NOAA's CSI explains record snows: global warming not involved

This analysis from NOAA’s Climate Scene Investigators (CSI) shows that there’s no historical signature which would implicate a human fingerprint, or as they say:

Specifically, they wanted to know if human-induced global warming could have caused the snowstorms due to the fact that a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor. The CSI Team’s analysis indicates that’s not likely. They found no evidence — no human “fingerprints” — to implicate our involvement in the snowstorms. If global warming was the culprit, the team would have expected to find a gradual increase in heavy snowstorms in the mid-Atlantic region as temperatures rose during the past century. But historical analysis revealed no such increase in snowfall.

We’ve seen the ridiculous pronouncements of global warming = record snow from the Goreacle and his disciples a lot lately. It’s their last gasp since not much else is working out for them. Will Joe Romm offer a mea culpa for his chicken little squawking about deniers, snow, and global warming? Doubtful. (Though, Jeff Masters might). Romm and others, like Gore, will keep on squawking, because they know they can get away with such things on the short term, because it takes science awhile to catch up, producing an analysis, and the public has a short memory. Gore and Romm pay no attention to the science produced afterward, like this, or the article below.

From NOAA: Forensic Meteorology Solves the Mystery of Record Snows

By Martin Hoerling & Katy Human & Barb Deluisi – NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory

Introduction

This is the second in a two-part retrospective on the mid-Atlantic’s record-setting snowstorms of 2009-10. For Part 1, please see Can Record Snowstorms and Global Warming Coexist?

Reagan_Airport_Annual_Snowfall
Annual snowfall at Reagan National Airport site for 1888-89 through 2009-2010. The red bar shows the 55.9 inches accumulated through February 11, 2010 that broke the former record from 1898-99. Note that only 3 years of the last 20 have more than the long-term average of 15.2 inches of snow. Data courtesy of NOAA National Weather Service.

Shortly after the third of three major snowstorms brought record-setting snowfall to the U.S. mid-Atlantic region, NOAA’s Climate Scene Investigators (CSI) assembled to analyze why the snowstorms happened. The CSI is a team of “attribution” experts in NOAA whose job is to determine the causes for climate conditions. By distinguishing natural variability from human-induced climate change, they aim to improve decision-making and inform adaptation strategies.

The CSI team was formed in 2007, following chaotic media coverage of the record U.S. warmth in 2006 (see CSI: NOAA Climate Scene Investigators). Here they have been called to the scene again, but now to explain cold, snowy conditions, and to reconcile those with a warming planet. After a series of record-setting snowstorms hit the mid-Atlantic region this winter, some people asked NOAA if humans could somehow be to blame. Specifically, they wanted to know if human-induced global warming could have caused the snowstorms due to the fact that a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor.

SnowDepth_20100211
In early February, two weather systems brought record snowfalls to Washington, D.C., and other parts of the U.S. mid-Atlantic region. This image shows the depth of snow that had accumulated at locations across the contiguous United States as of February 11, 2010. (Image by NOAA Environmental Visualization Laboratory using data courtesy of NOAA’s National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center.)

The CSI Team’s analysis indicates that’s not likely. They found no evidence — no human “fingerprints” — to implicate our involvement in the snowstorms. If global warming was the culprit, the team would have expected to find a gradual increase in heavy snowstorms in the mid-Atlantic region as temperatures rose during the past century. But historical analysis revealed no such increase in snowfall. Nor did the CSI team find any indication of an upward trend in winter precipitation along the eastern seaboard.

The CSI team turned its attention to natural factors that control the ordinary ups and downs of weather. Many extreme weather events are due to cyclical, large-scale anomalies in air pressure and sea surface temperature across large tracts of ocean. Such fluctuations spawn weather systems that can cause droughts, floods, and massive snowstorms. While El Niño is the most famous, scientists have identified other climate anomalies throughout Earth’s climate system as well. Their names may seem unimpressive — the Arctic Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, to name a few — but they can pack quite a punch!

The Suspects

pacific_ssha_jsn_15Feb2010_465
False-color map showing El Niño pattern of sea-surface height anomalies in the equatorial Pacific Ocean on February 15, 2010. Higher areas, shown in red, are warmer than average, and lower areas, shown in blue, are cooler than average. White areas show average heights and temperatures. Image courtesy of NASA Earth Observatory.

