Climate Change Banter

[AvantHiatus]

Compelling information about manipulation of temperature values.

Chicago to Boston historic snows which means that's global warming and if they were having a snow drought it would be global warming.

Good luck getting two back-to-back 3ft snowstorms pre-2000. However, it doesn't really prove or disprove anything. It's not like Canada is unusually cold. Boston can do well with what they would consider 'boot-leg' cold.

 

Everything that now happens is spontaneously generated by AGW background conditions. The rest is just interaction and butterfly dynamics (chaos processes).

 

Also, the enhanced winter regime is shifting north. In 09-10 it was from Saint Louis to DC.

[Jonger]

Compelling information about manipulation of temperature values.

Chicago to Boston historic snows which means that's global warming and if they were having a snow drought it would be global warming.

 

Drudge has been pounding the heck of the topic recently.

[ORH_wxman]

Good luck getting two back-to-back 3ft snowstorms pre-2000. However, it doesn't really prove or disprove anything. It's not like Canada is unusually cold. Boston can do well with what they would consider 'boot-leg' cold.

 

Everything that now happens is spontaneously generated by AGW background conditions. The rest is just interaction and butterfly dynamcis (chaos processes).

 

Also, the enhanced winter regime is shifting north. In 09-10 it was from Saint Louis to DC.

 

 

You are talking almost completely anecdotelly or just making up talking points. 

 

First off...Boston hasn't gotten "bootleg cold" during the pattern of big snowstorms...it's legit. Most of southern Canada and the eastern two thirds of the CONUS has been very cold the past 2-3 weeks.

 

 

 

 

Secondly, the "enhanced winter regime shifting north since 2009-2010" is solely a function of Atlantic blocking...it was present in 2009-2010 and not present this year. Don't forget, many blamed the blocking on AGW...so now are you going to blame the lack of blocking on AGW too? That sounds like an interesting argument.

 

The whole "AGW is always affecting our climate" argument is one of the worst red herrings in the attribution debate. The point of attribution studies is to determine the "net impact" of AGW...not that AGW is "always affecting the climate". Great, tell us how it is affecting the climate. For every storm AGW may cause to come closer or be snowier, there is a storm that it causes us to miss. So we want to know the net impact. Saying "AGW is always affecting the climate" means absolutely nothing scientifically in an attribution study.

[AvantHiatus]

It wasn't as thoroughly elaborated on as it could be but this is the banter thread. Talking points are for PR.

 

It doesnt really matter it is what it is ORH. You know as well as I do that Eastern North America got stuck in the global cold pocket for two years in a row now. Granted this could be due to simple land-ocean contrast.

 

I don't understand boot-leg cold being legit. It's boot-leg because it's moderated by AGW, yet Boston is still far enough north and on the east side of a continent to take advantage of ideal snow producing conditions.

 

The proximity to the Gulf Stream also creates special dynamics in this region. Ironically, the GS has been running warm in-part to a two-pronged punch from the +AMO and GHG Forcing.

 

Btw, if we ever get another long-term -NAO blocking fest you can kiss the Arctic goodbye. It's already torching moderately in a supposedly ideal setup.

[WEATHER53]

You are talking almost completely anecdotelly or just making up talking points. 

 

First off...Boston hasn't gotten "bootleg cold" during the pattern of big snowstorms...it's legit. Most of southern Canada and the eastern two thirds of the CONUS has been very cold the past 2-3 weeks.

 

 

 

 

Secondly, the "enhanced winter regime shifting north since 2009-2010" is solely a function of Atlantic blocking...it was present in 2009-2010 and not present this year. Don't forget, many blamed the blocking on AGW...so now are you going to blame the lack of blocking on AGW too? That sounds like an interesting argument.

 

The whole "AGW is always affecting our climate" argument is one of the worst red herrings in the attribution debate. The point of attribution studies is to determine the "net impact" of AGW...not that AGW is "always affecting the climate". Great, tell us how it is affecting the climate. For every storm AGW may cause to come closer or be snowier, there is a storm that it causes us to miss. So we want to know the net impact. Saying "AGW is always affecting the climate" means absolutely nothing scientifically in an attribution study.

You cannot reason with this bunch. Hot, cold, dry, wet, windy, snowy-it's ALL global warming. By 2020-2025 this will finally be vetted as one of the greatest, manipulated hoaxes of all time.

[ORH_wxman]

It wasn't as thoroughly elaborated on as it could be but this is the banter thread. Talking points are for PR.

 

It doesnt really matter it is what it is ORH. You know as well as I do that Eastern North America got stuck in the global cold pocket for two years in a row now. Granted this could be due to simple land-ocean contrast.

