The ‘Beast from the East’ and the freakishly warm Arctic temperatures are no coincidence

Frozen: the Kennet & Avon canal, Bath. Image: Getty.

During the past few weeks, bitterly cold weather has engulfed the UK and most of Northern Europe. At the same time, temperatures in the high Arctic have been 10 to 20°C above normal – although still generally below freezing.

The co-occurence of these two opposite extremes is no random coincidence. A quick climate rewind reveals how an unusual disturbance in the tropics more than a month ago sent out shock-waves thousands of kilometres in all directions, causing extreme weather events – not only in Europe and the Arctic, but in the southern hemisphere too.

The outbreak of cold weather across the UK was publicly forecast at least two weeks in advance. In early February, meteorologists noticed a large-scale weather event developing 30km high in the Arctic stratosphere, whose effects on our less lofty weather systems are well understood.

The strong westerly winds, known as the Polar Vortex, that normally circle the Arctic at this altitude had begun to weaken and change direction. Extremely cold arctic air – usually entrapped by this 360° barrier – was able to spill out to lower latitudes, flooding across Siberia.

Meteorologists refer to this type of event as a Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW) because the air in the stratosphere above the North Pole appears to warm rapidly. In fact, the cold air isn’t itself warming up so much as flooding south and being replaced by warmer air from further south.

Current air temperatures in the Arctic are much higher than recent historical averages. Image: Zachary Labe.

Changes to wind directions and temperatures 30km above the ground initially went unnoticed to those on the ground – both in Europe and in the Arctic. But over a period of several weeks, the influence of this weather event moved gradually downwards through the lower region of the atmosphere, eventually changing weather patterns near the surface.

One such change was the development of high pressure across Scandinavia, which generated easterly winds across the whole of Northern Europe, pulling cold air from Siberia directly over the UK. Out over the Atlantic Ocean the same area of high pressure resulted in southerly winds allowing warm air from the Atlantic to move northwards into the Arctic basin. Research shows that these weather shifts tend to be fairly persistent once they do occur – hence the unusual length of the cold spell we’re experiencing, and the warmth in the Arctic.

But what caused the stratospheric Arctic warming event to happen in the first place? For this we need to look thousands of kilometres away to the atmosphere above the tropical West Pacific Ocean. In late January, a vast area of thunderstorms, as large and strong as have ever been recorded, were disturbing the atmosphere across this region. The effect of these storms was equivalent to the dropping of a large boulder into a pond – they caused waves of alternating high and low pressure to spread through the atmosphere, particularly into the northern hemisphere. It was these waves bumping into the vortex of winds around the North Pole that caused the Sudden Stratospheric Warming event in early February.

The very same area of thunderstorms across the tropical Pacific acted as the birthplace for the less-reported Cyclone Gita, which tracked through the South Pacific, causing damage in Tonga and Samoa and even leading to unseasonably stormy weather across New Zealand at the end of their summer.


The near simultaneous occurrence of all of these extreme weather events is a perfect meteorological illustration of the butterfly effect. While we usually talk about weather in local and regional terms, the atmosphere is one continuous fluid expanse. Disturbances in one region are bound to have consequences to the weather in other parts of the world – and when they are severe the shock-waves can be immense.

Many have linked the severity of these events with climate change. But, particularly for this event, its important for us meteorologists to exercise caution. The occurrence of this particular stratospheric warming event is not itself a consequence of climate change, as one extreme weather event on its own does not tell us anything about long-term trends in the Earth’s climate.

What’s important is to look at how often these events occur – and how severe they are when they do. However, the series of events that lead to cold weather over Europe are complex and have only been well understood for the past 20 years or so. Without a few more decades of data, it is difficult to say whether either the stratospheric warming or the intense tropical storms are part of a pattern that falls outside of what we would normally expect – though limited research does already suggest that Stratospheric Sudden Warming events are becoming more frequent.

The ConversationFor other extreme weather events, the story is clearer – evidence increasingly suggests that hurricanes, storms and wildfires are becoming both more frequent and more severe than they once were. Time will tell if its the same story for Stratospheric Sudden Warming and tropical disturbances.

Evidence from these recent temperature extremes will certainly help researchers to understand this question. But if we do what we can to minimise the damaging impacts of climate change, we may never need to find out.

Peter Inness, Lecturer in Meteorology, University of Reading.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

 
 
 
 

As EU funding is lost, “levelling up” needs investment, not just rhetoric

Oh, well. Image: Getty.

Regional inequality was the foundation of Boris Johnson’s election victory and has since become one of the main focuses of his government. However, the enthusiasm of ministers championing the “levelling up” agenda rings hollow when compared with their inertia in preparing a UK replacement for European structural funding. 

Local government, already bearing the brunt of severe funding cuts, relies on European funding to support projects that boost growth in struggling local economies and help people build skills and find secure work. Now that the UK has withdrawn its EU membership, councils’ concerns over how EU funds will be replaced from 2021 are becoming more pronounced.

Johnson’s government has committed to create a domestic structural funding programme, the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF), to replace the European Structural and Investment Fund (ESIF). However, other than pledging that UKSPF will “reduce inequalities between communities”, it has offered few details on how funds will be allocated. A public consultation on UKSPF promised by May’s government in 2018 has yet to materialise.

The government’s continued silence on UKSPF is generating a growing sense of unease among councils, especially after the failure of successive governments to prioritise investment in regional development. Indeed, inequalities within the UK have been allowed to grow so much that the UK’s poorest region by EU standards (West Wales & the Valleys) has a GDP of 68 per cent of the average EU GDP, while the UK’s richest region (Inner London) has a GDP of 614 per cent of the EU average – an intra-national disparity that is unique in Europe. If the UK had remained a member of the EU, its number of ‘less developed’ regions in need of most structural funding support would have increased from two to five in 2021-27: South Yorkshire, Tees Valley & Durham and Lincolnshire joining Cornwall & Isles of Scilly and West Wales & the Valley. Ministers have not given guarantees that any region, whether ‘less developed’ or otherwise, will obtain the same amount of funding under UKSPF to which they would have been entitled under ESIF.


The government is reportedly contemplating changing the Treasury’s fiscal rules so public spending favours programmes that reduce regional inequalities as well as provide value for money, but this alone will not rebalance the economy. A shared prosperity fund like UKSPF has the potential to be the master key that unlocks inclusive growth throughout the country, particularly if it involves less bureaucracy than ESIF and aligns funding more effectively with the priorities of local people. 

In NLGN’s Community Commissioning report, we recommended that this funding should be devolved to communities directly to decide local priorities for the investment. By enabling community ownership of design and administration, the UK government would create an innovative domestic structural funding scheme that promotes inclusion in its process as well as its outcomes.

NLGN’s latest report, Cultivating Local Inclusive Growth: In Practice, highlights the range of policy levers and resources that councils can use to promote inclusive growth in their area. It demonstrates that, through collaboration with communities and cross-sector partners, councils are already doing sterling work to enhance economic and social inclusion. Their efforts could be further enhanced with a fund that learns lessons from ESIF’s successes and flaws: a UKSPF that is easier to access, designed and delivered by local communities, properly funded, and specifically targeted at promoting social and economic inclusion in regions that need it most. “Getting Brexit done” was meant to free up the government’s time to focus once more on pressing domestic priorities. “Getting inclusive growth done” should be at the top of any new to-do list.

Charlotte Morgan is senior researcher at the New Local Government Network.