdown”. However, from the late 1980’s through 1995, very stormy, cold winters brought renewed intensity to deep water formation. The resurgence of the “global conveyor belt” intensified the flow of warm water up the coast of Norway into the Arctic seas. By the year 2000 sea ice in the Barents sea began to retreat as warm north Atlantic water, which partially originated in the Gulf Stream, pushed into the Arctic. Since 1995, Atlantic deep water formation has slowed, in part, because the melting of glaciers in Greenland and throughout the Arctic, has freshened the waters. Freshened water is lighter than salty water so it slows deep convection.

In 2010 the Gulf Stream, itself, slowed down. Although the Gulf Stream recovered quickly, deep water formation did not. Transport of warm water across 50ºN dropped, and by 2013 the rapid loss if sea ice stopped. September Arctic sea ice extent, area and volume ice all made a large recovery in September 2014. The slowdown led Dr. Stephen Yeager, in 2015, to predict a slowdown in sea ice loss on the Atlantic side of the Arctic in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Something happened that Dr. Yeager didn’t expect . The Gulf Stream expanded northwards. The southwards flow of Labrador Current water slowed. The wall of the Gulf Stream moved to the north and warm Gulf Stream eddies replaced the missing cool water. Water off the east cost got much warmer and saltier. Coastal storms intensified (e.g. Sandy).

In winter 2015 the warm water fueled record snow storms in Boston. The storms off the east coast that moved northeastwards built an atmospheric vortex around Greenland. By late February extraordinarily deep lows off the tip of Greenland caused sea surface heights to plummet indicating that deep water formation had strengthened there. Record cold sea surface temperatures in the gyre in the seas off of Labrador and Greenland began to mix through the warm salty layer of Mediterranean water at a depth of 3000 feet (1000 meters). Then the flow of warm water up the coast of Norway into the Arctic sea strengthened.

Apparently, the increasing salinity of the subtropical water resulting from the warming and drying of the subtropical and tropical Atlantic has partially canceled out the decreasing salinity of the subpolar waters resulting from glacial melting.

But we have a problem. Either the “Gulf Stream” is strong and warm waters melt away the sea ice of the “Gulf Stream” slows down and the heat builds up in the tropical and subtropical Atlantic. Greenhouse gases have created a large imbalance between the radiation coming in and going out and the excess heat is going into the oceans. The north Atlantic has taken up an extraordinary amount of heat that is intensifying storms and changing atmospheric circulation patterns.


Feb. 2016 Arctic Sea Ice Blog - An exceptional exception
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2016/02/an-exceptional-exception.html

I want to highlight a couple of things to give you an idea of what's going on in the Arctic right now. As some of you may already know, this year's trend line is the lowest on record in practically every graph (see here). So far, it has played a major role in the breaking of Global sea ice area and extent minimum records, and it looks highly possible that last year's Arctic sea ice maximum record gets broken too. Mind you, that record was already spectacularly early and low, which is why I referred to it as Mad Max at the time.

Here's the current situation on the Cryosphere Today sea ice area and JAXA sea ice extent graph (as provided by ADS-NIPR):
2015 peaked on this date in the CT SIA data set, but this year is currently 700K lower (last week's preliminary peak was almost 600K lower). The 2015 maximum occurred on February 15th in the JAXA SIE data set, but this year's preliminary peak is almost 274K lower. That's no small change, if things stay this way.

When area/extent is exceptionally low, it's usually a sign of something going on one side of the Arctic, while things are relatively quiet on the other side. This year, however, there's stuff going on on both sides of the Arctic. I'll start with the Pacific side of the Arctic, where regional extent is again very low in the Bering Sea, though high in the Sea of Okhotsk (these graphs are produced by Wipneus and can be found on the Regional Graphs page):

It has been very cold in the Sea of Okhotsk in the past week or two, but the Bering simply doesn't budge, despite strong northerlies, just like last year.

