Better enjoy winter now...

[tacoman25]

True, but has always been the case on a longer term basis, U.S. winters and indeed all seasons will fall in line with hemispheric and global trends.

Actually, when you look at all seasons the U.S. has not seen the same acceleration in warming longterm that the globe has. Especially since mid century the trend is lower.

[tacoman25]

Aren't you guys mixing regional and global influence as if they respond equally to greenhouse warming? Of course ocean oscillations will affect regional areas, but they can not and will not affect the global trend long term. There will always be local and regional variation.

The PDO phase changes have a very clear effect on the overall global temperature trend. As we have explained before, +PDO phase favor more El Ninos and overall warmer SSTA, which as we all know release more heat into the atmosphere and cause global temperatures to spike.

[tacoman25]

Since we're focusing on seasonal temperatures in the Midwest (Milwaukee, in the case of this article)...

[WeatherRusty]

What about going from -PDO to +PDO? The 1976-2006 period was +PDO, and therefore natural occilations favored warming if you start from the end of the last -PDO phase.

Why then when we look at a chart of global temps do we see a non-uniform rise out of the 1800's to the present spanning multiple oceanic oscillations? The actual sea surface temperatures have risen throughout the period dragging the max and min values of the oscillations upward along the way.

[ORH_wxman]

So even though glaciers and land ice was much more profound then the ice was real low like now then? or something close to now?

even though the proxies say otherwise?

Can you link me to the accepted peer reviewed work showing sea ice thickness, volume, extent, and area being so low in the 1940s.

There was def a pretty low min in the 1950s

Sea ice is fairly OT here though...we are discussing the lack of warming in the United States which AGW theory says should be warming much faster.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Actually, when you look at all seasons the U.S. has not seen the same acceleration in warming longterm that the globe has. Especially since mid century the trend is lower.

I wouldn't expect personally for the US to warm as fast as the globe since the poles are warming faster and the US is mid latitude. The arctic is carrying the load right now. We see this on a small scale like last month in October where the satellites where cooler while the surface obs were much warmer which is part of the immediate affects of the warming with lower sea ice. Much of that heat will go to space but because of increases GHGs more of it will be trapped, hence the long term positive feedback of AGW. But the facts still remain the system is taking in more energy because the sea ice is reduced and this is not just exclusive to the arctic cirlc or the inner arctic. The areas further south like the Hudson Bay takes in more energy because the ice is covering it up later and later. Even these small amounts perpetuate feedbacked warming over time until a new equilibrium is reached. So the only way the warming is not possible is if the black-body response or the Co2 heat trapping is not real.

I have no doubt the actual amount of warming is going to very greatly. and hopefully it doesn't end up at worse case levels and the projections are off. But the mechanisms for action are not hard to understand as well as the cyclical nature of the Earth.

[WeatherRusty]

Actually, when you look at all seasons the U.S. has not seen the same acceleration in warming longterm that the globe has. Especially since mid century the trend is lower.

No real argument here. We agree the U.S. has been warming more slowly, but obviously still warming. All that means though, is that elsewhere the warming rate has been faster than the average.

[The_Global_Warmer]

How does warming in November in the USA stack up to the rest of the globe overall decade to decade?

[WeatherRusty]

There was def a pretty low min in the 1950s

Sea ice is fairly OT here though...we are discussing the lack of warming in the United States which AGW theory says should be warming much faster.

Where does AGW theory say the U.S. should be warming much faster? I have never come across that claim. Is that maybe just an inference of yours?

[tacoman25]

Why then when we look at a chart of global temps do we see a non-uniform rise out of the 1800's to the present spanning multiple oceanic oscillations? The actual sea surface temperatures have risen throughout the period dragging the max and min values of the oscillations upward along the way.

Yes, we see global temps being affected by the occilations to a significant degree. Yes, the overall longterm trend is up, saying that trends from 1970-present are entirely due AGW means you are completely ignoring the natural ocean climate phases over that period (basically, going from cold to warm, which enhanced the warming trend).

[tacoman25]

No real argument here. We agree the U.S. has been warming more slowly, but obviously still warming. All that means though, is that elsewhere the warming rate has been faster than the average.

Sure. But then why do people still think we can predict the climate of a specific location/region in the future? That was the whole premise of this thread.

[WeatherRusty]

Yes, we see global temps being affected by the occilations to a significant degree. Yes, the overall longterm trend is up, saying that trends from 1970-present are entirely due AGW means you are completely ignoring the natural ocean climate phases over that period (basically, going from cold to warm, which enhanced the warming trend).

What I am looking at is the long term running mean, not the oscillations about that mean. The waviness is obviously due to factors of internal variability such as PDO.