The CSI team focused on two suspects known to be at large this winter — the negative phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and El Niño. El Niño, with its warming of tropical Pacific Ocean temperatures, may be best known for delivering heavy rains across the southern United States. El Niño events can trigger mudslides in California, floods along the Gulf Coast, and unusual warmth and drought in the Pacific Northwest. The latter should sound familiar: an unusually warm winter from Portland to Seattle was part of the same climate pattern affecting the venue of the Winter Olympics. The CSI Team suspected that El Niño was a conspirator in the United States’ unusual winter weather, and that it had an accomplice.

The North Atlantic Oscillation is a fluctuating air-pressure pattern that alternatively enhances or blocks the storm-steering jet stream over North America. So the NAO is particularly relevant in understanding eastern U.S. wintertime climate variations. The NAO describes the contrast in surface air pressure between Iceland and the Azores as well as the vigor of the jet stream that normally flows between them.

NAO histogram
The winter of 2009-10 witnessed the most extreme negative (blocked) NAO phase since at least 1950. (Graph courtesy of Marty Hoerling, NOAA Earth System Research Lab.)

This winter the NAO was in its negative phase and the jet stream flowed further south than usual, pushed toward the Azores by a massive “block” of high surface pressure over Greenland. It’s an unusual atmospheric circulation pattern, but one that has been implicated before. For example, remarkably cold winters persisted over Europe and Russia in the early 1940s, helping to turn the tide of World War II. The NAO, in a blocked phase, was one conspirator in those cold events. Likewise, the CSI Team suspected the pattern was a co-conspirator in the extreme winter weather conditions this year in the mid-Atlantic region. But could they find the evidence they would need to finger El Niño and NAO?

[Editor’s note: There is ongoing discussion among scientists as to which of the climate patterns is a more meaningful description of real-world conditions — the Arctic Oscillation or the North Atlantic Oscillation? While these phenomena are measured using different indexes, their values are so highly correlated that some scientists use the terms interchangeably, referring to them together simply as “AO/NAO.” Both AO and NAO were at record lows this winter. (For more information about the Arctic Oscillation this winter, see Can Record Snowstorms and Global Warming Coexist?)]

–~~~~~~~~~~~~–

The Evidence

archetypical patterns for positive and negative phases of the NAO
This rendering shows climate conditions and weather events associated with extreme phases of the North Atlantic Oscillation. Based on scientific reanalysis, the NAO index is the difference of normalized surface pressure values between grid points closest to the stations Ponta Delgada, in the Azores, and Stykkisholmur/Reykjavik, Iceland. During a positive phase (left), surface pressure in the Azores is much greater than in Iceland (data from May 1992 shown). During a negative phase, that difference is much weaker (data from July 1993 shown), resulting in different circulation patterns (Schematic adapted from AIRMAP by Ned Gardiner and David Herring, NOAA.).

Evidence: Negative Phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation

By January, scientists worldwide were already abuzz about the extremely low values for the NAO index. The NAO, first discovered by British atmospheric scientist Sir Gilbert Walker in the 1920s, has been extensively studied, and its affect on U.S. snowfall is clear: When the NAO index is negative, or “blocked,” snow can pile up along the East Coast. At the atmospheric steering level for storms, high-pressure systems develop over Iceland and Greenland while low pressure builds over the central North Atlantic. This situation redirects the tracks of surface weather systems that are conducive for cold and snow toward the mid-Atlantic coast. Winter precipitation along the eastern seaboard is often in the form of rain, but in a blocked NAO pattern, temperatures can drop low enough to create snow instead.

Historical snowstorms affirm the link. In Baltimore and Washington, D.C., thirteen of the fifteen heaviest snowstorms since 1891 occurred when the NAO index was negative. And case studies of infamous Northeast U.S. storms over the last century, summarized in a Monograph of the American Meteorological Society, have discovered a link to blocked NAO conditions.

The CSI team took its analysis a step further, mapping out historical climate conditions associated with the ten snowiest Decembers, Januaries, and Februaries since 1891. The 30-month composite map of jet stream level and surface conditions revealed a textbook picture of a blocked NAO pattern over the Atlantic Ocean.

Evidence: El Niño

But the negative NAO didn’t act alone. By fall of 2009, a NOAA network of ocean buoys in the tropical Pacific Ocean picked up a moderate El Niño, which strengthened a bit by winter. El Niños typically influence North American climate by displacing the track of wintertime storms across the Pacific Ocean southward, often delivering heavy precipitation into a belt from Southern California through Texas and into the Southeast. The weather pattern also generally cools the eastern seaboard, though not as significantly as a blocked NAO pattern can.