The spectacle is taking place in the Beaufort Sea, however, where yet another cracking event is causing the ice pack to look like a broken mirror. The cause of the cracking is a very strong Beaufort Gyre that started spinning when the Arctic Oscillation switched to its negative phase. In other words, a high-pressure system settled over the central Arctic and the ice pack followed the clockwise motion of the winds. But a side-effect of all this, as can be seen on the AVHRR image is that ice is being pulled away from the Canadian and Alaskan coasts, leaving huge polynyas behind.

Just how big the difference is compared to 2015 can also be seen on LANCE-MODIS true color satellite images, as the darkness retreats northwards and more and more of the Arctic becomes visible again. Here's an animation showing February 13th 2015 vs 2016:

Freezing or not, these temperature anomalies are astounding, and it remains to be seen how much thicker that new ice can get before the Sun starts beating down it, longer and longer every day.

In the meantime, on the Atlantic side of the Arctic, it seems that the incessant series of Atlantic storms have been preventing ice expansion with their moist, warm air (also visible on the temp map above), as regional extent is extremely low in the Barentsz and Greenland Seas, despite plenty of transport through Fram Strait (see this animation posted by Wipneus on the ASIF):

I've added the Kara Sea because it has been dropping too since last week. The reason for that became clear to me when I made this animation of Uni Bremen sea ice concentration maps:

Due to persistent westerly winds the sea ice south of Novaya Zemlya is retreating, reminiscent of 2011 and 2012, although things were a lot more spectacular in February 2012. But it could retreat some more, given the current forecasts of more westerly winds and extreme temperature anomalies:

 

[Eol]

Just want to say thank you angelburst29, here, and the others by posting all your stuff every days in the forum. It help a lot, don't doubt about it !

 

[Chad]

But, the above article brings a bit of perspective to this matter. Since so many other undersea events have been reported over the past ten to fifteen years - bubbling up of gasses, swelling of domes, discovery of whole chains of undersea volcanoes going active, it is really surprising that more attention hasn't been given to this and, concomitantly, that a lot more people aren't getting worried by it! I've been saying for years that I think the heat of "global warming" is coming from INSIDE OUR PLANET mainly, and in some kind of dynamic interaction with the cosmic environment, and certainly not from human causes.

OK, so i watched two videos, the first he's been featured on Sott before and from what i gathered he doesn't buy the SSW theory, he provides mainstream examples but he doesn't believe them, i think. He says: grand solar minimum, cooling oceans and a general change in our climate. Screenshot below to save time. He mentions the Russian frozen lake, which AngelBurst linked to.

The second video may be more interesting in terms of how this is occruing.

Arctic Spring Temperatures Explained Away by Stratospheric Warming | Mini Ice Age 2015-2015

http://<iframe width="560" height="...xA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Published on 4 Mar 2016

Snowy spring with far below temperatures are being explained by Sudden Stratospheric Warming for Europe and the UK. Yes, thats right because its getting so warm in the atmosphere above the Earth at 100km, its causing cooling and Siberian temperatures across Europe for the rest of March and April.

This is the new media play, when it gets cold, blame warming to keep the CO2 narrative alive.

one of the links provided:

Effect of polar sudden stratospheric warming on the tropical stratosphere and troposphere and its surface signatures over the Indian region
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682613001946

Interestingly, this is the current state of the UK

The second video i watched this yesterday, it's a guy who i've followed since probably 2014 - he had a baby then came back to do videos and the recent one (60 mins+) i took some screenshots to give an idea of what he's saying and whether he has anything useful to say. He has demonstrated some interesting correlations, at least it seems to me, with Flux tubes, as well as how energy from the sun collects around the planet and then is discharged in blobs.

From his recent video, i think he's trying to show how these connections, our interactions with the other planets, geomagnetism, PLUS our sun's apparent twin, effect a lot of things like the weather. And sometimes not directly. And i think the solar minimum he says leads to even more crazy weather.

