Better enjoy winter now...

[The_Global_Warmer]

When did amwx add a comedy section? LOL there is no way in hell that will be happening, probably, ever. That laughable article had no more fact in it than ones i can pull up that equally show global cooling stats. And length of snow season? Since when has there been an average anyway. The first flake to last flake snow seasons in this region last 5-7 months time, they always have, and they always will. Some seasons are snowier than others obviously. Some longer seasons have less total snowfall than shorter season, because all a "snow season" is is the date of the first flakes to the date of the last flakes. Back in the 1990s I read a AGW story on how Great Lakes winters were getting milder and less snowy and would be like Kentucky by 2030. Since the 2000s winters WERE COLDER AND MUCH SNOWIER than the 1990s winters, now I see that heavy snowfall is a product of the transition to a warmer, less snowy climate . Basically I can look at stats in Detroit (which would be similar to, albeit slightly less snowy than Milwakee) from the day records began 140 years ago to now, and analyzing every possible stat of snowfall there is, be it snowfall, snow depth, snow season length, days with snow, etc, and there is ZERO evidence that snowfall is lessening, the only evidence points to snowfall increasing.

Snow fall in colder climates will generally increase as long as the climate remains cold enough for snow during the time frame in question. Unless the time frame shrinks more do than the increased snow from more available moisture. Currently the places for more moisture are typically Warmer. The arctic and sub arctic is warmer. Alberta clippers are coming from a source region that is warming faster than the global average of warmth. Southern storms can pull moreoiature and throw it into the cold sector of storms in the mid latitudes. The warmIng can also aid in deeper Cyclogenesis of mid latitude cyclones. As time goes on snow fall may increase while the length of time if snow ground decreases as well as the severity of cold and how long it lasts.

Denying AGW out right is denying basic physics. I dont know how so many can come to a science weather board and deny basic physics.

The arctic is torching and has been for a few kmonths. It is our source region for cold air. It is baking in large part to trapped heat from lack of sea ice and lack of ice thickness last summer. I know the global patterns run the show.

But again to deny the changes seen or the impact of AGW when we see the arctic changed so dramatically is interesting, yet I am crazy because I pay attention to reality. Ok. Sure.

It's crazy the amount of snow lovers who come to climate talk deny AGW post some absurd denier based unsubstantiated claims about AGW then leave after they get pounded with undeniable fact after fact.

I guess every time we have record negative AO and NAO that bring us cold and snow. Even if its no where near(cold) wise what it used to be. Folks will come out confident climate change is a hoax. Until that +AO winter and new record warmth breaks out.

Transitional months are the most affected at first. Quick someone look up historical November temps and tell me dramatic changes are not under way.

[skierinvermont]

Denying AGW out right is denying basic physics. I dont know how so many can come to a science weather board and deny basic physics.

It is always disheartening to me to be reminded how many people don't understand this and even belligerently deny it.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Ohh yeah, all the future mets and people who have years of weather knowledge/exeperience on this board and even in THIS thread are soooo soooo "anti science"

You out right denied AGW. Explain what is causing the global changes? Explain how the greenhouse affect is not real?

Thanks in advance.

[BeastFromTheEast]

Denying *GW out right is denying basic physics. I dont know how so many can come to a science weather board and deny basic physics.

Get rid of the A.. No one in their right mind is denying the earth warming.. Its just to what degree are humans involved in it.. And imo it is very little.. Natural factors override everything, humans aren't the greatest and biggest baddest creatures on the planet, mother nature always wins..

And of course the ***** greenhouse effect is real...

[The_Global_Warmer]

It is always disheartening to me to be reminded how many people don't understand this and even belligerently deny it.

I feel you on that.

A lot of it stems from snow on these boards. Most people who are here because of snow have some deep seeded emotional connection to it and have since they were young. AGW is to snow lovers is what evolution is to Many Christians. It is basic human phycology.

I posted the November climate data on a local forum. I went from forum favorite to black sheep in an instant. The same overwhelming denying and insult slinging came out of the majority who were typically nice people.

In some cases rage was there like we saw this summer in the sea ice thread as the sea ice was on the tank. The more talk and reporting I did and others the more rage that came. If I poster one so called doom and gloom post it was treated the same as 100 vile posts from a sunny and warm. Which Is absurd. But this isnt about logic and reason it hits to close to home for so many.

