Awesome Amounts of New Snow

[WeatherRusty]

It sure seems like it's getting snowier. These are the snowiest winters on record at the airport closest to where I grew up in Ohio. I've emboldened all of the post-2000 records.

1. 102.8 2007-2008

2. 90.2 2006-2007

3. 86.5 2008-2009

4. 85.3 1950-1951

5. 82.5 1992-1993

6. 82.0 1962-1963

7. 81.2 2004-2005

8. 81.0 1993-1994

9. 79.7 2010-2011*

10. 78.9 1963-1964

* Through yesterday. Should crack the top five before the end of the weekend and almost assuredly finish at #1 or #2 for the season.

Half of the listed seasons occurred during what was the warmest decade in the instrument record.

[BethesdaWX]

I trust most people on here are intelligent enough to take the evidence I have presented from peer-reviewed journals over the arguments of an 18 year old kid.

You didn't present evidence....heck, look at your email response "Classic mistake of correlation to causation"... do you know what that means?

There is no data calbration error throwing off the data, otherwise it would be mentioned.

flunk

[BethesdaWX]

Half of the listed seasons occurred during what was the warmest decade in the instrument record.

So, are warmer temps leading to more brutal snowfalls or less? (warming in general, whether its solar, Co2, or aliens).

I've heard people saying snowfalls will become non existant, and other saying winters will become unbearable Brutal with horrible Blizzards & Ice storms.....which one is it? I haven't done enough research on this topic to gain any level of certainty.

I think it has nothing to do with temps... There is something called "High latttude blocking".

[ARyan]

I think it has nothing to do with temps... There is something called "High latttude blocking".

Do you know what blocking is...?

[BethesdaWX]

Do you know what blocking is...?

I have absolutely no clue what high lattitude blocking is.

[Snow_Miser]

No. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Clouds are like a blanket and prevent longwave radiation from escaping. Would you expect COOLER temperatures on a night with clouds or a clear sky?

So are you saying that white reflective surfaces do NOT reflect incoming solar radiation?

Yes and no. The jet stream "feeds" off of temperature gradients, see http://www.theweathe...habyhints2/407/"]Thermal Wind [/url], therefore wind shear would be reduced. I remember reading an article somewhere that talked about how tornadoes will increase in the years to come before wind shear decreases due to decreasing baroclinicity (temperature gradient). So, in theory, tornadoes should DECREASE in numbers, however, hurricanes should INCREASE. This is due to the fact that hurricanes thrive in low shear and warm ocean waters.

Wind Shear plays a role in Tropical systems, not so much in NON-Tropical Systems.

[skierinvermont]

So are you saying that white reflective surfaces do NOT reflect incoming solar radiation?

He did not say that anywhere. Please do not insert comments into other people's posts. Clouds do reflect (and absorb) incoming SW radiation from the sun. However, they also prevent LW radiation emitted by the earth's surface from escaping. The net balance depends on whether we are talking about low level or high level clouds. Low level clouds have a net cooling effect, while high level clouds have a net warming effect. This is well accepted science. If this does not make sense to you, I can provide you with references.

[WeatherRusty]

So, are warmer temps leading to more brutal snowfalls or less? (warming in general, whether its solar, Co2, or aliens).

I've heard people saying snowfalls will become non existant, and other saying winters will become unbearable Brutal with horrible Blizzards & Ice storms.....which one is it? I haven't done enough research on this topic to gain any level of certainty.

I think it has nothing to do with temps... There is something called "High latttude blocking".

Use common sense to answer this question. A generally warmer atmosphere will support a higher water vapor mixing ratio and greater specific humidity. More water to squeeze out of the atmosphere where it does precipitate. Where it is still sufficiently cold to support snow it will snow. Where on average it is presently just marginally cold to support snow, in a future warmer climate snow will become ever more unlikely.

