Policy Based Evidence Making
Last winter had the largest sea ice extent in the last six years, the largest North American snow extent on record, and the second largest northern hemisphere snow extent on record. On one day in February, at least 49 US states had snow cover. Northern hemisphere albedo was very high last winter.
What did NOAA and the Army Corps of Engineers have to say about that? They ignored the evidence and went straight to the press with unsupportable remarks.
Last winter’s massive snowstorms that struck the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states were tied to higher Arctic temperatures, climate scientists reported Thursday.
“As we lose more sea ice it’s a paradox that warming in the atmosphere can create more of these winter storms,” Overland said at a news briefing.
There is a powerful connection between ice cover and air temperatures, Richter-Menge explained. When temperatures warm, ice melts. When reflective ice melts it reveals darker surfaces underneath, which absorbs more heat. That, in turn, causes more melting “and on the cycle goes,” she said.
Another effect of the increasing temperatures is that the sea ice extent is dropping to one of the lowest levels on record.
Had there been a lack of snow and sea ice last winter, these same people would have undoubtedly blamed that on global warming. The result of the research is predetermined – evidence is irrelevant.
The reason very the cold and snow last winter was the record low Arctic Oscillation.
“Last winter ”
*sigh* Another cherry picking example. Winter sea ice extent.
And then you talk about Snow Extent which won’t be affected much, maybe even increase since there’s more water vapour in the warmer atmosphere.
Weird, I thought that winter storms occurred during the winter.
Oh Brendon look!!
There was a tornado in Texas! That means global warming is happening!
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/25/texas.weather/index.html?hpt=C1
‘People screamed, cried, and prayed’ as tornado passed
Four people were taken to the hospital with minor injuries, he said.
There were people screaming!! Now it’s the end of the world! Why didn’t we listen!
And then you talk about Snow Extent which won’t be affected much
Snow, a thing of the past. Not much effect there.
Brendon
You see the graph is showing snow extent not snow total? Do you understand why that is important evidence for discrediting ‘global warming’?
You are talking about snow total, aren’t you?
Amino, can you please explain to me why the map of snow extent disproves that the planet is warming?
Brendon says:
October 25, 2010 at 1:47 pm
……Snow Extent which won’t be affected much, maybe even increase since there’s more water vapour in the warmer atmosphere.
Ummm, really? Is that what the global warming hypothesis claims? There will be an increase in extent?
Doh!
….as the earth warms a larger area will be covered with snow in the winter……….
Ya, that sounds right.
Just think, 100 years from now the whole earth could be covered in snow because of global warming.
Brendon, its isn’t being used for “cherry-picking”, its an example used to invalidate statements such as “When reflective ice melts it reveals darker surfaces underneath, which absorbs more heat. That, in turn, causes more melting “and on the cycle goes,” she said.”
You are correct, as heating occurs, we’ll see more precipitation. It is a self-correcting mechanism which the alarmist camp seems to choose to ignore. One of the big scary scenarios presented by alarmists is the melt of the polar caps will eliminate the albedo effects of the ice and we’ll end in a death spiral to perpetual heating!
Well, we can’t have it both ways, can we? If the albedo effect is so great, then large snow extent in the NH should have decreased land temps, and reflected the energy into our atmosphere.
Now, recall, 2005 was supposed to be the “hottest evuh!” year according to some, (as 1998 retroactively decreases for GISS) and 2010 is probably going to be declared as the “hottest evuh!” Now, correlate this with the sea ice graph above. Or, better yet, go to the sources. Personally, and I believe observed data backs me up, the albedo effect of sea ice is greatly exaggerated as is the absorption effects of darker matter. We’ve pretty good evidence the arctic is has been significantly less than what it is today, yet, somehow the sea ice was able to recover. No death spiral. No death spiral when the Norse were farming Greenland, no death spiral when Roald AMUNDSEN was roaming around up there, no death spiral in the 50’s when the USS Skate was surfacing, not when the Sea Devil, Billfish, and the Superb surfaced in 1987.
Now, if the pinheaded earth-day birthday pseudo-scientists can’t get this right, their whole body of knowledge regarding the forcings of our climate come into great question. They’re back to Arrhenius and have gained no more knowledge regarding CO2 and climate over a century’s period of time.