I don't know know either way so i post just for consideration:

Extreme Climate Changes & Magnetic Field Disturbances - Space Weather Fully Explained

Published on 1 Mar 2016

I am proud to present you the most current and probably the best model of interactions between geomagnetic field and climate on Earth. I am not a professional scientist and 90% of my research is based only on my own observation and interprtation of data, which is avaliabvle for public. I don't know, how many things, which you wil learn in this movie is already considered as facts, but if not, they will be treated as such shortly :) Movie is not edited in 100%, but I couldn't wait to publish it A.S.A.P.... 3 years of my adventure with space weather in a single summary...

http://<iframe width="420" height="...hI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Screenshots:

Also, he has a nifty page with many of the space monitors:

http://vibesoftheuniverse.cba.pl/index.php/en/

 

[Pierre]

Hi Eol,

If you have it, can you point us to resources explaining clearly this SSW phenomenon. What causes it? How can it reverse the Jet Stream?

Can't the cold stratospheric pockets over the UK and Japan be simply due to a Jet stream moving southward and meandering enabling the Polar air to reach 'low' latitudes, creating a relative 'vacuum' at high latitudes which pulls down stratospheric air that cools down while loosing altitude (compression) and generates 'warm' pockets in the low stratosphere?

Hi Pierre.

You can view this link for a good summary about SSWs :

_http://www.climatecentral.org/news/stratospheric-phenomenon-is-bringing-frigid-cold-to-us-15479

And for more, this study in French :

_https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01056057/document

There is also a guy with an interesent theory about it :

_http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/04/sudden-stratospheric-warmings-causes-effects.html

But basically, the dynamic about SSWs remain poorly understood. We know that there are "planetary wawes (rossby waves/gravity waves among others)" wich reach the stratosphere and release their potential in the form of heat. SSWs are related since 50', exclusively in the NH pole in winter (Juste 1 'anomaly' has been observed in the SH pole) . It because the polar vortex forms only in winter time and because of the topography. In the SH pole we have a polar vortex crossing exclusively continental ice. In the NH pole, the polar vortex cross successively lands and seas who can disrupts the winds. Winds generate this kind of "planetary waves". Some times, the winds generated by the polar vortex can be very disrupted (great amplitude). This winds generate thus planetary waves of great amplitude wich have the potential to reach the stratosphere. They break and heat the layer. It disrupte the polar stratopheric vortex wich has an impact in the tropospheric vortex and the Jet Stream. But for me, it's ring weird.

SSW have become more frequent (see links above). And for me, only the weakening of the jet stream can explain that. As you know, it's also a "current of wind".

Thanks for the links. Like you, I find this SSW theory weird. Nonetheless I noticed some interesting bits of data in those links (particularly the last one). Simpson describes a very unusual burst of heat:

As this animation so excellently displays, a wave of warm air moved up from South Central Asia in the weeks prior to the SSW event that occurred in early January 2013. This wave in fact seems to almost "explode" up into the stratosphere, almost like the warming you'd get from a volcanic eruption (again, hence the reason for early theories on SSW's looking for a volcanic connection).

Again, this bubble of warm air rises up to become a thermal wave over South Central Asia on about December 21, 2012 and seems to nearly explode to the north and to the east. The rapidity with which this wave forms, indicates that some very strong dynamical event was forcing warm air up into the stratosphere from the troposphere. It then moves north and east at 10 hPa stratospheric levels and higher.

Interestingly this heat burst seems to originate around 18° North. (I'll go back to that later)

I quote my earlier message :

Major SSWs are also increasing this past years. The phenomena in itself remain poorly understood. I have read a lot about this and it seems that the jet stream, SSWs and the polar vortex are connected. But not in the way said by Professor Adam Scaife. It is rather a weakening in the jet stream who generate wave of geat amplitude (gravity or Rossby waves) in the troposhpere which can carried a great energy potential and can break in the stratosphere, heating the layer and perturbating the polar stratospheric vortex which has an impact on the tropospheric vortex.