I remember how bad and sinking it felt when I accepted and understood the essence of AGW, when I came to grips with my back yard climate never going back to what if used to be.

If AGW is bunk then why does the nearly completely ice free Hudson have about 8 days to grow what 60-70% to reach climo? Of am I off and Dec 4th is 90% of coverage?

Either way the satelittes are burrrr and global temps are normal and GISS is embarassing? Yet the Hudson is almost 100% ice free on November 27th and the arctic is torching with 40-50F temp anomalies.

[BeastFromTheEast]

I feel you on that.

A lot of it stems from snow on these boards. Most people who are here because of snow have some deep seeded emotional connection to it and have since they were young. AGW is to snow lovers is what evolution is to Many Christians. It is basic human phycology.

Atta boy, way to psychoanalyze the majority of this board

Are you a psychiatrist too now in addition to your PhD in climate science?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Get rid of the A.. No one in their right mind is denying the earth warming.. Its just to what degree are humans involved in it.. And imo it is very little.. Natural factors override everything, humans aren't the greatest and biggest baddest creatures on the planet, mother nature always wins..

And of course the ***** greenhouse effect is real...

Explain how it is very little? Please show evidence of this?

Why didn't you tell your comrades in arms to not insult me? Why did you insult me over the summer for no reason? Why didn't you tell the folks who agree with you view on AGW who insulted me hundreds of times in August, Sept, and October to drop there attitudes. Instead you joined in and insulted me some more while making claims with no evidence. I have saved over 50 posts now with vile insults directed at me for no reason since September. I can assure you I have never written anything near as mean. Now I come here and read mOre trolling on me from posters who I have little to no contact with. Hence my attitude.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Atta boy, way to psychoanalyze the majority of this board

Are you a psychiatrist to in addition to your PhD in climate science?

Way to start deflecting and adverting for them.

Let's have them come back here and explain how AGW doesn't exist.

I am sorry that you mock basic phycology that we learn in Jr High. Do you have a better answer on why folks out right deny basic physics. You do understand that people are out right denying basic physics? I am looking for answers to how people can come to a science forum. post that physics is not real but seem to love physical science.

You instead of conversing about it directly with me retort with sarcasm and jokes.

[WeatherRusty]

Get rid of the A.. No one in their right mind is denying the earth warming.. Its just to what degree are humans involved in it.. And imo it is very little.. Natural factors override everything, humans aren't the greatest and biggest baddest creatures on the planet, mother nature always wins..

And of course the ***** greenhouse effect is real...

This post demonstrates your lack of understanding in the physical basis for AGW. You are denying the physics involved by removing the 'A'.

No one should really cares about your unscientific opinion. I certainly don't.

What natural factors are overriding everything? Peer-reviewed literature please. If you can't answer that question then your opinion comes from your gut rather than from your logical mind.

And yes, plenty of skeptics question whether the Earth is really warming. Thus the need for the recent BEST analysis.

[LocoAko]

Get rid of the A.. No one in their right mind is denying the earth warming.. Its just to what degree are humans involved in it.. And imo it is very little.. Natural factors override everything, humans aren't the greatest and biggest baddest creatures on the planet, mother nature always wins..

And of course the ***** greenhouse effect is real...

Oh cool, thanks for figuring it out. Can you tell me what, specifically, the 99% of leading climate experts in this field who study this for a living are missing that you discovered? I would have assumed they looked into whether it could be natural or not....

Another armchair climate scientist, I see.

[Alpha5]

In the last 20 years....

NYC had

Its snowiest winter ever

3rd snowiest winter ever

Snowiest single storm

Snowiest October ever

Snowiest January ever

Snowiest February ever

10+ KU's

[LocoAko]

In the last 20 years....

NYC had

Its snowiest winter ever

3rd snowiest winter ever

Snowiest single storm

Snowiest October ever

Snowiest January ever

Snowiest February ever

10+ KU's

It is widely theorized and studied that the weakening of the polar jet will allow for more cold shots to move down from the poles, and while we may still be warming, they are still cold enough to give lower latitudes snow. Guess you've never heard of the Open Arctic? Besides, you should know that one location doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things.

[FPizz]

Typical posters ruined this thread with their tunnel vision. It was quite funny at first.

[WeatherRusty]

In the last 20 years....

