The Arctic polar vortex pushes into the Northeast in this NASA satellite image. Credit: NOAA/NASA GOES Project View full size image

Michael Mann is Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Penn State University and was recognized in 2007, with other IPCC authors, for contributing to the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work as a lead author on the “Observed Climate Variability and Change” chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Report. This article is adapted from one that appeared on Ecowatch.com. Mann contributed this article to LiveScience’s Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Over the past couple of months, the United States has seen the return of something many believed had been lost for good: cold weather.

Although the current temperatures in the eastern United States may seem unusually cold, in the context of our history they really aren’t. In fact, most of the cold that has made the news lately hasn’t been all that chilly compared what was “normal” for the 20th century. The Associated Press explained the nation’s short-term memory loss in the article “Scientists: Americans are becoming weather wimps,” — the nerdy web comic XKCD captured the sentiment even more concisely.

The bottom line? Because the last decade was the hottest on record (and just a year ago, the United States saw its warmest year ever) Americans have grown accustomed to warmer winters that make normal cold feel extreme.

Some then wonder why this winter has been so (normally) cold and why temperatures in Peoria this winter have not been warmed by climate change to, say, a balmy 60 degrees Fahrenheit (16 degrees Celsius). The climate denial bubble claims that the cold winter weather means that surely CO₂ cannot be warming the atmosphere. How can there be global warming if it’s snowing outside, after all?

Well, the short answer is that cold winters still happen even in a warmed world, but that doesn’t mean it’s cold everywhere. In fact, you don’t even have to leave the United States to find a very striking image of warming. Just shift your attention from the East Coast to the West Coast. Alaska, usually snowy and frigid, has had two weeks of record high temperatures. Amazingly, the second half of January has averaged 40 F (4 C) above normal during some days in the central and western parts of the state.

The persistently jagged jet stream we have witnessed in recent weeks has led most recently to what some have termed a “Drunken Arctic.” Stumbling south with polar winds and snow, this unexpected meteorological event seems to have caught our collective attention. And why shouldn’t it? It is an unusual enough, if not unprecedented, event. And it has rekindled curiosity over how human-caused climate change may be impacting the jet stream and the weather systems associated with it.

If you’re a topical expert — researcher, business leader, author or innovator — and would like to contribute an op-ed piece, email us here.

View full size image

So, is there a climate connection to this strange occurrence? While more study is certainly needed, I have been increasingly impressed by the growing body of evidence supporting the hypothesis that climate change may lead to more persistent meanders in the jet stream. In a world without global warming, the temperature difference between the freezing Arctic and warmer lower latitudes creates a pressure field that confines the jet stream to a relatively tight band around the Arctic, with wave-like meanders characterized by ephemeral “ridges” and “troughs.” As the Arctic melts and warms, however, that temperature difference is reduced, and the meanders of the jet stream potentially become more pronounced and more sluggish. The more sluggish and persistent those meanders, the more persistent the patterns of regional warmth where the jet stream pulls warm air northward, and the regional cold where it pulls arctic air south.

Perfectly encapsulating the upside-down, hung-over Arctic is this remarkable observation, courtesy of Jeff Masters of the popular Weather Underground blog: At 10 p.m. on Jan. 26th, 2014, the temperature in Homer, Alaska of 54 F (12 C) was warmer than any other place in the contiguous United States except southern Florida and southern California.

As we approach Groundhog Day, celebrated in the iconic town of Punxsutawney, the question we’re all asking here in central Pennsylvania of whether or not we’ll see an extended winter may in fact depend on what is happening instead thousands of miles to the north in the melting Arctic.

And the very same jet stream configuration responsible for the southward plunging Arctic air mass chilling the eastern United States is associated further to the west with a “ridge” of high pressure that is pushing the warm, moist subtropical Pacific air masses that would normally deliver plentiful rainfall (and snowpack) to California well to the north.

Climate scientists were beginning to suspect a decade ago that the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice might alter the jet stream in precisely this way, favoring conditions eerily like what we are seeing right now in California: unprecedented and devastating drought.

So to conclude, I propose a toast to the Arctic, whose instability should serve as a wake-up call to those steeped in denial. When it comes to kicking our “fossil fuel addiction” (as former president George W. Bush referred to it), let’s hope we’re not much further from hitting rock bottom. Because when a drunken Arctic leaves Alaska warmer than Georgia in mid-winter, and California as high and dry as it has ever been, we should know we may have a problem.

This Op-Ed was adapted from “Does Polar Vortex Mean ‘So Much for Global Warming’?” on Ecowatch.com. Mann’s most recent Op-Ed was “Something Is Rotten at the New York Times.“Mann is author of two books, “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines” (Columbia University Press, 2012), which will soon to be available inpaperback with an update and a new guest foreword by Bill Nye “The Science Guy”, and “Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming” (DK Publishing, 2008). You can follow him on Twitter: @MichaelEMann. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on LiveScience.

This morning saw remarkable events in South Australian politics, involving a prominent federal politician launching an aborted attempt to enter state politics, and a threat from a sitting Premier to resign weeks out from an election.

Don Farrell, a prominent Labor senator and one of the so-called ‘faceless men’ involved in replacing Kevin Rudd with Julia Gillard in 2010, lost his seat at the 2013 election, when the ALP could only manage to get a single senator elected in South Australia. Farrell had originally been preselected first ahead of the left’s Penny Wong, but a public outcry at that order saw him step down in favour of Wong. At the time it was inconceivable that the ALP would fail to win two seats.

The Australian reported a story this morning that claimed that Labor minister Michael O’Brien would retire from the seat of Napier, and would be replaced by Farrell, whose Senate term ends in June.

The story also claimed that party figures would replace Weatherill with Farrell as Labor leader if the ALP lost the upcoming election.

O’Brien and Farrell soon confirmed that O’Brien planned to retire, and Farrell was planning to contest preselection in Napier.

The Premier, Jay Weatherill, then went on to local radio, confirming that he was aware of the ‘deal’, and saying that he did not support the idea. Weatherill went further and suggested he could resign as Premier and Labor leader before the election if Farrell was preselected.

Around 11:30, Don Farrell spoke to the press and confirmed that he would no longer be standing for preselection, and would leave public life when his Senate term finishes in June.

While the South Australian ALP was on track for a likely defeat in March, it was by no means guaranteed, and was likely to be a small loss. It is very unclear now what impact today’s events will have on the ALP in March.

Please use this post as a general thread on South Australian politics, the election and Farrell’s aborted jump into state politics.