And the weaking of the jet stream this past years can be explained mainly by the decrased in the sun activity/atmospheric conductivity (What Pierre explain in his book). (other variables can come into play)
Some scientists have also make a connection between the jet stream and the sun's activity by the magnetic field's line. More activity related to more energetic particules reaching the poles which strengthens the polar jets. The opposite occure whith less solar activity.

the correlation between warming of the North pole and cooling of the equatorial region mentioned by Simpson is also consistent with a weakening Jet stream moving South. It sucks stratospheric air down towards the North Pole, while going down the stratospheric air compresses and therefore heats, conversely the Jet Streams moving South pushes equatorial air up, which in turn expands and cools down.

Can't the cold stratospheric pockets over the UK and Japan be simply due to a Jet stream moving southward and meandering enabling the Polar air to reach 'low' latitudes, creating a relative 'vacuum' at high latitudes which pulls down stratospheric air that cools down while loosing altitude (compression) and generates 'warm' pockets in the low stratosphere?

Yes i think you are right, the polar vortex and the jet stream are connected in this way. But maybe the SSWs could be the dynamic link beetwen both. (Notice that although major SSW occure approximately every two years, minor SSWs occure many times during winter time)

Indeed the causal agent for those temperature changes seems to be the Jet Stream. Stratospheric cooling/heating being one of the effect. Those source seem to have reversed the causality. It's good you mentioned the SSW because it's something I had overlooked and it does have effect at low altitude: local warming of the arctic region for example.

If you have it, can you point us to resources explaining clearly this SSW phenomenon. What causes it? How can it reverse the Jet Stream?

I think that the person who said that had difficulty in expressing the concept. When you look at the picture (c) above, we can see that when the jet stream is really weak, in the south downward phase phase, we have 'almost', even a reverse during a time, in the weasterlies wind.

That makes sense. It's not a reversal per se but a Jet stream that meanders so much that in some places it follows almost a Westwards trajectory.

Being a subject which interest me, I'm searching, reading intensly about this topic of upper cooling atmosphere since about 1 month (5-10h per day). I'm gathering many informations to expose them in the form of an article for my blog. (When i'm done with that, i will make a subject about it in the forum before the wrtting for collect your opinions)
I just can say quickly for now that for me, the colling of the upper atmopshere, her shrinkage and her contraction can not produce this kind of extreme flow down (Can participate, yes but not produce it) .

Please keep on searching! You're bringing very interesting information.

Only an incredibly thunderstorms (who propel HUGE gravity waves in the upper atmopshere, capable of invert the temperature gradient) or a bolid explosion in the atmopshere, like you describe in The Secret History of the World Book 2 (I guess it's in this one) and his shock wave are capable to do such thing.

I'm currently writing an article titled 'Why were mammoths flash frozen'. The central idea is that a superstorm (Superderecho_like) can deflect the Jet stream towards the Earth's surface leading to flash freezing and maybe even the onset of an ice age (turning on the albedo cooling cycle by freezing a large enough region).

Superderechos are documented events as well as accompanying Jet Stream downdrafts. It happens about every other year. It's even more likely to occur soon since a superstorm is basically powered by:
1/ temperature gradient :
- the planet's surface is warmer than usual (one of the warmest winter in modern history): exceptional El Nino, methane, CO, CO2 and SO2 releases (earth opening up, volcanic activity)...
- the stratosphere is the coldest since the beginning of the measurements in the 50's
and 2/ electrical gradient:
- the ionosphere is not so positive because of the weak Solar activity
- I suspect however that the planet may be more negative than usual. The assumption is that the approaching Nemesis does indeed reduce measurable Solar activity (hence the not-so positive ionosphere) BUT it also increases the energetic connection that recharges the planet's capacitor through its core (in a way similar to the one that powers galaxies and stars through their core). This energetic connection may cross the Earth's surface around 18° latitude, which would give an extra meaning to the latest El Nino and the heat burst mentioned above. If the Earth is getting more negative, a Jet Stream downdraft would be eased since it is a positively charged wind.
- cherry on the pie the increase in atmospheric dust (volcanic and meteoric activity) makes the atmosphere less conductive and therefore more prone to violent discharges (storms) rather than fair weather circulation: electrons raising from the negative surface towards the positive ionosphere in order to rebalance charges.