The top 10 heaviest snowstorms for Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C. Snowstorms occurring in years when there was a negative NAO and/or an El Niño are indicated. The shaded boxes highlight the storms from this past winter. (Table produced using data courtesy of Jeff Master, Weather Underground, and Klaus Wolter, NOAA ESRL.)

Historically, El Niños are associated with more winter snowfall along the East Coast. And many of the biggest snowstorms in mid-Atlantic cities occurred during El Niño years. Of the top ten storms in Washington, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, more than half have coincided with El Niño events. Yet not all El Niños yield heavy mid-Atlantic snowstorms. Notably, there was no statistically significant increase in snowfall during 1997-98, when one of the strongest El Niños of the century occurred.

–~~~~~~~~~~~~–

Co-conspirators

ElNino_NAO
These maps are centered on the North Pole to show near-surface temperature anomalies in the Northern Hemisphere. Asia is at the top of the map and North America is at the bottom. The top pair of maps are long-term composites (from 1951-2010) illustrating typical winter-time influence of El Niño (top left) and the NAO (top right). The bottom pair of maps shows a composite of the combined influence of El Niño and the NAO (bottom left) compared to the real-world observation from December 2009-February 2010 (bottom right). (Maps courtesy NOAA Climate Prediction Center.)

Combing through historical records dating back to the late 1800s, the CSI team identified the separate “fingerprints” of wintertime climate conditions related to El Niño and the NAO. They deduced that NAO conditions alone could explain Europe’s extreme winter and the large-scale cold temperatures in the United States, but not the remarkable occurrence of record-setting snowstorms in the mid-Atlantic region. They also found that while El Niño conferred additional risk of storms for the mid-Atlantic, these conditions alone didn’t always result in snow. The team then compared the combination of these fingerprints with the 2009-10 conditions. Using a mathematical model to combine the characteristic climate patterns related to El Niño with those of a negative NAO, their reconstructed winter conditions agreed with real-world observations.

Wintry Weather in a Climate Context

The CSI Team found abundant historical evidence of heavy mid-Atlantic snowstorms whenever an El Niño and a negative NAO acted in concert, further supporting their conclusion that the record-setting snowstorms were the result of natural causes. But could global warming have elevated the potency of this dynamic duo? Again, the CSI Team didn’t find a connection.

While the U.S. shivered this winter, ranking 18th coldest since 1895, the planet’s average winter temperature ranked as the fifth warmest on record. Sea surface temperatures ranked second warmest this winter when averaged over the world oceans, according to preliminary data from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.

The observed variations of winter precipitation in the Washington, D.C., area (left) have been very different from what models predict would occur if only human-induced emissions of greenhouse gas and aerosols (right) were taken into consideration. This evidence suggests the mid-Atlantic’s trends in precipitation are mainly due to natural variability, not human influence. (Graph courtesy of Marty Hoerling, NOAA ESRL.)

But the extreme blocked-NAO of this past winter was opposite to the trend toward more positive phases of the NAO since 1950, and also opposite to projections for a positive trend in the NAO during the 21st Century due to greenhouse gas increases.

Attribution is often in high demand when climate behaves in unusual or extreme ways as it did this past winter. NOAA’s ability to respond with the best possible science is critical so that society can anticipate and respond to climate and its impact. For a more detailed science assessment of the causes for this winter’s snows, please see Understanding the Mid-Atlantic Snowstorms During the Winter of 2009-2010.

End_Symbol_465

Do you have feedback to offer on this or another ClimateWatch article?

Let us know what you think.

Martin Hoerling is a senior climate scientist at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL), where he leads the Climate Scene Investigators team. Katy Human and Barb Deluisi are science writers at NOAA ESRL.

=============================================================

h/t to Joe D’Aleo at ICECAP

Note, this analysis if for winter 2009/2010. The 2011 report can’t be completed yet because snow season is not over. I expect when it is complete, a similar analysis will be produced.

=============================================================

UPDATE: Steve Goddard points out inconsistency in some NOAA employees who claim that there is a human signature, he posts these two duel opinions from James Overland:

NOAA announced last year that the snow had no human fingerprint, two weeks ago James Overland at NOAA said just the opposite.

Is severe winter weather related to global warming?

