Better enjoy winter now...

[ORH_wxman]

On a short timescale sure it can dwarf it. But long term for the U.S. I'd expect the last century's ratio to of 1:1.5 to continue. Milwaukee and the northern plains might push the 2:1 ratio.

These aren't the actual theoretical numbers predicted by climate models.. I am just spitting out numbers from what I remember vaguely.

So you agree that the original premise that Milwaukee might have 30 days less winter in less than 90 years is pure bunk?

I find it to be laughable. The media loves to talk about snow and cold in the US as a direct result of AGW these days and even the IPCC was bad at explaining multi-decadal cycles in their 2007 report...supposedly their new report will have more on that.

I think the crux of the argument is that while AGW "people" (and I hate labeling groups, because there is no group...its all different levels) love to blame every single extreme weather event or warming or even cooling on AGW, some of us "Skeptics" (and some of you call us "deniers") say that there is a very large part of natural variability at play which shows up in the United States extremely well.

Yet "Skeptics" get called "deniers" anytime they try to point our natural variability that is obviously existing in our climate. The typical AGW playbook is to downplay any natural variation and try and blame it on GHGs. I know this is not true for all AGW believers just like all skeptics aren't people who do not believe in AGW. In fact, most of them do. I just find it interesting that as soon as some piece of garbage from the media or even some "scientist" says that Milwaukee will have 30 days less winter in less than 100 years when their winter hasn't really changed all that much in 100 years is taken at face value by some.

The data says its not how the climate in the US works.

[skierinvermont]

So you agree that the original premise that Milwaukee might have 30 days less winter in less than 90 years is pure bunk?

I find it to be laughable. The media loves to talk about snow and cold in the US as a direct result of AGW these days and even the IPCC was bad at explaining multi-decadal cycles in their 2007 report...supposedly their new report will have more on that.

I think the crux of the argument is that while AGW "people" (and I hate labeling groups, because there is no group...its all different levels) love to blame every single extreme weather event or warming or even cooling on AGW, some of us "Skeptics" (and some of you call us "deniers") say that there is a very large part of natural variability at play which shows up in the United States extremely well.

Yet "Skeptics" get called "deniers" anytime they try to point our natural variability that is obviously existing in our climate. The typical AGW playbook is to downplay any natural variation and try and blame it on GHGs. I know this is not true for all AGW believers just like all skeptics aren't people who do not believe in AGW. In fact, most of them do. I just find it interesting that as soon as some piece of garbage from the media or even some "scientist" says that Milwaukee will have 30 days less winter in less than 100 years when their winter hasn't really changed all that much in 100 years is taken at face value by some.

The data says its not how the climate in the US works.

Well like I said before a global warming of 2C would be 3 or 4C in Milwaukee winter.. so 6-8F in 90 years. That would make for a much shorter winter.. probably 6-8 weeks shorter (3-4 weeks on each end).

What I find laughable about this article is that they say this will be by mid-century. But I think they are spinning 2070 as midcentury and then they are using the high emissions scenarios without disclosing that.

I don't know.. I'd have to read it.

[tacoman25]

On a short timescale sure it can dwarf it. But long term for the U.S. I'd expect the last century's ratio of 1:1.5 to continue. Milwaukee and the northern plains might push the 2:1 ratio.

These aren't the actual theoretical numbers predicted by climate models.. I am just spitting out numbers from what I remember vaguely.

Also 1 century, especially considering not all the warming was anthropogenic and most of the GHG effect increase took place in the second half of the century, may not be very representative of what will occur with the much larger increase in the GHG effect that is anticipated. The radiative forcing from CO2 over the next century will be 2-3X that of the last century.

First of all, as Will pointed out and you ignored, that ratio only exists from certain starting points (and it's not actually that high). And I'd be willing to bet that now that we are in a -PDO phase (and headed towards -AMO), the trend will continue to go down.

Overall, the U.S. has actually seen less warming over the past century than the globe has. This is for all seasons. And that is not the expectation with AGW theory.

[ORH_wxman]

Well like I said before a global warming of 2C would be 3 or 4C in Milwaukee winter.. so 6-8F in 90 years. That would make for a much shorter winter.. probably 6-8 weeks shorter (3-4 weeks on each end).