The global climate has only warmed 3/4 degree C, therefor where it snowed 100 years ago it still snows today but probably with less frequency. If global temperatures rise another 2C-3C this coming century the chances of snow near the boundary of where it currently snows will be that much less. Just move the climate zones northward in the northern hemisphere by a few hundred miles so that in southern New England we may experience snow like they currently do in Maryland for instance.

[BethesdaWX]

Use common sense to answer this question. A generally warmer atmosphere will support a higher water vapor mixing ratio and greater specific humidity. More water to squeeze out of the atmosphere where it does precipitate. Where it is still sufficiently cold to support snow it will snow. Where on average it is presently just marginally cold to support snow, in a future warmer climate snow will become ever more unlikely.

The global climate has only warmed 3/4 degree C, therefor where it snowed 100 years ago it still snows today but probably with less frequency. If global temperatures rise another 2C-3C this coming century the chances of snow near the boundary of where it currently snows will be that much less. Just move the climate zones northward in the northern hemisphere by a few hundred miles so that in southern New England we may experience snow like they currently do in Maryland for instance.

Different opinions flying in the face of others......this is why saying "big east coast blizzards are proof of a warming planet", is complete crapola in my view. Whats all this about the slowing of the Jet Streams, stronger storms with more confluent dynamics, deeper troughs......etc... even NOAA & the IPCC cannot come to an agreement....... in reality...we dont know enough for NOAA to state things that go against the realm of thought. Globally, winters have been getting progressively worse for the past decade, but especially since 2006......colder, snowier, and more costly......the snows being seen in South Africa, Austrailia, Florida, to Europe, Asia, & America.....etc. This is not something that one would expect from a warming planet in the IPCC's words....then NOAA goes on record saying it will only get worse.

Bottom Line, WINTER SNOWFALL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A WARMING PLANET.

[WeatherRusty]

Different opinions flying in the face of others......this is why saying "big east coast blizzards are proof of a warming planet", is complete crapola in my view. Whats all this about the slowing of the Jet Streams, stronger storms with more confluent dynamics, deeper troughs......etc... even NOAA & the IPCC cannot come to an agreement....... in reality...we dont know enough for NOAA to state things that go against the realm of thought. Globally, winters have been getting progressively worse for the past decade, but especially since 2006......colder, snowier, and more costly......the snows being seen in South Africa, Austrailia, Florida, to Europe, Asia, & America.....etc. This is not something that one would expect from a warming planet in the IPCC's words....then NOAA goes on record saying it will only get worse.

Bottom Line, WINTER SNOWFALL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A WARMING PLANET.

You may not think so but it is what it is. Winters have not been getting colder over the past decade. The weather may be going crazy but the past decade has been the warmest during the period of instrumental record. All this snow, all the major flooding events and record breaking high temperatures during the past year have occurred during one of if not the warmest years on record.

[BethesdaWX]

You may not think so but it is what it is. Winters have not been getting colder over the past decade. The weather may be going crazy but the past decade has been the warmest during the period of instrumental record. All this snow, all the major flooding events and record breaking high temperatures during the past year have occurred during one of if not the warmest years on record.

poor word choice on my part.

I was implying the fact that, as most people would imply/"state", are getting more "brutal", in a sense of heavier snowfall at lower & higher lattitudes (snow being seen in south florida, south africa, & austrailia in places that have not seen it in decades), bigger windstorms, bigger arctic outbreaks, (China last year, US too, this year in both Europe, US, Asia, etc) heavier rainfalls, goes on and on.

We cannot contribute this to a warming planet, because this has been going on for earths existance through all of time.

[WeatherRusty]

poor word choice on my part.

I was implying the fact that, as most people would imply/"state", are getting more "brutal", in a sense of heavier snowfall at lower & higher lattitudes (snow being seen in south florida, south africa, & austrailia in places that have not seen it in decades), bigger windstorms, bigger arctic outbreaks, (China last year, US too, this year in both Europe, US, Asia, etc) heavier rainfalls, goes on and on.