NYC had

Its snowiest winter ever

3rd snowiest winter ever

Snowiest single storm

Snowiest October ever

Snowiest January ever

Snowiest February ever

10+ KU's

What is your point? Are you saying the world has not warmed as evidenced by the cited snow events?

[michsnowfreak]

I feel you on that.

A lot of it stems from snow on these boards. Most people who are here because of snow have some deep seeded emotional connection to it and have since they were young. AGW is to snow lovers is what evolution is to Many Christians. It is basic human phycology.

I posted the November climate data on a local forum. I went from forum favorite to black sheep in an instant. The same overwhelming denying and insult slinging came out of the majority who were typically nice people.

In some cases rage was there like we saw this summer in the sea ice thread as the sea ice was on the tank. The more talk and reporting I did and others the more rage that came. If I poster one so called doom and gloom post it was treated the same as 100 vile posts from a sunny and warm. Which Is absurd. But this isnt about logic and reason it hits to close to home for so many.

I remember how bad and sinking it felt when I accepted and understood the essence of AGW, when I came to grips with my back yard climate never going back to what if used to be.

If AGW is bunk then why does the nearly completely ice free Hudson have about 8 days to grow what 60-70% to reach climo? Of am I off and Dec 4th is 90% of coverage?

Either way the satelittes are burrrr and global temps are normal and GISS is embarassing? Yet the Hudson is almost 100% ice free on November 27th and the arctic is torching with 40-50F temp anomalies.

You cant make this stuff up! Dont get all "I cant believe how many people deny/dont understand the science...". This thread was not intended to be some scientific discussion on AGW (it was not even posted in the Climate Change forum). This was meant to be a troll thread, one of his best yet Ill add, with ZERO evidence to support an outrageous claim about the snow season in Milwaukee. Im sorry that you had a sinking feeling about your backyard climate and how it will never be what it used to be, LOL I dont have that sinking feeling yet because my backyard climate OVERALL is no different now than it was 150 years ago (with the exception of an increasing number of excessively snowy winters). The bottom line of THIS thread (not talking some repetitive AGW debate) is this. There is NO WAY that a place that currently has bare trees for 6 months, a growing season of just 170 days, and sees a timeframe of between 5-7 months from first to last snow in a season, will have winter narrowed down to a 30-day window in several decades. Period. End of discussion.

[michsnowfreak]

In the last 20 years....

NYC had

Its snowiest winter ever

3rd snowiest winter ever

Snowiest single storm

Snowiest October ever

Snowiest January ever

Snowiest February ever

10+ KU's

For Detroit, in JUST the last 10 years....its been...

4th snowiest winter

5th snowiest winter

9th snowiest winter

10th snowiest winter

13th snowiest winter

earliest measurable snowfall

record late-April snowstorm

I better bold this before I even go on about snow.... AGW is NOT about snowfall OR localized locations. HOWEVER the root of this thread IS. My biggest argument when throwing out the snowfall.........rewind to the late 1990s. A series of mild winters with low snowfall had plagued much of the nation. I read NUMEROUS articles )printed a few, urls long since broken) from scientists on global warming and what the future of winters (and summers) in the midwest would be. NOT ONE said ANYTHING about snowfall increasing due to warming, blah blah blah. They all said the same thing, snowfall would be getting less and less with each passing decade. The most astonishing (as I posted earlier in this thread) was that MI winters like present-day KY and summers like present-day GA by 2030. Well, now lets fastforward to the present. Excessively snowy winters have been coming one after the other, and NOW thats a product of AGW! Yet do you think for one minute that had the mild, less snowy winters of the 1990s continued into the 2000s that increased snowiness would be given as a future problem of AGW? HELLL NO! Also, dont think for one minute that the next time a very mild, snowless winter hits much of the nation that we wont hear the AGW drums beating like crazy. See in the 1930s, 40s, or 50s, several very warm winters occured and that was just a "mild" winter. Some of our nations warmest winters happened in the 19th century (1877-78, 1881-82 to name a few), again, that was a mild or "open" winter (probably detected from numerous signs when a farmer did his fall harvest). But from here on out, forget about it. A mild winter (as is a normal case in a climate that runs in cycles) will not be able to pass ever again without AGW stories coming out the wazoo

[WeatherRusty]

For Detroit, in JUST the last 10 years....its been...