 

I don't understand boot-leg cold being legit. It's boot-leg because it's moderated by AGW, yet Boston is still far enough north and on the east side of a continent to take advantage of ideal snow producing conditions.

 

The proximity to the Gulf Stream also creates special dynamics in this region. Ironically, the GS has been running warm in-part to a two-pronged punch from the +AMO and GHG Forcing.

 

Btw, if we ever get another long-term -NAO blocking fest you can kiss the Arctic goodbye. It's already torching moderately in a supposedly ideal setup.

 

 

I still have no idea what you are trying to argue.

 

You are now arguing that the cold would have been colder if it weren't for AGW? Ok, that's fine. Just don't blame AGW on the next polar vortex cold outbreak...saying that AGW caused the cold to come south. Then you would be contradicting your own argument...since without AGW the cold wouldn't have come south like that...right?

[LakeEffectKing]

I still have no idea what you are trying to argue.

 

You are now arguing that the cold would have been colder if it weren't for AGW? Ok, that's fine. Just don't blame AGW on the next polar vortex cold outbreak...saying that AGW caused the cold to come south. Then you would be contradicting your own argument...since without AGW the cold wouldn't have come south like that...right?

Yeah, I too, am trying to figure out his argument....I wonder if a period of "normal-ish" weather will also be evidence of AGW as a whole...the AGW catch net seems quite large in some circles.

BTW, Will, you don't get enough credit for your services on this board as a moderator, esp. the CC forum.  Your fairness, demeanor and overall moderating tact is quite an "American" asset! LOL...Thanks!

[The_Global_Warmer]

You cannot reason with this bunch. Hot, cold, dry, wet, windy, snowy-it's ALL global warming. By 2020-2025 this will finally be vetted as one of the greatest, manipulated hoaxes of all time.

 

 

Why then?  Why not 1960, 1980, 2000, 2014????

 

 

 

 

 

It's hard to contribute how much of an enhancement AGW brings.  But it doesn't hurt matters when SSTS off the Eastern CONUS sea board and curling North.

 

 

On the flip side there was a system a couple weeks ago that came right up that area of 1.5 to 3C+ ssta West of Mexico turned into a closed low and spun copious moisture into the CONUS.  It was the storm Chicago got like 20".

 

 

 

[AvantHiatus]

I still have no idea what you are trying to argue.

 

You are now arguing that the cold would have been colder if it weren't for AGW? Ok, that's fine. Just don't blame AGW on the next polar vortex cold outbreak...saying that AGW caused the cold to come south. Then you would be contradicting your own argument...since without AGW the cold wouldn't have come south like that...right?

Fairly over-simplified. The cold air may have come south without AGW but not for 6 weeks in a row like it did in 2013-2014. 

[LakeEffectKing]

Fairly over-simplified. The cold air may have come south without AGW but not for 6 weeks in a row like it did in 2013-2014. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1912_United_States_cold_wave

[ORH_wxman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1912_United_States_cold_wave

 

 

It's amazing how many who argue the attribution angle have amnesia of past weather events.

[AvantHiatus]

It's amazing how many who argue the attribution angle have amnesia of past weather events.

Different background conditions my man. I see your point tho.

 

On the flip side, even if you are right AGW is not any less of a threat to humanity. So i'm done here. Also I see that climate section on the wikipedia page, kind of shadey. Good fuel for pseudo skeptics.

[Jonger]

It wasn't as thoroughly elaborated on as it could be but this is the banter thread. Talking points are for PR.

 

It doesnt really matter it is what it is ORH. You know as well as I do that Eastern North America got stuck in the global cold pocket for two years in a row now. Granted this could be due to simple land-ocean contrast.

 

I don't understand boot-leg cold being legit. It's boot-leg because it's moderated by AGW, yet Boston is still far enough north and on the east side of a continent to take advantage of ideal snow producing conditions.

 

The proximity to the Gulf Stream also creates special dynamics in this region. Ironically, the GS has been running warm in-part to a two-pronged punch from the +AMO and GHG Forcing.

 

Btw, if we ever get another long-term -NAO blocking fest you can kiss the Arctic goodbye. It's already torching moderately in a supposedly ideal setup.

 

December was atrocious. What caused that?

[vortex95]

Why then?  Why not 1960, 1980, 2000, 2014????

 

 

 

 

 

It's hard to contribute how much of an enhancement AGW brings.  But it doesn't hurt matters when SSTS off the Eastern CONUS sea board and curling North.