More crapola from a “scientist”
Scientist: Changing Leaves are Just Trees Going Potty
In grade school most of us were taught that changing leaf colors were the result of falling temperatures. But a British scientist is now adding a more complex explanation: the leaves aren‘t just turning colors because it’s cold, they’re changing because the trees are going to the bathroom.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/scientist-changing-leaves-are-just-trees-going-potty/
Doesn’t their argument require that there be less Arctic sea ice in 2009 than in 2007? Or are they assuming some kind of cumulative effect? And what air temperatures are they referring to (not the DMI temperature readings apparently)? Also, isn’t there a sensitivity issue to consider:- that is, a quantitative relation between ice extent and snowfall? (And how drastic was the change in ice extent between 1980 and 1981?)
Their argument is more ice/less ice more snow/less snow more rain/less rain colder temps/warmer temps (the list goes on) all proof of AGW…. good luck trying to reason with that.
Steve, I appear to be missing the point of this post. It is true that the colder and snowy conditions last winter in the northeast were tied to warmer Arctic temperatures, which were both tied to the extreme negative AO last winter.
Despite late season ice growth (dominated by ice growth in the Bering Sea tied to strong
winds from the negative AO), the ice extent for March 2010 was 13.18×106 km2, 5.9% below the 1979-2009 mean of 14.00×106 km2 and 1.1% above the record low of 13.04×106 km2 observed in winter 2005/2006.
not sure what you mean by snow cover and snow extent, aren’t you talking about the same thing?
There does appear to be some connection between loss of sea ice and more storms. Tracking of cyclones over the satellite data record reveal more frequent and more intense cyclones in recent years with less sea ice in the North Atlantic, extending up into the Barents and Kara Seas. And Arctic-wide there is an increase in autumn (SON) precipitation following years with less sea ice. Other studies have shown changes in atmospheric circulation associated with less sea ice.
And even you have admitted there is a connection between less sea ice and autumn warming in some of your posts.
So I do not understand this statement “What did NOAA and the Army Corps of Engineers have to say about that? They ignored the evidence and went straight to the press with unsupportable remarks.”
Julienne,
The warm Arctic temperatures and cold mid-latitude temperatures were the result of the negative AO. Not, the other way around. Some years the AO is negative. Other years it is positive. Some years we get a lot of snow, other years we don’t. Had it been a warm dry winter, I’m sure it would have been blamed on global warming too.
As far as the ice goes, winter ice was relatively extensive this year. Claims that winter snows were the result of ice loss seem disingenuous.
I agree, that the warm Arctic temperatures and cold mid-latitude temperatures last winter were the result of the negative AO. I don’t see how the NOAA report contradicts this. Certainly Overland is very well aware of that fact as he’s written many papers on atmospheric circulation, including the AO. I haven’t seen anyone in the literature state the extreme negative AO of last winter is blamed on global warming.
There have been studies looking at the impact of loss of sea ice on changes in storm frequency and changes in atmospheric circulation and if there is a tendency for more positive or negative AO states. Obviously there will be an atmospheric feedback from more open water, as is clearly evident in warmer autumn temperatures, that then impact on SLP and winds. So you have local effects along with larger synoptic weather systems.
Many of these linkages are investigated through modeling efforts. Observational studies are still somewhat limited because its only been a few years of more anomalous open water areas, but in those studies we do see Arctic amplification and more frequent and intense autumn storms north of 60N.
The implication of the article (and the one which seemingly everyone in the press took away) is that global warming and lack of ice in the Arctic caused the cold and snow at mid-latitudes.
I don’t see evidence that either of those concepts is true. The snow and cold was due to the negative AO, and winter ice extent was higher than it has been for several years.
Do you believe that last winter’s extensive snow cover was due to global warming?
No, I don’t believe last winter’s negative AO was due to global warming. I would change my mind on that though if, as the climate continued to warm, there was a tendency towards a more negative AO state. At the moment though I believe that climate models predict more of a tendency towards a positive AO state, or at least some of the older studies suggested that. While warming temperatures are a robust result in climate models, SLP patterns are not.