Is the mild winter this year a sign of Global Warming?

[TerryM]

I guess the Gulf Stream is abnormally north or are those just very warm waters north of it?

Followed Gulf Stream anomalies last year and this doesn't look too different to me. Which areas were you concerned with?

[donsutherland1]

Previously, I noted in this thread that perhaps the impact of ongoing climate change can be seen most clearly in the Arctic region. Below is a chart that compares similar synoptic patterns for the winter months (December-January-February) during 1950s-1970s and the same patterns during the 2000s.

Strong AO- and AO+ Regimes: 1950s-1970s vs. 2000s:

Notice that the areas of warm anomalies are much greater than they were during the 1950-1979 timeframe, particularly in the Arctic region.

In fact, if one references the annual data for the Arctic region (64N to 90N latitude), one finds:

1950-1979:

Mean anomaly: -0.005°C

Coldest anomaly: -0.75°C

Warmest anomaly: +0.89°C

Years with cold anomalies: 17 (57%)

Years with warm anomalies: 13 (43%)

2000-2011:

Mean anomaly: +1.473°C

Coldest anomaly: +0.62°C

Warmest anomaly: +2.23°C

Years with cold anomalies: 0 (0%)

Years with warm anomalies: 12 (100%)

Years with anomalies > +0.89°C (warmest during the 1950-79 period): 11 (92%)

However, it should be noted that the Arctic region goes through longer-term temperature cycles. The previous warm cycle ran from about 1920 through 1954. The current warm period commenced in 1980 and continues. A comparison of those larger warm periods follows:

1920-1954:

Mean anomaly: +0.439°C

Coldest anomaly: -0.20°C

Warmest anomaly: +1.30°C

Years with cold anomalies: 6 (17%)

Years with warm anomalies: 29 (83%)

Most consecutive years with anomalies of +1.0°C or warmer: 2

All but one of the anomalies of +1.0°C or warmer occurred prior to the PDO flipping to a negative cycle.

1980-2011:

Mean anomaly: +0.795°C

Coldest anomaly: -0.33°C

Warmest anomaly: +2.23°C

Years with cold anomalies: 3 (9%)

Years with warm anomalies: 28 (91%)

Most consecutive years with anomalies of +1.0°C or warmer: 7 (ongoing); 9 of the last 10 years and 10 of the last 12 years have had anomalies of +1.0°C or warmer; the last two years have had anomalies of +2.0°C or warmer

Years with anomalies > +1.30°C (warmest during the 1920-54 period): 8 (25%) ***all since 1995***

Since the PDO flipped to a negative cycle around 2007 (still some uncertainty as to the precise timing of the flip), anomalies have remained above +1.0°C, with 3 of the 4 warmest readings, including the two warmest, since that time. The continuation of Arctic warming hints that the response to a cold PDO regime change could be more muted than it was in the past. If so, that would be consistent with a decoupling from the natural forcings that has been underway since the 1950s.

The single variable that has witnessed a continuing increase is the atmospheric concentration of CO2. Arctic warming is an expected consequence of that development. From the IPCC (2007):

The areally averaged warming in the Arctic is projected to range from about 2°C to about 9°C by the year 2100, depending on the model and forcing scenario. The projected warming is largest in the northern autumn and winter, and is largest over the polar oceans in areas of sea-ice loss.

The end result is that during the ongoing period of exceptional warmth in the Arctic region, cold air masses there have become less intense and less expansive. The maps and temperature anomalies for the Arctic region tell that story. One should reasonably expect at least some downstream response, even if it might not be as pronounced.

[bluewave]

Excellent post above, Don. Even globally, the warm extremes are winning out over the cold extremes.

http://www.agu.org/n...1/2011-30.shtml

Last two winters' warm extremes more severe than their cold snaps

AGU Release No. 11–30

1 September 2011

For Immediate Release

WASHINGTON — During the last two winters, some regions of the northern hemisphere experienced extreme cold not seen in recent decades. But at the same time, the winters of 2009-10 and 2010-11 were also marked by more prominent, although less newsworthy, extreme warm spells.