 

 

On the flip side there was a system a couple weeks ago that came right up that area of 1.5 to 3C+ ssta West of Mexico turned into a closed low and spun copious moisture into the CONUS.  It was the storm Chicago got like 20".

 

 

One thing about "enhancement" from AGW.  Too often I believe this is assumed that this always means worse

for humanity.  That is simply not the case.  Yes, one-to-one simple cause and effect is the incorrect way to

look at it, but as examples presenting it in this mindset, you could say the record long major hurricane landfall

drought the CONUS has see since 2005 could be an "enhancement" from AGW.  How about the record low

U.S. tornado counts for the past three years?  In the short term, we forget the first half of this winter in the

NEUS was practically snowless.  Yet for a solid year now, the mean trough position has been in the eastern

U.S.  It hasn't bee snowy the entire time in the two winters this has encompassed.  Look at last Feb-March. All

that cold, and we could not get anything for snowfall from a single storm like we have seen for New England in

the last few weeks.

 

A major issue that has nothing to do with the climate science itself but influences it is the human condition.  We

tend to assume the worst, especially when there is uncertainty involved.  We rely on anecdotal evidence, confirmation

bias, and "feel good" reasoning to come to conclusions and shape our perceptions.   When things are bad in the here

and now, we tend to ignore the overall picture on what has occurred over time (i.e. things are not so bad).  All of this

causes problems with the perception and context of climate change.

 

Read this article.  It has some good points.

http://www.boston.com/news/weather/weather_wisdom/2015/02/the_great_snow_of_2015.html#comments

 

Some excerpts:

 

"There are so many ways to view all this snow. Meteorologcially it’s fascinating to see records being shattered. But

the records only go back 130 years or so, a small amount of time when you widen the window of the past beyond

what we’ve recorded. How do we know this type of event wasn’t occurring 500 years ago or some other time

period? It’s historical to us, in our records, but where it fits in the big picture we really have no idea."

 

"In 1987 when the stock market crashed it looked like a really big deal and in many ways it was. But nearly 28

years later  that dip has been smoothed by time and is barely noticeable on a chart of the Dow Jones Industrial over

the past 100 years. At some point in the future, maybe next week, maybe next year, all that is being missed during

this Great Snow of 2015 will be barely a memory. You’ll likely remember the snowbanks, the shoveling, the days

off from school, but most of the other stuff just fades with time."

 

[PhillipS]

There is a relevant post on ClimateCrocks today, which includes this excerpt from a Dr Michael Mann column in the Washington Post:

 

You could treat this as ordinary weather, or, you could think about it in a climate context. Counter-intuitive though it may sound, the fact remains that — as I have noted previously — some kinds of winter precipitationcould indeed be more intense because we’re in a warming world.

Consider, for instance, that sea surface temperatures off the coast of New England are flashing red, showing an extreme warm anomaly. That’s highly relevant — because warmer oceans have atmospheric consequences.

“Sea surface temperatures off the coast of New England right now are at record levels, 11.5C (21F) warmer than normal in some locations,” says Penn State climate researcher Michael Mann. “There is [a] direct relationship between the surface warmth of the ocean and the amount of moisture in the air. What that means is that this storm will be feeding off these very warm seas, producing very large amounts of snow as spiraling winds of the storm squeeze that moisture out of the air, cool, it, and deposit it as snow inland.”

Warmer oceans also increase the temperature contrasts that winter storms encounter when they hit the East Coast, notes Mann — and this ups their strength.

“Heavy snows mean the temperature is just below freezing, any cooler and the amount would be a lot less,” adds Kevin Trenberth, a climate expert at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “Warmer waters off the coast help elevate winter temperatures and contribute to the greater snow amounts. This is how global warming plays a role.”

 

It is axiomatic that weather occurs under the climatic conditions of the moment - and AGW has changed some important climatic parameters including global temperatures, SSTs, and atmospheric water vapor.  Because of AGW related changes to climatic conditions, every bit to today's weather, good or bad, mild or extreme, is influenced to some degree by AGW.  So IMO the question of whether to attribute weather events to AGW should be reframed as: how much influence does AGW have on weather, and how is this influence projected to change as we continue to dump gigatons of GHGs into the Earth's atmosphere?

[chrisf97212]

There is a relevant post on ClimateCrocks today, which includes this excerpt from a Dr Michael Mann column in the Washington Post:

 

You could treat this as ordinary weather, or, you could think about it in a climate context. Counter-intuitive though it may sound, the fact remains that — as I have noted previously — some kinds of winter precipitationcould indeed be more intense because we’re in a warming world.

Consider, for instance, that sea surface temperatures off the coast of New England are flashing red, showing an extreme warm anomaly. That’s highly relevant — because warmer oceans have atmospheric consequences.