If the above is valid we currently have exceptionally large temperature and electrical gradient plus an atmosphere prone to violent discharge i.e. the perfect ingredients to cook a perfect storm, powerful and massive enough to deflect the Jet stream towards the Earth's surface.

Here is a picture showing the downwards deflection of the Jet Stream caused by a massive storm:

The picture above was extracted from this website that provides interesting information about storms (though it sticks to mainstream science and doesn't address the electric dimension, apart from lightnings).

 

[Voyageur]

And about Carbon Dioxide Wikipedia tells us:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

In Earth's atmosphere:

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere is a trace gas, currently (early 2016) having an average concentration of 402 parts per million by volume[3] (or 611 parts per million by mass). Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide fluctuate slightly with the seasons, falling during the Northern Hemisphere spring and summer as plants consume the gas and rising during northern autumn and winter as plants go dormant or die and decay. Concentrations also vary on a regional basis, most strongly near the ground with much smaller variations aloft. In urban areas concentrations are generally higher[44] and indoors they can reach 10 times background levels.

Combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation have caused the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to increase by about 43% since the beginning of the age of industrialization.[46] Most carbon dioxide from human activities is released from burning coal and other fossil fuels. Other human activities, including deforestation, biomass burning, and cement production also produce carbon dioxide. Volcanoes emit between 0.2 and 0.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, while human activities emit about 29 billion tons.[47]

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, absorbing and emitting infrared radiation at its two infrared-active vibrational frequencies (see Structure and bonding above). This process causes carbon dioxide to warm the surface and lower atmosphere, while cooling the upper atmosphere. The increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2, and thus in the CO2-induced greenhouse effect, is the reason for the rise in average global temperature since the mid-20th century. Although carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas primarily responsible for the rise, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and various other long-lived greenhouse gases also contribute. Carbon dioxide is of greatest concern because it exerts a larger overall warming influence than all of those other gases combined, and because it has a long atmospheric lifetime.

Not only do increasing carbon dioxide concentrations lead to increases in global surface temperature, but increasing global temperatures also cause increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide. This produces a positive feedback for changes induced by other processes such as orbital cycles.[52] Five hundred million years ago the carbon dioxide concentration was 20 times greater than today, decreasing to 4–5 times during the Jurassic period and then slowly declining with a particularly swift reduction occurring 49 million years ago.[53][54]

Local concentrations of carbon dioxide can reach high values near strong sources, especially those that are isolated by surrounding terrain. At the Bossoleto hot spring near Rapolano Terme in Tuscany, Italy, situated in a bowl-shaped depression about 100 m (330 ft) in diameter, concentrations of CO2 rise to above 75% overnight, sufficient to kill insects and small animals. After sunrise the gas is dispersed by convection during the day.[55] High concentrations of CO2 produced by disturbance of deep lake water saturated with CO2 are thought to have caused 37 fatalities at Lake Monoun, Cameroon in 1984 and 1700 casualties at Lake Nyos, Cameroon in 1986.[56]

On November 12, 2015, NASA scientists reported that human-made carbon dioxide (CO2) continues to increase above levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years: currently, about half of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels remains in the atmosphere and is not absorbed by vegetation and the oceans.