Monday, February 7, 2011; 2:56 PM

Over the past two years, the polar vortex has been strikingly unstable, according to meteorological data. James Overland of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration cites a couple of measures in particular: One, called the Arctic oscillation, tracks air pressure and related atmospheric variables over the North Pole. The other, the North Atlantic oscillation, takes into account similar variables in the neighborhood of Iceland. Both indexes are reliable indicators of the strength of the polar vortex.

Last winter, both indexes reflected higher air pressures and therefore less vortex stability than scientists have ever recorded. This year, both were again seriously off-kilter.

Any number of meteorological factors contributed to those anomalies. Some were undoubtedly random, Overland says. But he and other experts suspect climate change is contributing to the unusual pattern, and if they’re right, things could get a whole lot worse in the years ahead.

The root of the problem, Overland says, is melting sea ice. Sea ice forms in the Arctic Ocean during the cold, dark days of fall and winter and hangs around, melting slowly but not completely vanishing, throughout the summer. In recent years, more sea ice has melted during the warm months than can be replenished during the chillier ones.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/

In 2004, Overland blamed the lack of snow on global warming:

When scientists trained their analytical tools on the North Pole and its environs, they quantified the local knowledge: The polar ice cap is 40 percent thinner and millions of acres smaller than it was in the 1970s.

What happens at the North Pole can affect the rest of the planet, potentially altering the course of the Gulf Stream, which moderates climate from the East Coast of the United States to the British Isles. Closer to home, the jet stream that dictates much of Seattle’s weather can be diverted when the polar vortex speeds up.

“It’s probably contributing to the fact that it’s warmer and we’ve been getting less snow,” Overland said.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001910590_northpole23m.html

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

88 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
James Sexton
February 21, 2011 9:28 am

So, are they trying to pretend warmcold isn’t real? If warmcold isn’t real, how does this affect the drywet leg of the theory?

Steve Keohane
February 21, 2011 9:30 am

Too bad this won’t get the MSM coverage the Gorecle et al get with their blathering.

February 21, 2011 9:33 am

Thanks for putting this up. This is good to know when talking with those who are convinced that more snow means a warming planet.
My only complaint is that while the graphics were good, there should have been at least one photo of Marg Helgenberger. (Come to think of it, that’s a pretty good rule for just about anything.)

February 21, 2011 9:40 am

I would like to thank Martin Hoerling & Katy Human & Barb Deluisi of NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory for their honest and untainted work. It’s refreshing.
p.s. Didn’t you three get the memo from James Overland?

February 21, 2011 9:41 am

If the modelled precipitation correlates so poorly to the actual precipitation, what is going on with the modelled vs actual cloud cover (albedo)?
The game of curling is, at the professional level, one of “inches”. CAGW is one of +/- 2 W/m2, and +/- 0.3K over the last 60 years, the equivalent of “inches” in climatology. If this model vs actual comparison for precipitation is similar to others in the CAGW discussion, then it looks like Hansen, Gore, Mann and Jones are a few rocks short of a winning end.

ej clairm
February 21, 2011 9:43 am

The whole negative phase thing is simply wishful thinking as it’s been both record-breakingly cold and incredibly snowy throughout Scandinavia this winter. http://www.thelocal.se/weather/

Gary
February 21, 2011 9:49 am

Something to remember when looking at East Coast snowfall records is the influence of the Atlantic Ocean. Storms often track up the coastline and, due to the influence of relatively warmer ocean temperatures, a rain-snow line forms which affects the amount of snow measured on the ground. Some years the storms tend to track inland and the snowfall is depressed because it has melted into rain by the time it hits the ground; some years they track seaward and the snow amount is increased, particularly as light fluffy snow instead of wet and heavy slop. Fifty miles can mean the difference between an historical snowstorm and a routine event at any particular location along the coast. Furthermore, there are no measurements of snowfall over half of the coverage area — the ocean part. Have massive snowfalls been missed merely because they dumped most of their snow at sea?
Maybe these caveats are less important for Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington DC, but they sure make a difference for Southern New England.

RockyRoad
February 21, 2011 9:50 am

Whoa! Sanity over at the NOAA’s CSI Unit? Wonderful!

James Sexton
February 21, 2011 9:59 am

Now if they’d just spend some time on figuring out how warm generates cold……..