“Sea surface temperatures off the coast of New England right now are at record levels, 11.5C (21F) warmer than normal in some locations,” says Penn State climate researcher Michael Mann. “There is [a] direct relationship between the surface warmth of the ocean and the amount of moisture in the air. What that means is that this storm will be feeding off these very warm seas, producing very large amounts of snow as spiraling winds of the storm squeeze that moisture out of the air, cool, it, and deposit it as snow inland.”

Warmer oceans also increase the temperature contrasts that winter storms encounter when they hit the East Coast, notes Mann — and this ups their strength.

“Heavy snows mean the temperature is just below freezing, any cooler and the amount would be a lot less,” adds Kevin Trenberth, a climate expert at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “Warmer waters off the coast help elevate winter temperatures and contribute to the greater snow amounts. This is how global warming plays a role.”

 

It is axiomatic that weather occurs under the climatic conditions of the moment - and AGW has changed some important climatic parameters including global temperatures, SSTs, and atmospheric water vapor.  Because of AGW related changes to climatic conditions, every bit to today's weather, good or bad, mild or extreme, is influenced to some degree by AGW.  So IMO the question of whether to attribute weather events to AGW should be reframed as: how much influence does AGW have on weather, and how is this influence projected to change as we continue to dump gigatons of GHGs into the Earth's atmosphere?

 

I'd think the atmosphere/SST delta T would be the larger factor.

[AvantHiatus]

 

you could say the record long major hurricane landfall

drought the CONUS has see since 2005 could be an "enhancement" from AGW

Yes, that is part of the equation to the diminishing activity in the Atlantic. You need not look farther than the East and especially West Pacific where TC activity has supported increasing Accumulated Energy with warming.

[vortex95]

Yes, that is part of the equation to the diminishing activity in the Atlantic. You need not look farther than the East and especially West Pacific where TC activity has supported increasing Accumulated Energy with warming.

Since 2007 there has been a decline in Global ACE.  2010-2013 had the lowest values since the late 1970s.

http://policlimate.com/tropical/global_running_ace.png

2010 was the least active NWPAC season on record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Pacific_typhoon_season

 

There currently is no clear evidence TCs are getting worse in intensity or number globally.

[vortex95]

Below is a table showing U.S. major hurricane landfalls for two time periods, each 43 years, 1926 to 2013.

Total 1926-1969                  Total 1970-2013

31 major hurr landfalls          19 major hurr landfalls

by year, state landfall occurred and category is given.
 

                                 1970 - TX3
1926 - LA3, FL4, FL3             1974 - LA3
1928 - FL4                       1975 - FL3
1929 - FL3                       1979 - AL3
1932 - TX4                       1980 - TX3
1933 - TX3, FL3                  1983 - TX3
1935 - FL5                       1985 - AL3, NC3
1938 - NY3                       1989 - SC4
1941 - TX3                       1992 - FL5
1942 - TX3                       1995 - FL3
1944 - FL3                       1996 - NC3
1945 - TX3, FL4                  1999 - TX3
1947 - FL4                       2004 - FL4, FL3, FL3
1948 - FL3                       2005 - LA3, LA3, FL3
1949 - FL3                       
1950 - FL3, FL3
1954 - RI3, MA3
1955 - NC3
1957 - TX4
1959 - SC3
1960 - FL4
1961 - TX4
1964 - LA3
1965 - FL3
1967 - TX3
1969 - MS5

it was much more severe meteorologically prior to 1970.  For example, look at FL 1944-1950 when major hits were spread

out over successive years...that's worse than a cluster of hits in a short time (i.e. 2004-2005).  Why?, there had been more

time to rebuild, and then some of the same areas got damaged or destroyed all over again, not to mention yearly repeated

evacuations.  FL got hit by 15 major hurricanes 1926-1969, and only 7 from 1970-2013.  And there is New England...1938,

1944, 1954 (2), and 1960.  That averages one hurricane every 4-5 years over that 22 year period.  How many hurricanes

have made landfall over Long Island or the New England coast in the subsequent 52 years since 1960?, three...Belle (1976),

Gloria (1985), and Bob (1991) and none of these were as strong as any of the ones 1960 and before.

 

Also, look at the longer gaps between major hits 1970-2013 compared to earlier.

I realize the U.S. is only one small part of the globe, but we are the among the richest countries with huge coastline
development, and all the focus is on us it seems.  This of course means nothing as to what the atmosphere ends up
doing, but the prevailing mindset seems to be when it affects us, it is the the proverbial end of the world.