New research examines daily wintertime temperature extremes since 1948 The study finds that the warm extremes were much more severe and widespread than the cold extremes during the northern hemisphere winters of 2009-10 (which featured an extreme snowfall episode on the East Coast dubbed “snowmaggedon”) and 2010-11. Moreover, while the extreme cold was mostly attributable to a natural climate cycle, the extreme warmth was not, the study concludes.

“We investigated the relationships between prominent natural climate modes and extreme temperatures, both warm and cold. Natural climate variability explained the cold extremes; the observed warmth was consistent with a long-term warming trend,” says Kristen Guirguis, a postdoctoral researcher at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego and lead author of the study, which is set to be published in the journalGeophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union.

The researchers created extreme temperature indices for the past 63 winters and placed the last two winters in this longer historical context. In terms of their cold extremes, the 2009-10 and 2010-11winters ranked 21st and 34th, respectively, for the northern hemisphere as a whole. For warm extremes, these two winters ranked much higher (12th and fourth), according to the record.

Guirguis’ team concludes that the extreme cold events by and large fell into norms that would be expected during the negative phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), a prominent regional climate mode known to bring cold weather to northern Eurasia and Eastern North America.

The team compared records of extreme warm outbreaks over the two winters with the NAO as well as indices of El Niño – Southern Oscillation and its longer-term companion cycle, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. This comparison, however, revealed that most of the extreme warmth was left unexplained. Including a linear warming trend in the model’s assumptions better accounted for the recent warm extremes, but still underestimated them.

“Over the last couple of years, natural variability seemed to produce the cold extremes, while the warm extremes kept trending just as one would expect in a period of accelerating global warming,” says Scripps climate researcher Alexander Gershunov, a report co-author.

Gershunov notes, however, that the study shows that extreme cold events in the past two winters, though driven by a natural cycle, are still consistent with global warming trends. The oscillation would have made cold snaps even more severe if the global warming patterns superimposed upon it hadn’t mitigated the cold.

The research was funded in part by the Vetlesen Foundation via the Scripps Partnership for Hazards and Environmental Applied Research (SPHEAR). The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research under the Postdocs Applying Climate Expertise (PACE) fellowship also supported the work.

[Jonger]

the chart you use shows recent glopal sea ice right at the average.

Haha, I looked at that and immediately said "whats the problem?"

Looks like a microscopic drop over 40 years.... If that rate of ice decline traced backward from now to the last ice age I bet the end result would be the last ice age global ice coverage.

[Jonger]

As others have done you are confusing transient weather events with long-term climate trends. Currently the global sea ice area is about 600K km2 below the average for this date (the full plot is hard to resolve at this scale). Even if a cold period of weather pushes the total over the average for a while that would not be the same as a recovery to historic levels.

The areas of sea ice around Europe, Canada and Alaska are included in the Cryosphere Today figures - so there is not any significant area of sea ice unaccounted for.

How the fudge are you defining AVERAGE? You have NO CLUE what coverage was before WW2! NADDA!

LIE all you want about it.

[PhillipS]

How the fudge are you defining AVERAGE? You have NO CLUE what coverage was before WW2! NADDA!

LIE all you want about it.

If you want the truth it is very easy to check. CryosphereToday uses the 1979 - 2008 mean as their sea ice area baseline. The National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) uses the 1979 - 2000 average as their baseline. Given that global temperatures had been gradually dropping since the Holocene Thermal Maximum about 8,000 years ago until about a century ago, there is no data to support your assertion that sea ice extents have been dropping since the deglaciation. That's another swing and miss on your part.

Prior to WWII when aerial monitoring of sea ice began, there were active programs to monitor sea ice conditions because of the extensive cargo, passenger and fishing fleets. These records and observations are less precise than modern data, but they go back a long time.

You act as if data collection and analysis began with the start of the satellite era. That's a major FAIL. Perhaps you should do some study and educate yourself instead of repeatedly sharing your ignorance with us.

[bluewave]

How the fudge are you defining AVERAGE? You have NO CLUE what coverage was before WW2! NADDA!