What I find laughable about this article is that they say this will be by mid-century. But I think they are spinning 2070 as midcentury and then they are using the high emissions scenarios without disclosing that.

I don't know.. I'd have to read it.

How is this going to happen based on our temp records in the US?

Why hasn't this amplified warming happened already?

[skierinvermont]

First of all, as Will pointed out and you ignored, that ratio only exists from certain starting points (and it's not actually that high). And I'd be willing to bet that now that we are in a -PDO phase (and headed towards -AMO), the trend will continue to go down.

Overall, the U.S. has actually seen less warming over the past century than the globe has. This is for all seasons. And that is not the expectation with AGW theory.

In the long-term it has been true and I would expect it to continue to be true. All you and Will are doing is pointing out short time periods where it has not been true. The long-term winter ratio in the U.S. is 1.5:1. I would expect that to continue.

Even if the long-term winter ratio was not amplified over the last century that would not concern me especially. Could just be some other short/medium term factors overriding it. Amplification is a physical certainty and as the GHG effect becomes much more dominant the amplification would become apparent even if it were not already (which it is).

Annually, there is little amplification that is expected. We are too far south. In winter there should be some esp. in the northern U.S. The amplification occurs because of limited sunlight, which the U.S. is not except for in winter.

[skierinvermont]

How is this going to happen based on our temp records in the US?

Why hasn't this amplified warming happened already?

It did happen. We just agreed it did.

And I would expect that to continue. The amplification may become even more apparent as the GHG effect becomes more dominant over other factors.

[ORH_wxman]

In the long-term it has been true and I would expect it to continue to be true. All you and Will are doing is pointing out short time periods where it has not been true. The long-term winter ratio in the U.S. is 1.5:1. I would expect that to continue.

Even if the long-term winter ratio was not amplified over the last century that would not concern me especially. Could just be some other short/medium term factors overriding it. Amplification is a physical certainty and as the GHG effect becomes much more dominant the amplification would become apparent even if it were not already (which it is).

Annually, there is little amplification that is expected. We are too far south. In winter there should be some esp. in the northern U.S. The amplification occurs because of limited sunlight, which the U.S. is not except for in winter.

1.5 to 1 is based on the 1890s to present. But if you go from 1920 when we know we were out of the LIA rebound, its a lot less. Again, why can't you explain why a place like Milwaukee hasn't seen a huge increase in temps?

Why is there actually a cooling trend since 1986? Shouldn;t GHGs wipe that out easily since its supposed to be 2x the global temp rise? The US winters are dominated by the multi-decadal oscillations...do you not agree?

[ORH_wxman]

It did happen. We just agreed it did.

And I would expect that to continue. The amplification may become even more apparent as the GHG effect becomes more dominant over other factors.

No it didn't.

[tacoman25]

In the long-term it has been true and I would expect it to continue to be true. All you and Will are doing is pointing out short time periods where it has not been true. The long-term winter ratio in the U.S. is 1.5:1. I would expect that to continue.

Even if the long-term winter ratio was not amplified over the last century that would not concern me especially. Could just be some other short/medium term factors overriding it. Amplification is a physical certainty and as the GHG effect becomes much more dominant the amplification would become apparent even if it were not already (which it is).

Annually, there is little amplification that is expected. We are too far south. In winter there should be some esp. in the northern U.S. The amplification occurs because of limited sunlight, which the U.S. is not except for in winter.

What is your longterm starting point? 1920? 1900? 1880? Because those do matter.

And you fail to address the overall lack of greater warming in the U.S. for all seasons, which IS expected based on AGW theory.

It really feels like you are just repeating a mantra here without actually examing the facts.

[skierinvermont]

I see what you are saying about 1920 I glossed over that in my original reading of your post. You also have to remember that the global warming is less if you start in the 20s as well. Still some amplification but not nearly as much I agree.

The 1920s is also a bit of a selective starting point. Most other starting points between 1880-1950 would give you a decent amount of amplification.

I wouldn't look at any starting point post1950 though.. too short of a sample size for such a small area. Short term variation for such a small region can be quite dominant on a 20-50 year scale.