The 150 year record has shown the Atlantic Ocean has the most variable tropical basin in the world over time.  So can
we expect more severe times to return eventually?, I think so, regardless of what the climate does or doesn't do.

We often hear about the "new normal".  Well, if recent years are the "new normal", I am really afraid of the "old normal"
as far as U.S. hurricane landfalls are concerned.
 

[AvantHiatus]

Since 2007 there has been a decline in Global ACE.  2010-2013 had the lowest values since the late 1970s.

http://policlimate.com/tropical/global_running_ace.png

2010 was the least active NWPAC season on record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Pacific_typhoon_season

 

There currently is no clear evidence TCs are getting worse in intensity or number globally.

One needs to account for the Atlantic holding down the average. Try doing the calculations on a basin-by-basin average. I suspect there would still not be more storms with AGW, perhaps just a sporadic rare hypercane.

[ORH_wxman]

One needs to account for the Atlantic holding down the average. Try doing the calculations on a basin-by-basin average. I suspect there would still not be more storms with AGW, perhaps just a sporadic rare hypercane.

 

So basically you want to ignore the ocean basin that has seen a decrease in hurricanes, and then recalculate the averages?

[AvantHiatus]

So basically you want to ignore the ocean basin that has seen a decrease in hurricanes, and then recalculate the averages?

So basically you want to take the current average and run with it and say AGW enhancement of tropical cyclone activity is a non-issue for everyone?

 

Like always. This is such a long-term deal, all of us will look like fools in 50 years if we stopped updating our thoughts.

[AvantHiatus]

Somewhat relevant to our discussion and where we are going.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/warmer-seas-linked-to-east-coast-hurricane-outbreaks-18643

[ORH_wxman]

So basically you want to take the current average and run with it and say AGW enhancement of tropical cyclone activity is a non-issue for everyone?

 

Like always. This is such a long-term deal, all of us will look like fools in 50 years if we stopped updating our thoughts.

 

There's no evidence of AGW enhancement of TCs. The zone for TC's may shift a bit north in a warmer world, but the storms themselves don't become any more frequent (in fact, probably less frequent) and the intensity is shown to be a negligble change on the order of 1-4%.

 

We've been over this about 100 times in this forum over the past 4-5 years.

[AvantHiatus]

There's no evidence of AGW enhancement of TCs. The zone for TC's may shift a bit north in a warmer world, but the storms themselves don't become any more frequent (in fact, probably less frequent) and the intensity is shown to be a negligble change on the order of 1-4%.

 

We've been over this about 100 times in this forum over the past 4-5 years.

Yeah but you seem so confident. Being well-balanced and skeptical you should not be as quick to dismiss anything based on 30 years of data, if that.

 

My current understanding is that some natural oscillation is counter-acting the AGW signal, at least in the Atlantic basin. 

 

We've seen this time and again in the paleorecords, some 150 year long periods with massive hurricane droughts.

[Jonger]

AGW: More snow, less hurricanes.

 

All good.

[Jonger]

Yeah but you seem so confident. Being well-balanced and skeptical you should not be as quick to dismiss anything based on 30 years of data, if that.

 

My current understanding is that some natural oscillation is counter-acting the AGW signal, at least in the Atlantic basin. 

 

You mean like satellite arctic ice trend charts?

[ORH_wxman]

Yeah but you seem so confident. Being well-balanced and skeptical you should not be as quick to dismiss anything based on 30 years of data, if that.

 

My current understanding is that some natural oscillation is counter-acting the AGW signal, at least in the Atlantic basin. 

 

We've seen this time and again in the paleorecords, some 150 year long periods with massive hurricane droughts.

 

 

It's not based on 30 years of data...it's based on over 100 years worth.

 

That said, I'm not overly confident. I'm just telling you what the literature says. The literature certainly has changed in the past and will in the future. Whether TCs are included on that list of changes remains to be seen. But thus far the observations generally match the modeling for AGW and TCs (unlike some other model-related studies)...the models say generally no change in TC frequency or intensity, and the observations support that. Could it change? Sure. But saying it will is complete conjecture and not currently supported by the literature.

[SVT450R]

Weatherguy you may want to take the hyperbole down a notch aren't you tired of being corrected on almost every post you make in this forum.  Just an observation.

[AvantHiatus]

Weatherguy you may want to take the hyperbole down a notch aren't you tired of being corrected on almost every post you make in this forum.  Just an observation.

Whatevz bro, you have no idea what is transpiring here and the deepness of the ignorance that persists in society. At least an effort was made.

 

I don't think the most severe hyperbole is enough to describe our situation.