We cannot contribute this to a warming planet, because this has been going on for earths existance through all of time.

Like I said, it is what it is. The current state of climate supports the weather patterns being experienced world wide. If the climate changes then by definition the average type of weather experienced in any given location will change. As always, the type of weather you get is and will be based in probability. It can snow in Florida, but it is far more likely to snow in the northeast. In a warmer world those probabilities will shift.

Yes, weather has occurred throughout Earth's history, but the average type of weather you get in any location (climate) varies geographically. If the climate changes where you are, then the average weather you get changes. The big snows or lack there of become more or less likely in a given location. Areas producing low precipitation and even permanent drought shift into regions where once it was more moist etc.

[BethesdaWX]

Like I said, it is what it is. The current state of climate supports the weather patterns being experienced world wide. If the climate changes then by definition the average type of weather experienced in any given location will change. As always, the type of weather you get is and will be based in probability. It can snow in Florida, but it is far more likely to snow in the northeast. In a warmer world those probabilities will shift.

Yes, weather has occurred throughout Earth's history, but the average type of weather you get in any location (climate) varies geographically. If the climate changes where you are, then the average weather you get changes. The big snows or lack there of become more or less likely in a given location. Areas producing low precipitation and even permanent drought shift into regions where once it was more moist etc.

This is why I do not think it is correct to say "The Blizzards we've seen this year in the East are due to a warming planet"... there is no basis to state a single event was caused by or warming, whether it be Solar or Co2.

The accumulating snows experienced in South Africa, Australia, South Florida (to name a few), all three at one time (in a yr) has not happened in many decades.

Anyone could use that to say we're heading into an ice age. Extremes have not become more frequent, they've just been honed upon....as we expand our population to new areas, and new records are developed for locales...what do you think will happen?

[WeatherRusty]

This is why I do not think it is correct to say "The Blizzards we've seen this year in the East are due to a warming planet"... there is no basis to state a single event was caused by or warming, whether it be Solar or Co2.

The accumulating snows experienced in South Africa, Australia, South Florida (to name a few), all three at one time (in a yr) has not happened in many decades.

Anyone could use that to say we're heading into an ice age. Extremes have not become more frequent, they've just been honed upon....as we expand our population to new areas, and new records are developed for locales...what do you think will happen?

We have been experiencing highly amplified troughs and ridging set in motion by the AO the way I understand it. We get deep incursions of cold moving south and warmth moving north elsewhere. The perfect recipe for the initiation of storminess. The question is...are the open and warmer waters in and around the arctic setting up the -AO. If so, arctic amplification of global warming may play a huge role in our future weather patterns and thus climate.

The proper term for an event such as the LIA is a stadial, or a cooler period happening during an interglacial period not reaching the depths of a real ice age.

[BethesdaWX]

We have been experiencing highly amplified troughs and ridging set in motion by the AO the way I understand it. We get deep incursions of cold moving south and warmth moving north elsewhere. The perfect recipe for the initiation of storminess. The question is...are the open and warmer waters in and around the arctic setting up the -AO. If so, arctic amplification of global warming may play a huge role in our future weather patterns and thus climate.

The proper term for an event such as the LIA is a stadial, or a cooler period happening during an interglacial period not reaching the depths of a real ice age.

The +AMO is responsible for alot of the arctic warming, whether the rest is Solar, or Co2....or both/neither, when the AMO goes negative, we can probably expect changes in the AO/NAO.

Remember, in the 1950's, WWII submarines surfaced on the North Pole in March. In the late 1800's, & in the 1950's, ships were able to navigate well up into the arctic in the same areas we can do so now.

Issue is, we don't really know what is causing the -AO/-NAO. Someis probably solar related, but if you notice, the NAO/AO tend to go through 30 year cycles in the means between positivity & negativity, just as the AMO tends to do.

The PDO has less of an impact in the arctic (directly) than the AMO.