[tacoman25]

I wouldn't expect personally for the US to warm as fast as the globe since the poles are warming faster and the US is mid latitude. The arctic is carrying the load right now. We see this on a small scale like last month in October where the satellites where cooler while the surface obs were much warmer which is part of the immediate affects of the warming with lower sea ice. Much of that heat will go to space but because of increases GHGs more of it will be trapped, hence the long term positive feedback of AGW. But the facts still remain the system is taking in more energy because the sea ice is reduced and this is not just exclusive to the arctic cirlc or the inner arctic. The areas further south like the Hudson Bay takes in more energy because the ice is covering it up later and later. Even these small amounts perpetuate feedbacked warming over time until a new equilibrium is reached. So the only way the warming is not possible is if the black-body response or the Co2 heat trapping is not real.

I have no doubt the actual amount of warming is going to very greatly. and hopefully it doesn't end up at worse case levels and the projections are off. But the mechanisms for action are not hard to understand as well as the cyclical nature of the Earth.

Well, you have to remember that the poles are offset by the tropics, which are supposed to warm much less. Actually, more than offset, since the tropics cover a much larger area than the poles. As part of a major NH landmass in the mid latitudes, the U.S. should be warming at least as fast as the global average temperature. That would be the expectation, at least.

[tacoman25]

What I am looking at is the long term running mean, not the oscillations about that mean. The waviness is obviously due to factors of internal variability such as PDO.

Right. But then you would agree that if you look at trends 1970 to present, the fact that 1976-2006 was a +PDO phase means the warming signal was enhanced? And therefore saying AGW was 100% responsible for the warming trend over that period would be inaccurate.

[WeatherRusty]

Sure. But then why do people still think we can predict the climate of a specific location/region in the future? That was the whole premise of this thread.

I am with you on that point. The science is not specific to isolated locations or even regions which are under the influence of many unique factors. AGW pertains more to the general circulation, or at least that's the aspect of it I have faith in.

[WeatherRusty]

Right. But then you would agree that if you look at trends 1970 to present, the fact that 1976-2006 was a +PDO phase means the warming signal was enhanced? And therefore saying AGW was 100% responsible for the warming trend over that period would be inaccurate.

Ok, I shouldn't speak in terms of absolutes.

Climate science recognizes that the background warming will be modified up and down by factors of internal variability. I am not saying it is not, because the climate has always been influenced by natural variability.

I isolate on the background externally forced trend (running mean) because that is what interests me in terms of the future for global warming. I am less interested in trying to minimize the current warming signal as a means to diminish the perceived future threat.

[tamarack]

Well, you have to remember that the poles are offset by the tropics, which are supposed to warm much less. Actually, more than offset, since the tropics cover a much larger area than the poles. As part of a major NH landmass in the mid latitudes, the U.S. should be warming at least as fast as the global average temperature. That would be the expectation, at least.

I'm presuming that global temps are calculated with surface area factored in. (Seems like a Duh! statement; pardon my ignorance.) Though the US (48 states only) is "mid latitude", probably 90-95% of its area lies in the N half of the northern hemisphere, as about half the earth's surface lies within 31 degrees of the equator. The geographical center of the 48 is at 39.5 N, and 60% of the hemisphere surface lies south of there. Thus the Arctic needs to really do the heavy lifting if the global average is to rise as modeled.

[Tropical]

I found this interesting ...

This year will go down as the warmest year on record globally during a La Nina event, according to the UN's World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

Including all recorded years, 2011 will end up as the tenth highest on record, which is quite impressive when you consider La Nina, the abnormal cooling of the sea surface waters over the equatorial Pacific, which normally has a relative cooling influence for the globe.

The WMO also noted that the 13 warmest years on record globally have occurred in the 15 years since 1997.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/warmest-year-with-a-la-nina-ev/58392

[ChrisM]

anytime the word "climate" and a timeline like 60 years are used together...I run, and I run away fast.

[skierinvermont]

Did you read the conversation? It was skiier that brought up the 2x warming in the mid latitudes.

yes winter only.. not sure if Rusty meant winter or annual when he said 2x arctic.. and I was thinking like 40-50N when I said mid latitude. I still think 2X is a good guestimate for 40-50N in winter, but it did come out of my ass.

[ORH_wxman]

yes winter only.. not sure if Rusty meant winter or annual when he said 2x arctic.. and I was thinking like 40-50N when I said mid latitude. I still think 2X is a good guestimate for 40-50N in winter, but it did come out of my ass.

I think the 2x is close to right based on AGW theory. I know I have seen maps of future warming and it is amplified as you go poleward. It actually might have been one of Hansen's papers. But I think there are others.

But the tropics would see the least warming at the surface (but amplified in the troposphere).

[The_Global_Warmer]

Well, you have to remember that the poles are offset by the tropics, which are supposed to warm much less. Actually, more than offset, since the tropics cover a much larger area than the poles. As part of a major NH landmass in the mid latitudes, the U.S. should be warming at least as fast as the global average temperature. That would be the expectation, at least.

Well....I think the USA suffers from being so open to the arctic and has a lot of high ground/mtns.