Just thought to mention when looking at the figures, this business of "Volcanoes emit between 0.2 and 0.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, while human activities emit about 29 billion tons", had me remembering another article by Wattsupwiththat whereby he posits (which syncs with the capped domes emitting C02):

Quiet monsters http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/16/another-known-unknown-volcanic-outgassing-of-co2/

[...]
The exhalations of our planet can be spectacularly obvious. The fireworks, though, are only part of the picture. We now know that the CO2 released during volcanic eruptions is almost insignificant compared with what happens after the camera crews get bored. The emissions that really matter are concealed. The silent, silvery plumes which are currently winding their way skyward above the 150 or so active volcanoes on our planet also carry with them the bulk of its carbon dioxide. Their coughing fits might catch the eye — but in between tantrums, the steady breathing of volcanoes quietly sheds upwards of a quarter of a billion tons of CO2 every year.

We think. Scientists’ best estimates, however, are based on an assumption. It might surprise you to learn that, well into the new century, of the 150 smokers I mentioned, almost 80 percent are still as mysterious, in terms of the quantity of CO2 they emit, as they were a generation ago: We’ve only actually measured 33.

If the 117 unsampled peaks follow a similar trend, then the research community’s current projection might stand. But looking through such a small window, there’s no way of knowing if what we have seen until now is typical or not. It’s like shining a light on a darkened globe: randomly, you might hit Australia, and think you’d seen it all – while on the edge of your beam, unnoticed, would be Asia. Our planet’s isolated volcanic frontiers could easily be hiding a monster or two; and with a bit of exploration, our estimate of volcanic CO2 output could rise even higher.

You’d think that would be enough. That might be my fault — I tend to save the weird stuff until the end. Recently, an enigmatic source of volcanic carbon has come to light that isn’t involved with lava — or even craters. It now seems that not only is there CO2 we can’t get to, there’s some we can’t even see.

…

Even more incredibly, it even seems that some volcanoes which are considered inactive, in terms of their potential to ooze new land, can still make some serious additions to the atmosphere through diffuse CO2 release. Residual magma beneath dormant craters, though it might never reach the surface, can still ‘erupt’ gases from a distance. Amazingly, from what little scientists have measured, it looks like this process might give off as much as half the CO2 put out by fully active volcanoes.

If these additional ‘carbon-active’ volcanoes are included, the number of degassing peaks skyrockets to more than 500. Of which we’ve measured a grand total of nine percent. You can probably fill it in by now — we need to climb more mountains.

So these numbers are quite different than the Wiki source back a page ago, and certainly overshadow the mere 29 billion/T/C02 that was attributed to human causative effects. What I'm getting from this is, lets say the 29 B/T/C02 is correct, the ratio is possibly something like 250 B/T/C02 plus the additional diffuse capped released C02 described "as much as half the CO2 put out by fully active volcanoes", so the non-smokers = 125 B/T/C02, and that is something like a total of 375:29 B/T/C02 per year side by side. I'm not sure, yet I do not think this factors in what we seem to not be able to measure emitting from sub ocean floor volcanic or "diffuse" rifts, even though much is absorbed. Those measures, if known, would likely be very large in comparison to add onto the overall planet side of the plant/human ratio of C02 output - maybe I'm not looking at this correctly though?

 

[Pierre]

So these numbers are quite different than the Wiki source back a page ago, and certainly overshadow the mere 29 billion/T/C02 that was attributed to human causative effects. What I'm getting from this is, lets say the 29 B/T/C02 is correct, the ratio is possibly something like 250 B/T/C02 plus the additional diffuse capped released C02 described "as much as half the CO2 put out by fully active volcanoes", so the non-smokers = 125 B/T/C02, and that is something like a total of 375:29 B/T/C02 per year side by side. I'm not sure, yet I do not think this factors in what we seem to not be able to measure emitting from sub ocean floor volcanic or "diffuse" rifts, even though much is absorbed. Those measures, if known, would likely be very large in comparison to add onto the overall planet side of the plant/human ratio of C02 output - maybe I'm not looking at this correctly though?

I think you're right. In order to give credence to the man made global warming lie, authorities tend to overestimate man made CO2 emissions while underestimating natural CO2 emissions. They also tend to overestimate the greenhouse effect of CO2 relative to other gases, particularly water vapor and methane. I also noticed the following in the article you quoted:

This process causes carbon dioxide to warm the surface and lower atmosphere, while cooling the upper atmosphere.