[Snow_Miser]

He did not say that anywhere. Please do not insert comments into other people's posts. Clouds do reflect (and absorb) incoming SW radiation from the sun. However, they also prevent LW radiation emitted by the earth's surface from escaping. The net balance depends on whether we are talking about low level or high level clouds. Low level clouds have a net cooling effect, while high level clouds have a net warming effect. This is well accepted science. If this does not make sense to you, I can provide you with references.

The context was a reference to incoming solar radiation........ if you don't know what the original context was, then please don't reply.

[Snow_Miser]

Yes and no. The jet stream "feeds" off of temperature gradients, see http://www.theweathe...habyhints2/407/"]Thermal Wind [/url], therefore wind shear would be reduced. I remember reading an article somewhere that talked about how tornadoes will increase in the years to come before wind shear decreases due to decreasing baroclinicity (temperature gradient). So, in theory, tornadoes should DECREASE in numbers, however, hurricanes should INCREASE. This is due to the fact that hurricanes thrive in low shear and warm ocean waters.

Global Tropical Cyclone ACE does not show an upward trend in communion with global temperatures.

2010 is in the books: Global Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy [ACE] remains lowest in at least three decades, and expected to decrease even further... For the calendar year 2010, a total of 46 tropical cyclones of tropical storm force developed in the Northern Hemisphere, the fewest since 1977. Of those 46, 26 attained hurricane strength (> 64 knots) and 13 became major hurricanes (> 96 knots). Even with the expected active 2010 North Atlantic hurricane season, which currently accounts on average for about 19% of global annual hurricane output, the rest of the global tropics has been historically quiet. This work may be cited as Maue (2009) or Maue and Hart (2011).

Overall, since 1979:

**Global Tropical Cyclone ACE shows no upward trend.

**Northern Hemisphere TC ACE shows no upward trend.

**Southern Hemisphere TC ACE shows no upward trend.

**North Atlantic TC ACE has doubled since 1995, exactly compensated by a halving of Eastern Pacific ACE. It appears that in the context of global and NH ACE, the NATL increases are at the expense of the other basins, or simply within the common climate framework.

**Global TCs of Tropical Storm force show no upward trend in frequency.

**Global TCs of Hurricane Force + show no upward trend in frequency.

For the calendar-year 2010:

**66-tropical cyclones globally, the fewest in the reliable record (since at least 1970)

**46-tropical cyclones in the Northern Hemisphere, fewest since 1977

**Global calendar year ACE total of 529 was the lowest since 1977.

**The Northern Hemisphere ACE total of 373 was the lowest since 1977.

**Combined North Eastern and Western Pacific ACE total of 171 lowest since at least 1970.

**Western North Pacific had 8 Typhoons fewest in at least 65-years of records.

**Eastern North Pacific had 8 TCs: 3 were hurricanes, the fewest since at least 1970.

**North Atlantic ACE for 2010 was 170, the 11th most since 1950, and most since 2005.

Global, Northern Hemisphere, and Southern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Energy (ACE) remain at decades-low levels. With the fantastic dearth of November and December global hurricane activity, it is also observed that the frequency of global hurricanes has continued an inexorable plunge into a double-dip recession status. With 2010 being a globally "hot" year, we saw the fewest number of global tropical cyclones observed since at least 1970.

Figure: Last 4-decades of Global and Northern Hemisphere Accumulated Cyclone Energy: 24 month running sums through January 1, 2011. Note that the year indicated represents the value of ACE through the previous 24-months for the Northern Hemisphere (bottom line/gray boxes) and the entire global (top line/blue boxes). The area in between represents the Southern Hemisphere total ACE. Data for the graph: File

Figure: Last 4-decades of Global Tropical Storm and Hurricane frequency -- 12-month running sums. The top time series is the number of TCs that reach at least tropical storm strength (maximum lifetime wind speed exceeds 34-knots). The bottom time series is the number of hurricane strength (64-knots+) TCs. The added red lines are linear trends, which serve the useful purpose of delineating the respective time-series mean, since they are flat and parallel.