Like I said before though, even if NO amplification were apparent (and clearly some is) that would not concern me. The global warming will be much greater the next century, and the GHG effect itself. Amplification is a physical certainty with the GHG effect.

[ORH_wxman]

I see what you are saying about 1920 I glossed over that in my original reading of your post. You also have to remember that the global warming is less if you start in the 20s as well. Still some amplification but not nearly as much I agree.

The 1920s is also a bit of a selective starting point. Most other starting points between 1880-1950 would give you a decent amount of amplification.

I wouldn't look at any starting point post1950 though.. too short of a sample size for such a small area. Short term variation for such a small region can be quite dominant on a 20-50 year scale.

Like I said before though, even if NO amplification were apparent (and clearly some is) that would not concern me. The global warming will be much greater the next century, and the GHG effect itself. Amplification is a physical certainty with the GHG effect.

I agree with most of what you say here...but this does nothing to explain the lack of United States warming in winters over this period. Again, why should we believe that we will warm 3C over the next 90 years in winter when we have barely warmed at all since the 1920s?...around a half degree celcius.

Why do we have an actual cooling trend since 1986 if GHGs are supposed to be 2x that of the global warming in our latitude...this should dwarf any of our trends.

My theory (and many others) say that our winter weather is dominated by the multi-decadal oscillations and not GHGs.

[skierinvermont]

And you fail to address the overall lack of greater warming in the U.S. for all seasons, which IS expected based on AGW theory.

As I explained before, very little amplification is expected on an annual basis in the U.S. We are too far south. Here is the chart that demonstrates this. Look at A1B which is 3C of warming globally. The U.S. is in the 3-3.5 and 3.5-4 colors. Very little amplification. Like 10-20%. Easily outweighed on a 100 year basis in which the GHG net forcing was relatively weak compared to what will occur this century.

Actually I can't tell if we're in the 2.5-3.5 or the 3-4 colors.

[skierinvermont]

Again, why should we believe that we will warm 3C over the next 90 years in winter when we have barely warmed at all since the 1920s?...around a half degree celcius.

Because the GHG forcing over the next 90 years is likely to be 2-3X that of the last 90 years. And also because the 1920s is a bit of a selective starting point. If you start in 1950, 1940, 1880, 1900 etc. you get greater trends.

[ORH_wxman]

As I explained before, very little amplification is expected on an annual basis in the U.S. We are too far south. Here is the chart that demonstrates this. Look at A1B which is 3C of warming globally. The U.S. is in the 3-3.5 and 3.5-4 colors. Very little amplification.

That is very deceiving from your original point. You were arguing with us that the US warms enough in the winter to be consistent with AGW theory which it clearly wasn't, and then we provided data that shows otherwise, and you have backed off.

Can you explain to me why you say this:

.09C/decade is a good bit faster than the globe which has warmed at .07C/decade. That jibes with my 1.1/1.2C U.S. winters vs .8C globe annual.

Also most of the U.S. is south of 40N which you wouldn't really expect to warm that much faster in winter. The effect is much stronger were there is less sunlight.

None of this supported the assertion that the mid-latitude winters in the US warmed twice as fast as the global temps. Why hasn't the US warmed as fast as the the AGW theory says? Why have we actually seena cooling trend since 1986? How could we possibly get enough winters cold enough to get the 1986-2011 trend to be negative? That is nothing like the AGW theory says.

[skierinvermont]

The only way you avoid the conclusion of 3-5C of winter warming in the northern U.S. by the end of the century is if you:

1. dispute the validity/strength of the GHG effect itself and the warming it will cause

2. dispute the amplification that is inherently caused by GHGs

or

3. believe that there will be regional short-term phenomenon that are large enough to counteract 3-5C of warming.

[ORH_wxman]

Because the GHG forcing over the next 90 years is likely to be 2-3X that of the last 90 years. And also because the 1920s is a bit of a selective starting point. If you start in 1950, 1940, 1880, 1900 etc. you get greater trends.

Its kind of a much less obvious starting point than 1975 like your buddy Tamino loves to start at. You love to tell everyone who questions the science about Watts...your boy Tamino loves to start at 1975...I wonder why.