Thus CO2 tends to increase the temperature gradient between the Earth's surface and the high atmosphere, which one of the main factors involved in 'superstorms'. One wonders what may happen if several major volcanoes decide to wake up at the same time.

 

[Eol]

Like i said in the laste c's session thread, you had a great idea and it seems to be close to the truth Pierre. I didn't know the Derechos until you bring the subject. Then I just made quickly basic researches about the phenomena . I will check your link for more informations, thank you.

 

[angelburst29]

Thus CO2 tends to increase the temperature gradient between the Earth's surface and the high atmosphere, which one of the main factors involved in 'superstorms'. One wonders what may happen if several major volcanoes decide to wake up at the same time.

The word "superstorms" brings to mind a book I just purchased at a liquidation store for two dollars - by Art Bell and Whitley Strieber - The coming GLOBAL SUPERSTORM. The book is mentioned in a Session. I haven't read it yet but it looks like a quick read. But the C's have suggested, it's not the book - but the events depicted which is a Global Superstorm. Are we looking at several events "now" on a global scale - that are working collectively towards a major weather event in the very near future? Could it be speculated, (and I realize I'm pulling straws here), a sudden development in the Middle East (Nuclear) with the right atmospheric conditions, could trigger a violent weather anomaly? That the idiot elite in their blind ignorance and greed for complete dominance could trigger an event - that no one has any control over? Again, just wild speculation.

Session 18 March 2000

Q: Let me get this straight: how is this book by Strieber and Bell going to play into the plans of STS aliens?

A: Not the book, the events depicted.

Q: So, are you saying that Whitley and Art are doing a favor for all of us by publicizing this information, that it could be helpful?

A: Makes little difference.

Q: Is there anything that COULD make a difference? Or is it necessary to make a difference?

A: In the biggest picture, no.

Q: So, it's not necessary to make a difference?

A: The soul, she counteth. The body, she doth not!

 

[Eol]

So these numbers are quite different than the Wiki source back a page ago, and certainly overshadow the mere 29 billion/T/C02 that was attributed to human causative effects. What I'm getting from this is, lets say the 29 B/T/C02 is correct, the ratio is possibly something like 250 B/T/C02 plus the additional diffuse capped released C02 described "as much as half the CO2 put out by fully active volcanoes", so the non-smokers = 125 B/T/C02, and that is something like a total of 375:29 B/T/C02 per year side by side. I'm not sure, yet I do not think this factors in what we seem to not be able to measure emitting from sub ocean floor volcanic or "diffuse" rifts, even though much is absorbed. Those measures, if known, would likely be very large in comparison to add onto the overall planet side of the plant/human ratio of C02 output - maybe I'm not looking at this correctly though?

I think you're right. In order to give credence to the man made global warming lie, authorities tend to overestimate man made CO2 emissions while underestimating natural CO2 emissions. They also tend to overestimate the greenhouse effect of CO2 relative to other gases, particularly water vapor and methane. I also noticed the following in the article you quoted:

This process causes carbon dioxide to warm the surface and lower atmosphere, while cooling the upper atmosphere.

Thus CO2 tends to increase the temperature gradient between the Earth's surface and the high atmosphere, which one of the main factors involved in 'superstorms'. One wonders what may happen if several major volcanoes decide to wake up at the same time.

The cooling of the upper atmosphere by CO2 is, like the heating of the troposphere by CO2, based on models assomptions. This idea about an upper atmosphere cooling due to CO2 originate from the work of [R. G. Roble and R. E. Dickinson, 1989 : HOW WILL CHANGES IN CARBON DIOXIDE AND METHANE MODIFY THE MEAN STRUCTURE OF THE MESOSPHERE AND THERMOSPHERE] and has been cited abundantly in the scientific literature.