24-month Running Sums image is found here .

Dr. Maue seems to disagree... why could that be?

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/index.html

[BethesdaWX]

The context was a reference to incoming solar radiation........ if you don't know what the original context, then please don't reply.

Theres no point in trying to communicate with the brainless...especially when its a skier.

[LocoAko]

This is why I do not think it is correct to say "The Blizzards we've seen this year in the East are due to a warming planet"... there is no basis to state a single event was caused by or warming, whether it be Solar or Co2.

The accumulating snows experienced in South Africa, Australia, South Florida (to name a few), all three at one time (in a yr) has not happened in many decades.

Anyone could use that to say we're heading into an ice age. Extremes have not become more frequent, they've just been honed upon....as we expand our population to new areas, and new records are developed for locales...what do you think will happen?

I don't know why I'm bothering to reply to you, since you've shown time and time again that you're disproven and ignore other people's suggestions, but...

No one is suggesting specific events are due to a warming planet. You can rail about how wrong it is to do that all day long, and all any respected climate scientist is going to do is agree with you..

I attended a presentation at the 2011 AMS meeting about how the record -AO could be due to climate change (I can only find the abstracts, so I may be recalling incorrectly... just a disclaimer...) since melting ice sheets could allow a more negative AO, higher jet stream amplifications, etc.

Nancy N. Soreide, NOAA/PMEL, Seattle, WA; and J. E. Overland, J. A. Richter-Menge, H. Eicken, H. Wiggins, and J. Calder

Satellites show the Arctic has been losing summer sea ice for the past 30 years, especially mass of multi-year sea ice, and models predict that this loss will continue. The loss of summer sea ice is influencing the air pressure over the North Pole and wind patterns in mid-latitudes, via Teleconnections, contributing to record cold and snowy weather in Europe, eastern Asia, and eastern North America, a Hot Arctic - Cold Continents weather pattern. Winter 2009-2010 represented atypical conditions, the third most extreme since 1850, based on the negative North Atlantic Oscillation Index. While the climate of the Arctic is changing from the base state of the 20th century, it is still unclear what new climate pattern will ultimately appear. Three websites provide updated information about recent changes in the Arctic environment.

[ARyan]

I have absolutely no clue what high lattitude blocking is.

It has to do with temperatures, therefore your statement made no sense.

[ARyan]

So are you saying that white reflective surfaces do NOT reflect incoming solar radiation?

I did not say that. Yes, clouds reflect but not all incoming solar radiation. See, skier's post.

Wind Shear plays a role in Tropical systems, not so much in NON-Tropical Systems.

No. Tropical storms like *some* wind shear but too much will shear them apart. Extratropical storms REQUIRE wind shear.

[BethesdaWX]

It has to do with temperatures, therefore your statement made no sense.

Pressure rises near/on the Pole, in what we call the "AO/NAO" regions, are what we consider "HLB".

Do you know what increased HLB does?

It shifts the jet stream further south. When that happens, the colder anomalies & storm track are shifted further south.

What do you think will happen to the pattern then? Colder & Snowier further South.

[Snow_Miser]

I did not say that. Yes, clouds reflect but not all incoming solar radiation. See, skier's post.

No. Tropical storms like *some* wind shear but too much will shear them apart. Extratropical storms REQUIRE wind shear.

You contradicted what I had said about reflecting incoming solar radiation.

Didn't you say that less wind shear means that more storms can form? But I agree here. I was refering to how wind shear hinders different types of storms.

Here's some more about how the snowstorms are not related to Global Warming from Dr. Pielke Sr.

NBC Global Warming Nonsense

In this post I want to illustrate why it is the location of the westerlies that determine areas that have extreme cold weather and snowstorms.

The first image below presents the heights of the 500mb pressure surface and the temperatures at 850mb from the ECMWF analysis for January 28 2011 at noon GMT.