LIE all you want about it.

Here's a recent study going back 1450 years:

http://www.nature.co...ature10581.html

although extensive uncertainties remain, especially before the sixteenth century—both the duration and magnitude of the current decline in sea ice seem to be unprecedented for the past 1,450 years.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Haha, I looked at that and immediately said "whats the problem?"

Looks like a microscopic drop over 40 years.... If that rate of ice decline traced backward from now to the last ice age I bet the end result would be the last ice age global ice coverage.

How the fudge are you defining AVERAGE? You have NO CLUE what coverage was before WW2! NADDA!

LIE all you want about it.

the level of ignorance you are putting on display for a 32 year old man has to be trolling. It really just needs to stop. If you were going to threads on the main board just making crap up as you go along you would get banned or posts deleted, but eventually banned from that board.

No matter which thread we are in you come and talk like the humans living here 100 years ago were using stone tools and dropping rocks into a bucket to cast there votes at political meetings.

[roardog]

the humans living here 100 years ago were using stone tools and dropping rocks into a bucket to cast there votes at political meetings.

100 years ago they might not have been using stone tools but the world in 1912 was like the stone age when compared to the technology of today.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Here's a recent study going back 1450 years:

http://www.nature.co...ature10581.html

although extensive uncertainties remain, especially before the sixteenth century—both the duration and magnitude of the current decline in sea ice seem to be unprecedented for the past 1,450 years.

I am not sure if you will agree with this, but it seems to me that the declines were pretty fast but could also be driven by some natural variance.

Then, we crossed a line somewhere between 2000 and 2005. A line was crossed where the Arctic's self regulating cooling system. Could no longer prevent War, Air Intrusions from the south. This helped accelerate ice loss(especially thickness and volume) as well as the ability to regenerate.

Then another big hammer came down. when 2007 happened. a lot of heat was left over, this has been continued to be built on. Again, preventing any chance of a recovery.

If we are using the tools we have, we know the ice the last 6 years based on Climate Indices should have rebounded well. Instead volume dropped in half. Extent and Area went up from the min during the solar min, -PDO, dropping AMO and so on. And in the face of a -AMO twice now has failed to rebound at all and is still getting worse. a La Nina helps lower global temps. -AMO comes and North Atlantic Temps are lower. -PDO comes and appears to help the Pacific but that is up by the Bering and the ice outside of the Arctic in the Bering Sea is thin and irrelevant.

But more important the Atlantic Side, rapid positive feedback, Causing those SLPs to move further north. We have seen MYI this winter get hammered out. The Russian Side even to the ESB and Laptev is in horrible shape still.

Laptev Ice Right Now

Last year the Laptev Ice looked Abysmal compared to 2010 and before. This year it looks even worse. I am not surprised entirely.

the Kara has iced over

It is important to know the Cracks have been there for a while. Not to the extent of recent years but going back for a few decades at least. But what is disturbing is the ice thickness/color, the more dull/gray it looks the less thick/less snow on it. The Ice in the Laptev and Kara is very thin right now. Like going to melt out early thin and continue the feedback

process.

A Year Ago:

Today:

I don't think Green House Gases in the last 7 years have taken off from where they were to now and caused some rapid feedback. I am sure they help.

But these rapid changes are more likely tied to Ice Albedo Feedback. I guess the computer models and scientists didn't realize how much heat is being trapped under the ice year after year and the build up.

Nor did they fully grasp the rapid pattern changes allowing copious amounts of heat into the arctic winter from the North East Atlantic.

Right now the the thickest ice is smashed up against the Greenland Coast/Canadian Coast. with an arm of it off the Alaskan coast.

A lot has been flushed. The Canadian Channels are also thinner than last year and the year before.

This is not natural variability, this seems to be a one way ride on a positive feedback train.

One thing to really keep an eye on is Spring snow cover. The last few years has seen rapid melting take place in April and May.

[The_Global_Warmer]

100 years ago they might not have been using stone tools but the world in 1912 was like the stone age when compared to the technology of today.