Also temperate environments will be even less affected which is a large portion of the west coast. The midwest, south, east, and lakes is a breeding ground for wild fluctuations in temps but is also at the mercy of ocean temps and arctic temps. bottom line the US is not far enough north to be affected as much by the lower ice and higher positive feedback from solar insolation and is still getting cold enough air from the Arctic that it is modified closer to normal when it reaches the USA.

also, he is right we haven't seen the same deep bitter cold which is probably due to the arctic it self not harboring as much wide spread bitter cold compared to past when ice was higher all year.

It also seems the US is mostly affected in the fall...I think the US is warming faster in Fall than the global average or at least November.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I'm presuming that global temps are calculated with surface area factored in. (Seems like a Duh! statement; pardon my ignorance.) Though the US (48 states only) is "mid latitude", probably 90-95% of its area lies in the N half of the northern hemisphere, as about half the earth's surface lies within 31 degrees of the equator. The geographical center of the 48 is at 39.5 N, and 60% of the hemisphere surface lies south of there. Thus the Arctic needs to really do the heavy lifting if the global average is to rise as modeled.

I am not that familiar with the Longitude and latitude system. But of the Equator is 0 and the NP is 90.

wouldn't 45N be the middle?

If we are considering the Northern Half of the Northern Hemisphere above 45N which is half way up. Then only a small portion of the US is in it In fact the tip of Florida passes 25N and is real close to the tropic of Cancer, IIRC is 23N. So we are mostly in the south section, but I would split them three ways, 60-90, 30-60, and 0-30. which puts the US no where near the arctic circle outside of Alaska. With half the CONUS from 32-40N and the other half from 40N to 46.6N or so. EDIT: I see your referring to land only.

So we are pretty far south sun wise and won't be affected by the arctic business the same way a Russia would be or Canada. We are probably in a place that would be more inclined for a slower change, except in fall or spring.

How does the US do compared to global changes in April and May or October and November?

The arctic is doing some heavy lifting, we have a very nice set of mooring and bouys to validate it too. In the passed places would sit almost all winter say between -30 and -50C but now sit mostly between -30 and -45C but have a few days here and there where they are -10 to -15C during a warm intrusion from an area that ice is weaker or non frozen over that powerful solar insolation took place.

the poles do the heavy lifting. This is why 2011 was named 10th warmer year on record. Most of the surface warmth is between 60-90 on each side. But when it is so warm it will bring the entire globe up by quite a bit. That is still 33 percent of the globe.

I am not familiar with Antartica but the Arctics biggest warm period is the fall(compared to normal that is).

That is November so far. Those three red/orange spots in the arctic is where solar insolation had it's way this year. Right now the Chukchi is exhausting its load of warmth.

Here is October:

You can see in October there was still more open water and more heat to exhaust by the Arctic Sea. remember GISS was around a .52 temp anomaly but like 2-3C in the 60-90N and 4-5C in 80-90N and that is real, the buoys back it, in fact in some places that were already forecasted as very warm GISS was not warm enough at the surface...but only a fraction of this heat gets trapped.

That is why the Satellites RSS and UAH in October were .13C and .09C respectively which I completely buy.

We are primed with the current arctic situation for a record breaker on GISS with the sats not being as warm and some more "so called controversy" yet it makes perfect sense.

I guarantee GISS will be colder in November and much colder in December compared to October unless the Antarctic is absurdly warm.

[ORH_wxman]

I am not that familiar with the Longitude and latitude system. But of the Equator is 0 and the NP is 90.

wouldn't 45N be the middle?

Sfc area declines as you head north because of the lesser longitude gradient. So mid-latitudes are defined a lot lower than 45N. 70N to 90N is a very small sfc area. So it is not linear.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Sfc area declines as you head north because of the lesser longitude gradient. So mid-latitudes are defined a lot lower than 45N. 70N to 90N is a very small sfc area. So it is not linear.

Those global temp graphs look right to me..maybe I am not understanding, I get what your saying but why does it appear flat and linear when they lay it out like that?

[tamarack]

Actually, I was using total surface areas, not just land (which would require much land/sea work when separating areas above/below latitude lines.)

If one uses a Mercator projection, 50% of the map's N.Hem surface does lie above 45N. Of course, that's the projection that shows Greenland as being larger than S.America, because of mega-distortion as one moves poleward. The US map you showed looks like Mercator. My numbers were seat-of-pants calculations begining with the total surface area of the earth and figuring (with trig but without integral calculus, thus not precise) the areas lying between the equator and selected latitudes.

[tacoman25]

Well....I think the USA suffers from being so open to the arctic and has a lot of high ground/mtns.

I'm not sure I follow you here. After all, the same would apply to much of Asia. In addition, we are talking about anomalies...the US has always had the same high elevation and been open to the Arctic.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I'm not sure I follow you here. After all, the same would apply to much of Asia. In addition, we are talking about anomalies...the US has always had the same high elevation and been open to the Arctic.

I have to go to work, but I have some ideas on this.

so are we talking about all year or just the winter?

[wisconsinwx]

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.

Actually, the argument is worse than that. I think he was saying we would have a 30 day winter season, period, which is even more preposterous!

[TerryM]

Just wish we'd get some snow here in Cambridge, Ontario