[ORH_wxman]

The only way you avoid the conclusion of 3-5C of winter warming in the northern U.S. by the end of the century is if you:

1. dispute the validity/strength of the GHG effect itself and the warming it will cause

2. dispute the amplification that is inherently caused by GHGs

or

3. believe that there will be regional short-term phenomenon that are large enough to counteract 3-5C of warming.

This is a very short sighted opinion...and quite condescending. You still havent explained the lack of warming in the US in the time frame that we "should" have warmed by 2x than the global temps.

[skierinvermont]

That is very deceiving from your original point. You were arguing with us that the US warms enough in the winter to be consistent with AGW theory which it clearly wasn't, and then we provided data that shows otherwise, and you have backed off.

Can you explain to me why you say this:

None of this supported the assertion that the mid-latitude winters in the US warmed twice as fast as the global temps. Why hasn't the US warmed as fast as the the AGW theory says? Why have we actually seena cooling trend since 1986? How could we possibly get enough winters cold enough to get the 1986-2011 trend to be negative? That is nothing like the AGW theory says.

As I've said repeatedly.. 1986 is a ridiculously short period to examine in which short term oscillatory factors will easily outweigh the long-term component of GHGs. The idea that a small region of the globe could cool over a 25 year period is not even remotely at odds with AGW theory. In the long-run these short-term oscillatory factors will average to zero and the GHG trend becomes apparent. Which it does in the U.S. Unless you selectively start in 1920. Any other long-term starting point you find amplification.

It is quite clear that amplification in winter has occurred in the U.S. Even if it had not, that would be no reason to believe that it would not occur in the future as the GHG effect becomes more and more dominant.

[ORH_wxman]

As I've said repeatedly.. 1986 is a ridiculously short period to examine in which short term oscillatory factors will easily outweigh the long-term component of GHGs. The idea that a small region of the globe could cool over a 25 year period is not even remotely at odds with AGW theory. In the long-run these short-term oscillatory factors will average to zero and the GHG trend becomes apparent. Which it does in the U.S. Unless you selectively start in 1920.

It is quite clear that amplification in winter has occurred in the U.S. Even if it had not, that would be no reason to believe that it would not occur in the future as the GHG effect becomes more and more dominant.

The US hasn't followed the AGW theory even if you ignore the selective time frames. Why isn't it even close to double? Thayt is what AGW theory says.

The "skeptic" view is that the multi-decadal oscillation dominates the winter temps and events...and not AGW. Are you disgreeing with that?

[skierinvermont]

Its kind of a much less obvious starting point than 1975 like your buddy Tamino loves to start at. You love to tell everyone who questions the science about Watts...your boy Tamino loves to start at 1975...I wonder why.

Tamino isn't my buddy. I've critiqued him on his blog multiple times although I do not read it regularly.

And starting in 1975 globally is not nearly as bad as starting in 1986 regionally. Although neither are likely to be entirely representative of the background AGW signal.

[ORH_wxman]

Tamino isn't my buddy. I've critiqued him on his blog multiple times although I do not read it regularly.

And starting in 1975 globally is not nearly as bad as starting in 1986 regionally. Although neither are likely to be entirely representative of the background AGW signal.

It is significant if you claim warming is 2x than the global warming. That should get big pretty fast. It might just be plausible that the US warming signal is dwarfed by the multi-decadal oscillations.

[skierinvermont]

The US hasn't followed the AGW theory even if you ignore the selective time frames. Why isn't it even close to double? Thayt is what AGW theory says.

The "skeptic" view is that the multi-decadal oscillation dominates the winter temps and events...and not AGW. Are you disgreeing with that?

A balanced view of winter U.S. amplification would probably be an amplification of 25% in winter if you look at various starting points prior to 1950. No not close to double but that doesn't concern me. One 'fair' way to do it might be to look at u.s. winter and global annual temps 1880-1950 vs 1990-2010.

For one thing, the double number was more for the 40-50N latitude which would be the northern u.s. and southern canada. Not the U.S.

Second of all, I pulled the double number out of my ass. Rough guess based on experience. The actual model predictions might be less than that. Somebody should check.