They modeled a decrease of 40 or 50 kelvin (i don't remember exactly) in the thermosphere by a doubling of the CO2 concentration. Since 1980, the thermosphere temperature have dropped about 100 kelvin and the CO2 concentration increased just about 10-15%.
Same for the mesosphere. Since 1980, the mesosphere cooled about 1~3 K/decade in relationship with the latitude and the height. Their model agree with this trends. But we do not still have a doubling of CO2.

Altought most of researchers continue to support this allegation, this past years, many others tend to recognize the poor role of the CO2 in the upper atmosphere. The shock that they had looking at the behavior of the thermosphere during the unusual low solar activity in 2008-20009 calm their faith in CO2 being the main driver in this cooling . The role of CO2, if it's not none, must just be almost insignificant.

So for both upper and lower atmopshere, we have to find other explications for this trends. Very misterious :/

 

[Voyageur]

[...]
Altought most of researchers continue to support this allegation, this past years, many others tend to recognize the poor role of the CO2 in the upper atmosphere. The shock that they had looking at the behavior of the thermosphere during the unusual low solar activity in 2008-20009 calm their faith in CO2 being the main driver in this cooling . The role of CO2, if it's not none, must just be almost insignificant.

So for both upper and lower atmopshere, we have to find other explications for this trends. Very misterious :/

And those "other explications for this trends" seems to be the hard thing, the "very mysterious" interactions and influences that are possibilities we can't fathom well, and certainly not measure as explanations. We can see the effects, gases and such and create reasonable hypothesis and attempt to measure, while our ability to lock onto the idea of ephemeral electromagnetic and even dimensional influences through things like an inner earth window, is not so easy. The science of all we think we know is fascinating, and how it is covered up and manipulated, equally so (if not sad). In thinking about other possibilities as looked at below in the last session, is likewise fascinating - what is it exactly though, is dogging, and very possibly completely not understandable for us in our times, osit. In the end, perhaps all will be revealed, at least to some physicists etc. when, as described below, the suns companion becomes apparent.

(Pierre) They say that energy from cosmic origin was the cause of El Niño through those pillars at 18 degrees latitude.

A: It is usually powered by the sun in its interaction with its companion. You should be able to figure this out! You tend toward a bit of OCD obsessiveness!

Q: (Andromeda) No!!

(L) Pierre? No! [laughter] Next question?

(Pierre) Well, I wanted to ask about this inversion that we talked about previously. My theory is that what caused the frozen mammoths and what may cause the sudden drop in temperature was some kind of Super Derecho: basically, the jet stream being deviated towards the surface of the Earth. Does it make any sense?

(L) What?

(Andromeda) You're asking if the sudden drop of temperature is because the jet stream drops towards the Earth?

(Pierre) Yeah.

(L) That it suddenly goes lower. It gets pushed down.

(Pierre) Well...

A: That is very close!

Q: (Pierre) Uh, okay. This cosmic energy coming from the sun and its interaction with its companion powers El Niño. But I guess El Niño is not the only effect of these surges...

A: Remember that the center of a sphere is a window!

Q: (Pierre) Yeah, I remember that.

A: Portal too!

Q: (L) So the energy that powers El Niño could come from within the Earth in a sense as coming through a portal to another dimension?

A: Yes

Q: (L) Or density or something.

(Joe) It's one of the effects of the Wave, right?

A: Yes

Q: (L) Is the Wave going to come upon us from within our own planet?

A: Partly already showing signs and symptoms

[...]

(Pierre) This portal thing in the center of the planet... Actually, we think that the planet and the ionosphere acts as a spherical capacitor. It keeps discharging, but it's never depleted. Is it through this portal connection that the planet replenishes itself with electric charge?

A: Partly

Q: (L) I would say probably as much as... I dunno. I would tend to say yes. Why did you say partly?

A: Remember the companion.

Q: (L) So it's gotta be something like an electric motor.

(Joe) Are we gonna see the companion?

A: Yes