There is a difference in technology and Knowledge.

As well as what the objective is.

To reconstruct the ice extent within 100,000Km2 in 1900 is next to impossible. To reconstruct it within 500,000Km2 is a doable task, to reconstruct it within 1,000,000km2 is very doable.

Dozens of scientists over the last 3-4 decades have gathered data going back as far as possible. Newspaper stories, journals, military data, ice core samples. Which is a big one in the short term, glacial data, photographs. Shipping records,

They continue to use that data and add the new data that comes out as well. The Russians releasing tons of data has helped as well.

We have had buoys and floating manned arctic stations since the 1930s.

So when we take all of this and reconstruct and it tells us that the sea ice min extent was around 10.5-11.5 mil km2 when it was stable. And now it has gone down to half of that in 50-60 years and it's going away faster and faster.

That is very unstable and very rapid.

The thing is. There is nothing in the pipeline to stop it.

[Nic]

Now we can measure arctic ice with 100% accuracy, you can not claim that data is 100% accurate from 1000 years ago that is absolutely ridiculous. And how do we know there were not rapid melt refreeze cycles? Sorry I have to question everything about an theory/idea before I can trust it. I am like that with any theory not just AGW.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Now we can measure arctic ice with 100% accuracy, you can not claim that data is 100% accurate from 1000 years ago that is absolutely ridiculous. And how do we know there were not rapid melt refreeze cycles? Sorry I have to question everything about an theory/idea before I can trust it. I am like that with any theory not just AGW.

Energy distribution.

The amount of reversal to get back the ice we have lost the last 100 years on the Earth would require a much larger climate change feedback.

[TerryM]

Now we can measure arctic ice with 100% accuracy, you can not claim that data is 100% accurate from 1000 years ago that is absolutely ridiculous. And how do we know there were not rapid melt refreeze cycles? Sorry I have to question everything about an theory/idea before I can trust it. I am like that with any theory not just AGW.

Driftwood caught behind fast ice can be radio carbon dated. Wherever driftwood has been located and dated we can be sure that the ice has been in place since that date. Any rapid melt/freeze cycle would release the trapped driftwood and possibly replace it with newer refuse.

Remember that whatever theory is used to replace AGW deserves even more questioning since climate scientists at every level have already agreed that AGW is valid.

Terry

[Nic]

Driftwood caught behind fast ice can be radio carbon dated. Wherever driftwood has been located and dated we can be sure that the ice has been in place since that date. Any rapid melt/freeze cycle would release the trapped driftwood and possibly replace it with newer refuse.

Remember that whatever theory is used to replace AGW deserves even more questioning since climate scientists at every level have already agreed that AGW is valid.

Terry

The carbon dating of driftwood sounds like an interesting way to find out ice extent of the earth in the past. I will have to research that.

I feel like I can not decide what to think about AGW in general though. I am not starting college until the fall, and I probably will not get into any courses in meteorology or climatology until at least my sophomore year. I don't understand how the weather/climate works when it is normal, let alone if it is changing. There probably is a lot I do not know about AGW. I am confused and I have an interest in that area. It must be too complicated for people that are not interested in the climate whatsoever, which is a problem in a democratic system. Maybe a few years from now I can come to a decision.

[PhillipS]

The carbon dating of driftwood sounds like an interesting way to find out ice extent of the earth in the past. I will have to research that.

I feel like I can not decide what to think about AGW in general though. I am not starting college until the fall, and I probably will not get into any courses in meteorology or climatology until at least my sophomore year. I don't understand how the weather/climate works when it is normal, let alone if it is changing. There probably is a lot I do not know about AGW. I am confused and I have an interest in that area. It must be too complicated for people that are not interested in the climate whatsoever, which is a problem in a democratic system. Maybe a few years from now I can come to a decision.

Nic - Climate Change, or at least its basics, is readily understandable by anyone willing to put in some study. There is a Climate Change Primer thread on this forum which has links to several good introductory sites. And there are a number of knowledgeable posters who would, I'm sure, be glad to answer any questions you might have.