The 500mb level is used as it is about halfway through the depth of the atmosphere. The distances between the lines of equal height are proportional to the speed of the winds at that level. Since, in the Northern Hemisphere, winds blow counterclockwise around regions of lower heights, the wind field (not shown) is predominately westerly. This is why the middle and higher latitudes are often referred to as the “westerlies”. Winds at this spatial scale blow almost parallel to lines of constant height. When the height contours are close together, we refer to the higher winds that result as the “polar jet stream”.

Clearly evident in the example below is the progressively cooler 850mb temperatures and lower 500mb heights as one progresses to higher latitudes. Also, clearly seen are the regions of colder air (and corresponding lower heights) that extend towards lower latitudes. When these large equatorward excursions of the westerlies occur, extreme cold weather often happens. On the east side of these cold pockets, where there is a strong contrast with warmer air to the east, winter storms occur. If the temperatures are cold enough, precipitation can fall as heavy snow. These large excursions of the westerlies explains why there have been several extreme snowstorms in the eastern USA and western Europe in recent months.

To illustrate the dynamic character of the westerlies, I have presented below the ECMWF 500mb height and 850mb temperature forecast for next Friday [February 7 2010]. Compare the above figure with the one below. Note, for example, the large excursion of cold air and, therefore, westerlies southward to over the central USA. If this forecast verifies, it will be an extreme cold outbreak with considerable snow (and ice storms) on the southeast flank of this cold region.

It is not scientifically accurate to attribute “global warming” of a few tenths of a degree to explain these extreme weather events.

Moreover, in the latest measurements, the lower tropospheric temperatures are actually cooler than the long-term average.

Comment On The CBS News Article “Is Extreme Weather a Result of Global Warming?”

[LocoAko]

Wind Shear plays a role in Tropical systems, not so much in NON-Tropical Systems.

WTF?

[Snow_Miser]

WTF?

I was refering to Wind Shear hindering Tropical Storm development, but Non-Tropical Storms not weakening due to increased shear.

[nzucker]

I don't know why I'm bothering to reply to you, since you've shown time and time again that you're disproven and ignore other people's suggestions, but...

No one is suggesting specific events are due to a warming planet. You can rail about how wrong it is to do that all day long, and all any respected climate scientist is going to do is agree with you..

I attended a presentation at the 2011 AMS meeting about how the record -AO could be due to climate change (I can only find the abstracts, so I may be recalling incorrectly... just a disclaimer...) since melting ice sheets could allow a more negative AO, higher jet stream amplifications, etc.

Just a few years ago, scientists were saying that the +NAO pattern causing low snowfall in the mid-latitudes (London, Washington, D.C.) was due to global warming because the warmer conditions in the Indian Ocean were preventing blocking from developing.

Now, we're hearing that the -NAO/-AO pattern is caused by global warming due to melting ice. I've seen some studies showing significant correlations between years with abnormally low fall arctic sea ice (relative to that time period), and high-latitude blocking emerging the following northern winter. However, the sample size is very small with accurate satellite observations of the cryosphere only dating to 1979, and there were plenty of years that had completely the opposite of the expected pattern....remember how winter 2007-08 had a massive +NAO/+AO, despite September 2007 making headlines for the lowest recorded arctic sea ice minimum in recorded history?

Once again, I feel this is more a tactic meant to connect every weather phenomenon to climate change rather than a legitimate line of scientific inquiry. Clever climatologists like Hansen know that the electronic media-obsessed public has a short memory, and thus they won't recall that the opposite weather pattern was explained using global warming just a few years ago. This is the Orwellian "revisionist history"....although it was commonly speculated that global warming was responsible for NYC's snowless winters in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and it was stated by renowned British climatologist David Viner (who works for Hadley) that snowfall was becoming rarer in England due to global warming and was on the verge of virtual disappearance, it can now be claimed that heavy snowfall is also due to global warming. It never ceases to amaze that these "expert" climatologists rarely speak of the PDO, west-based vs. east-based ENSO events, solar minima and the like...they skip over the science they're supposed to be studying and communicating, instead preferring to embellish snowstorms or mild winters with the same vague commentary on global warming and the planet's doom.