4th snowiest winter

5th snowiest winter

9th snowiest winter

10th snowiest winter

13th snowiest winter

earliest measurable snowfall

record late-April snowstorm

I better bold this before I even go on about snow.... AGW is NOT about snowfall OR localized locations. HOWEVER the root of this thread IS. My biggest argument when throwing out the snowfall.........rewind to the late 1990s. A series of mild winters with low snowfall had plagued much of the nation. I read NUMEROUS articles )printed a few, urls long since broken) from scientists on global warming and what the future of winters (and summers) in the midwest would be. NOT ONE said ANYTHING about snowfall increasing due to warming, blah blah blah. They all said the same thing, snowfall would be getting less and less with each passing decade. The most astonishing (as I posted earlier in this thread) was that MI winters like present-day KY and summers like present-day GA by 2030. Well, now lets fastforward to the present. Excessively snowy winters have been coming one after the other, and NOW thats a product of AGW! Yet do you think for one minute that had the mild, less snowy winters of the 1990s continued into the 2000s that increased snowiness would be given as a future problem of AGW? HELLL NO! Also, dont think for one minute that the next time a very mild, snowless winter hits much of the nation that we wont hear the AGW drums beating like crazy. See in the 1930s, 40s, or 50s, several very warm winters occured and that was just a "mild" winter. Some of our nations warmest winters happened in the 19th century (1877-78, 1881-82 to name a few), again, that was a mild or "open" winter (probably detected from numerous signs when a farmer did his fall harvest). But from here on out, forget about it. A mild winter (as is a normal case in a climate that runs in cycles) will not be able to pass ever again without AGW stories coming out the wazoo

Is your bottom line conclusion that as the world warms the weather patterns will not change, because that seems to be the logical conclusion to what you are saying?

Do you accept the observation that NH snow cover has been on the decline over the past several decades?

SEE

[Jonger]

Is your bottom line conclusion that as the world warms the weather patterns will not change, because that seems to be the logical conclusion to what you are saying?

Do you accept the observation that NH snow cover has been on the decline over the past several decades?

SEE

Since the 1970's were a total anomaly it sounds like we are doing just fine in the NH. You are making a big deal about a 1C rise over 100+ years. To make the chart look scarier its basically common theme for AGW shills to use a -1 to +1 scale to make the line rise graph look more menacing.

[WeatherRusty]

Since the 1970's were a total anomaly it sounds like we are doing just fine in the NH. You are making a big deal about a 1C rise over 100+ years. To make the chart look scarier its basically common theme for AGW shills to use a -1 to +1 scale to make the line rise graph look more menacing.

In terms of paleoclimate a 1C rise in 100+ years is very, very fast. If that rate were to continue, and we have every reason to believe it will at a minimum, over the next century global temperatures would rise to 2C above what it was about the year 1880. That is a big deal.

Climate sensitivity estimates consistantly fall between 2C and 4.5C per doubling of CO2, which we will easily double sometime around mid century. So 2C is the least warming we should expect.

[dabize]

What is your point? Are you saying the world has not warmed as evidenced by the cited snow events?

Ice Age impending!

Ewing-Donn FTW!

[michsnowfreak]

Is your bottom line conclusion that as the world warms the weather patterns will not change, because that seems to be the logical conclusion to what you are saying?

Do you accept the observation that NH snow cover has been on the decline over the past several decades?

SEE

No, my point is that for the past 15 years (or so) weve seen hardcore AGWistas change with the wind wrt how snowfall patterns in the midwest/northeast will be affected, using the most recent winters as trends for why its an example of AGW. First, it was going to be that winters will be getting less and less snowy. Now its, well, they will get more snowy for a time but in the end they will be way less snowy. Weather patterns change all the time, always have, always will, so naturally winter snowfall patterns will change some in terms of severity (here, 1880s-1920s were a snowy cycle, 1930s-1960s a low snow cycle, and 1970s-now a snowy cycle...all cycles with numerous exceptions in their multi-decadal timeframe, obviously). But the general layout of the cold season has not changed at all (first frost late-Sept thru mid-Oct, last frost late-Apr to late-May....trees bare from late Oct/earlyNov-late Apr/early May....first snowflakes in Oct or Nov, last in Apr or May)....so Im not saying anything about what the distant future may hold. Maybe the climate will CONTINUE to get snowier in this region. Maybe it WILL get less snowy. Most LIKELY, imo, the climate will continue to go in cycles as it has since records began. But winter disappearing or being shortened to a few weeks in THIS region is FLAT OUT, 100% NOT HAPPENING.