And third, I wouldn't expect that regional amplification would be ubiquitously apparent in all mid-latitude regions and locations over the last century given the GHG forcing was fairly weak compared to what is anticipated. As the GHG effect grows, it will drown out the noise more and more.

[ORH_wxman]

A balanced view of winter U.S. amplification would probably be an amplification of 25% in winter if you look at various starting points prior to 1950. No not close to double but that doesn't concern me.

For one thing, the double number was more for the 40-50 which would be the northern u.s. and southern canada.

Second of all, I pulled the double number out of my ass. Rough guess based on experience. The actual model predictions might be less than that. Somebody should check.

And third, I wouldn't expect that regional amplification would be ubiquitously apparent in all mid-latitude regions and locations over the last century given the GHG forcing was fairly weak compared to what is anticipated. As the GHG effect grows, it will drown out the noise.

So you are basically admitting that natural factors can completely dwarf the GHG backround in the future for US winters. Which is the way it always has been. GHG influence might be there if you try hard enough.

[skierinvermont]

It is significant if you claim warming is 2x than the global warming. That should get big pretty fast. It might just be plausible that the US warming signal is dwarfed by the multi-decadal oscillations.

The multi-decadal variations certainly can dwarf 20 or 50 years of GHG warming regionally. And can even perturb a 80 year trend regionally. Heck, we even have areas of the globe that haven't warmed at all yet. In the long run, that won't be true.

[skierinvermont]

So you are basically admitting that natural factors can completely dwarf the GHG backround in the future for US winters. Which is the way it always has been. GHG influence might be there if you try hard enough.

I'm saying it is possible on a REGIONAL basis over the last century but will not be true over the next century given the GHG forcing will be 2-3X greater.

And it's not as though the GHG signal was dwarfed.. the U.S. still warmed in winter dramatically. Just ever so slightly less than one might expect based on GHGs alone.

[ORH_wxman]

The multi-decadal variations certainly can dwarf 20 or 50 years of GHG warming regionally. And can even perturb a 80 year trend regionally. Heck, we even have areas of the globe that haven't warmed at all yet. In the long run, that won't be true.

Right...the US , which has the best data available on the globe isn't warming as fast as the rest of the proxies.

[ORH_wxman]

I'm saying it is possible on a REGIONAL basis over the last century but will not be true over the next century given the GHG forcing will be 2-3X greater.

And it's not as though the GHG signal was dwarfed.. the U.S. still warmed in winter dramatically. Just ever so slightly less than one might expect based on GHGs alone.

No not at all...it was expected to warm twice as much and it didn't come close. And why is it divergining even further in recent years...is it because of ocean cycles that the last IPCC report said wasn't a major factor? (as evidenced in their temp progs)

[tacoman25]

The multi-decadal variations certainly can dwarf 20 or 50 years of GHG warming regionally. And can even perturb a 80 year trend regionally. Heck, we even have areas of the globe that haven't warmed at all yet. In the long run, that won't be true.

So you make statements like this, but then use simplified alarmist math to tell us what kind of winter climate a specific location will be seeing in 50 years? Doesn't seem consistent at all.

[tacoman25]

I'm saying it is possible on a REGIONAL basis over the last century but will not be true over the next century given the GHG forcing will be 2-3X greater.

And it's not as though the GHG signal was dwarfed.. the U.S. still warmed in winter dramatically. Just ever so slightly less than one might expect based on GHGs alone.

As I said before, we have just entered a -PDO phase and are moving towards a -AMO phase, both of which favor cooler winters nationally. The trend is higher now after a 30 year +PDO phase, but it is dropping now that it ended.

[tacoman25]

No not at all...it was expected to warm twice as much and it didn't come close. And why is it divergining even further in recent years...is it because of ocean cycles that the last IPCC report said wasn't a major factor? (as evidenced in their temp progs)

Hansen's predictions about U.S. climate from the 1980s are failing miserably. Clearly, at that time he was confident enough in the science to make predictions about U.S. temperatures, just as people like skiier think science supports confident predictions of future decades. The complete disregard for other, not well understood factors is laughable...just like Hansen's failed predictions.