It's sickening and hypocritical, but if Winters like 09-10 and 10-11 are due to global warming, I say "Bring it on!"...I love scenes like these:

Big Ben in December 2010:

NYC during the "Boxing Day Blizzard," also in December 2010 (The Boxing Day Blizzard was the best "true blizzard" I've experienced with temperatures in the teens, wind gusts over 60mph, and blinding snowfall rates of 2-3"/hr at the storm's height...a work of beauty from the gods above, definitely one of the best nights of my life):

[skierinvermont]

There have been lots of scientists who have been arguing AGW will cause a more -NAO/AO for a long time. The idea that there has been some kind of switch comes from the overly-simplistic view of science as a single monolith instead of doing the research to understand the individuals involved and the work they have produced. This is an area of active research and there is ongoing disagreement.

Also the expectation that scientists are going to give lessons on west vs east enso, the QBO, solar flares, the PDO etc. before arguing for an effect of AGW is absurd. People are sensibly concerned about how AGW will change climate .. they're not so concerned about how the QBO or solar flares affect their weather. Climate change is of much greater public interest than the QBO because AGW is going to cause long-term harmful changes and the QBO is just going to continue oscillating the way it always has. People don't need or want to know what controls the weather.. they just want to know what the weather is going to be and how the climate is going to change.

So again.. this expectation that climatologists are going to give meteorology lessons before explaining the effects of AGW is absurd. You may have a fascination with complex intricacies of meteorology.. the general public does not.

[Isotherm]

Atmospheric relative humidity has been decreasing at the 300mb level since 1948, slightly decreasing to near steady at the 600mb level, and at the surface, we saw a dip in the -PDO/ENSO 1945-1978 period, a rise in the +PDO/ENSO 1978-early 2000s, and over the past decade, a slight decrease.

In addition, if we examine the precipitable water values for the northern hemisphere in the period Dec-Feb of this past winter, they are below normal for the US, Europe, and East Asia, where all the heavy snowfalls occurred. Obviously that hvy snow is not a product of more water vapor, but colder temperatures.

It's very easy to hindsight 20-20 the situation now, but a few short years ago, we were hearing about the future lack of snowfall due to warmer temps. Many people would love if they had a job like that -- no matter how wrong you are, you're still right! They've made it so every single pathway of extreme weather ultimately leads to the explanation of global warming.

The record negative AO and NAO are both products of the extreme geomagnetic minimum we've been in over the past few years. The correlation coefficient for the NAO and geomagnetic aa index was 0.78 for the 1950-2000 period and reached 0.93 for 1970-2000. I explained this correlation in my winter outlook last autumn. The physical forcing behind this correlation is still in the speculation stages, but the facts are out there. AO/NAO do not correlate well at all with CO2 or other factors besides the PDO and AMO.

[Isotherm]

So again.. this expectation that climatologists are going to give meteorology lessons before explaining the effects of AGW is absurd. You may have a fascination with complex intricacies of meteorology.. the general public does not.

I'm sure the general public would rather hear meteorology over blatant exaggerations and hidden agendas.

[skierinvermont]

I'm sure the general public would rather hear meteorology over blatant exaggerations and hidden agendas.

I'm sure they would too.

1. AGW is not supposed to increase RH.

2. Tropospheric water vapor data is notoriously poor so unless that data is coming from a peer-review study which says it is of climate caliber quality, then it shouldn't be used for long term trend analysis.

Below is what the peer-review literature says about tropospheric water vapor. Note that this is for water vapor and not relative humidity. I don't know how this would convert into RH but my guess is it would be about "no change." Which fits with the theory. RH is not expected to change with AGW.