[dabize]

But winter disappearing or being shortened to a few weeks in THIS region is FLAT OUT, 100% NOT HAPPENING.

Uhhhh...........this reads like a Presbyterian telling us he is "saved"

None of us know whether that will happen

We "warmistas" (does this mean "scientists?") are MUCH MORE confident that the collective global warming will be substantial by 2100 at latest, and that it will get worse after that( to the vast detriment of posterity) if we don't do something about it pretty quickly

How this averages out IYBY is unknowable.

[WeatherRusty]

No, my point is that for the past 15 years (or so) weve seen hardcore AGWistas change with the wind wrt how snowfall patterns in the midwest/northeast will be affected, using the most recent winters as trends for why its an example of AGW. First, it was going to be that winters will be getting less and less snowy. Now its, well, they will get more snowy for a time but in the end they will be way less snowy. Weather patterns change all the time, always have, always will, so naturally winter snowfall patterns will change some in terms of severity (here, 1880s-1920s were a snowy cycle, 1930s-1960s a low snow cycle, and 1970s-now a snowy cycle...all cycles with numerous exceptions in their multi-decadal timeframe, obviously). But the general layout of the cold season has not changed at all (first frost late-Sept thru mid-Oct, last frost late-Apr to late-May....trees bare from late Oct/earlyNov-late Apr/early May....first snowflakes in Oct or Nov, last in Apr or May)....so Im not saying anything about what the distant future may hold. Maybe the climate will CONTINUE to get snowier in this region. Maybe it WILL get less snowy. Most LIKELY, imo, the climate will continue to go in cycles as it has since records began. But winter disappearing or being shortened to a few weeks in THIS region is FLAT OUT, 100% NOT HAPPENING.

We agree that regular cycles will continue to modulate local and regional climates, just as they always have. However, we must also understand that the background warming of the global climate will also play a large role on longer time scales. It is to easy to confuse short term variability for the longer term trend. It is to easy to confuse local and regional conditions for the more expansive hemispheric and global condition.

Global warming acts more on large geographic and longer temporal time scales. The smaller you look the more variable the changing climate will appear and the less definite can be any prediction.

It will take much more than a 1C global warming to bring about a 30 day winter as the average condition in the upper mid-west. If by late this century global temp is another 1C-2C warmer than today what will be the average winter be like in the upper mid-west?

[dabize]

why wasn't this obvious troll thread just deleted from the midwest forum instead of being moved here?

Same reason the recycled hack email thread here wasn't

It is for the pleasure of the "people" (insert H.L. Mencken reference of choice)

[The_Global_Warmer]

You cant make this stuff up! Dont get all "I cant believe how many people deny/dont understand the science...". This thread was not intended to be some scientific discussion on AGW (it was not even posted in the Climate Change forum). This was meant to be a troll thread, one of his best yet Ill add, with ZERO evidence to support an outrageous claim about the snow season in Milwaukee. Im sorry that you had a sinking feeling about your backyard climate and how it will never be what it used to be, LOL I dont have that sinking feeling yet because my backyard climate OVERALL is no different now than it was 150 years ago (with the exception of an increasing number of excessively snowy winters). The bottom line of THIS thread (not talking some repetitive AGW debate) is this. There is NO WAY that a place that currently has bare trees for 6 months, a growing season of just 170 days, and sees a timeframe of between 5-7 months from first to last snow in a season, will have winter narrowed down to a 30-day window in several decades. Period. End of discussion.

Your not a very nice person abd your back yard isnt the only place on Earth.

I never said a word about you having 30 day winters. Snd if you think Your local climate won't change. I guess when the 1981-2010 climate averages came out they went down from the 1971-2000?

[Hoosier]

I almost never post in this forum but my semi-educated opinion is that climate change is real. I even think AGW is real but I feel that some in the AGW crowd undermine themselves by getting too specific about what it all means. It's hard enough to predict the precise rate of warming going forward but then you have some trying to figure out what it means for this region or that region.

[aslkahuna]

I almost never post in this forum but my semi-educated opinion is that climate change is real. I even think AGW is real but I feel that some in the AGW crowd undermine themselves by getting too specific about what it all means. It's hard enough to predict the precise rate of warming going forward but then you have some trying to figure out what it means for this region or that region.

I'm with you on that score.

Steve

[PottercountyWXobserver]

I almost never post in this forum but my semi-educated opinion is that climate change is real. I even think AGW is real but I feel that some in the AGW crowd undermine themselves by getting too specific about what it all means. It's hard enough to predict the precise rate of warming going forward but then you have some trying to figure out what it means for this region or that region.

ditto, this is where I stand.

Some AGWers might have said snow would continue to decrease, but this is more accurately depicted for a longer time scale. It does make sense for some places to have an increase of snowfall amounts from storms as storms can obtain more moisture in a warmer climate. Also I agree with the theory that a less arctic ice cover affects the polar jet to some extent. This weakening does allow for the arctic air to flow further south, ALTHOUGH the cold air from this source will no longer be as cold as before. The arctic ice/air source will continue to decrease in time and will thus keep arctic outbreaks from delivery very cold anomallies (ie less sub zero temperatures, which IS happening). The source of arctic air might still produce some record cold events, but overall the longevity of arctic outbreaks is decreasing as we no longer go days/weeks with a long cold snap. I think the snowfalls will continue to increase to a threshold point until the arctic air is marginalized and snow events will start turning to mainly rain events. I have noticed over the last 60 years of data, snowstorms that were once occuring at 25-29F are now occuring around 28-32F, even sometimes 29-34F. Another observation I have noticed is storm events during winter are becoming increasingly more ice/mix storms as WAA is begining to take over more often. You can't deny basic physics when it comes to AGW. I do think the scientific community does need to become more humble and realize we don't have all the answers and there still can be surprises, but the basic and main part of AGW is still relevant.

[dabize]

ditto, this is where I stand.

Some AGWers might have said snow would continue to decrease, but this is more accurately depicted for a longer time scale. It does make sense for some places to have an increase of snowfall amounts from storms as storms can obtain more moisture in a warmer climate. Also I agree with the theory that a less arctic ice cover affects the polar jet to some extent. This weakening does allow for the arctic air to flow further south, ALTHOUGH the cold air from this source will no longer be as cold as before. The arctic ice/air source will continue to decrease in time and will thus keep arctic outbreaks from delivery very cold anomallies (ie less sub zero temperatures, which IS happening). The source of arctic air might still produce some record cold events, but overall the longevity of arctic outbreaks is decreasing as we no longer go days/weeks with a long cold snap. I think the snowfalls will continue to increase to a threshold point until the arctic air is marginalized and snow events will start turning to mainly rain events. I have noticed over the last 60 years of data, snowstorms that were once occuring at 25-29F are now occuring around 28-32F, even sometimes 29-34F. Another observation I have noticed is storm events during winter are becoming increasingly more ice/mix storms as WAA is begining to take over more often. You can't deny basic physics when it comes to AGW. I do think the scientific community does need to become more humble and realize we don't have all the answers and there still can be surprises, but the basic and main part of AGW is still relevant.

I don't think anyone supporting mainstream AGW theory here disputes this view of the situation. Not absolutely sure that the snowfall increase anywhere is anything but random variation, but your scenario seems plausible to me for at least some locations.

Truth is, we don't really know how it will play out locally. I like your idea of a threshold - if I had to bet, that's what I'd bet on. Not that I know.

But we don't know when or where this threshold (if it exists) will be exceeded, and whether once it IS exceeded, it will "flip" to a new regime in which snowfall is much rarer than previously.

I suppose that it is formally possible that Ewing and Donn were right about the pivotal role of an open Arctic in driving reglaciation (even though it doesn't seem to explain previous glacial cycles), and that any forcing via CO2 increase will be overwhelmed by high snowfall rates increasing summer albedo once the Arctic is open well into the snow season. But I must say that this seems very unlikely, because by the time that happens, the overall heat budget will have been skewed significantly already by the elevated CO2. Besides, the open Arctic itself will absorb more heat. Seems to me that largescale modeling (unavailable in the '50s) would have flagged this if it was a realistic possiblity.

[ORH_wxman]

US winters have gotten significantly colder since the turn of the century. Coinciding with the Pacific shift fairly well. These cycles dwarf any backround AGW.

As for the AO mode and GHGs...there are contradicting studies about it. There are several that point to a poleward shift in the jet as GHGs increase forcing a more positive mode of the AO...and then some think warming of the arctic will cause -AO.