John from CA
February 21, 2011 9:59 am

El Niño conditions abruptly abated in the NH winter and spring of 2010. By July, we were headed into La Niña conditions which continued to form rapidly for the rest of the year.
Mid to Late November showed fully formed sea ice in the Arctic (80N) and the strong La Niña introduced typical changes to the jet stream. The dip in the jet stream brought increased Arctic air which in conjunction with Gulf and Pacific water vapor produced snow and ice.
Basically, we enjoyed lots of weather but why isn’t La Niña mentioned in the article?

richcar 1225
February 21, 2011 10:06 am

NOAA reports:
“But the extreme blocked-NAO of this past winter was opposite to the trend toward more positive phases of the NAO since 1950, and also opposite to projections for a positive trend in the NAO during the 21st Century due to greenhouse gas increases.”
Lets get rid of NASA and keep NOAA. NOAA understands multi decadel cycles in the oceans and atmosphere. Good work.

Douglas DC
February 21, 2011 10:06 am

One other thing,(putting on rumpled overcoat and lighting cigar) what about better detection of the ups and downs? You could argue that some of the earlier record years might be equal or better than current but we just don’t know…

February 21, 2011 10:14 am

The great snow storms and floods of Jan-Feb 2011 are caused by an (unfortunate) timing of events:
1. There has been an unusually long El Niño, during which ocean circulation stagnated.
2. This caused a build-up of warm water in the tropics, while at the same time cooling mid-latitudes because less warmth was transported poleward.
3. The cooling caused droughts, bush fires and heat waves at mid-latitudes. It also caused an unusually cold beginning of winter in the northern mid-latitudes and a hot and dry spring in southern mid-latitudes.
4. Once the oceans began circulating again (the onset of a La Niña), an unusually large pool of unusually warm water went poleward towards unusually cool mid-latitudes.
5. This combination of unusually warm water and unusually cool land caused unusual snow precipitation in northern mid-latitudes and floods combined with tropical cyclones in southern mid-latitudes.
No global warming is involved; just timing.

February 21, 2011 10:21 am

I wouldn’t bet anytime soon that Jeff Masters will see the error of his ways. Invested he is…

Lynn
February 21, 2011 10:32 am

Of 30 record snowfalls cited 18 have occurred since 1979 and they couldn’t find a pattern?

REPLY:
Like rainfall records associated with mesoscale thunderstorms, snowfall can also fall into “streets” of intensity.
Have a look here: http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/nasaNAS~10~10~73054~178473:Lake-Effect-Snow-in-the-United-Stat
and this: http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/blog/archives/595
Note the swaths of snow.
So, since the theory is that water vapor overall is increased due to AGW, what you have to search for in tying AGW to increased snowfall is TOTAL seasonal snowfalls, not individual records which can be broken by a single “thundersnower” or lake effect event. – Anthony

Grant
February 21, 2011 10:33 am

Gore speaks!
Aspen, Colorado
The Vail Times–‘Gore told the standing-room-only audience that his remarks on global warming, and the presentations throughout the half-day symposium, should not be taken as merely “interesting” or “an intellectual exercise.”…’
All raised their heads to look at the heavens…

February 21, 2011 10:34 am

ej clairm: The NEGATIVE phase of the NAO is exactly what brings exceptional cold to Scandanavia and Northern Europe – just as the maps in this post show. It’s been in a Positive phase for the last several years, but began to change to Negative around 2007/8.
Thanks Anthony, it is indeed refreshing to see some real science coming from one of the “Climate Change” agencies at last.

John from CA
February 21, 2011 10:35 am

[scratches head]
The other aspect of this that simply doesn’t make any sense to me, the IPCC doesn’t project human induced climate change until about 2060 [Curry]. Everything prior to 2060 is assumed to be natural change.
If NOAA supports the IPCC consensus, why aren’t they simply telling the world the obvious?

Al Gored
February 21, 2011 10:59 am

James Sexton says:
February 21, 2011 at 9:28 am
“So, are they trying to pretend warmcold isn’t real? If warmcold isn’t real, how does this affect the drywet leg of the theory?”
My models of the behavior of AGW promotors indicates that the cold effects of the warmcold will freeze the wet part of the drywet leg and stiffen it into a steeply rising hockey-stick-like slope that will still take considerable forcing to correct.
Making matters worse, due to the political warming the legs of the AGW pants seem to be getting wetter by the day.

A C Osborn
February 21, 2011 10:59 am

NOAA seems to be slowly drifting away from the “everything is global warming”

David Larsen
February 21, 2011 11:00 am

I remember the Feb. 1979 snowstorm in DC. Everything shut down for two days. Had to cross country sky to the grocery store. Not enough snow trucks to move the snow. I was there for hurricane David and that one was a monster too. The sun heats and cools the earth.

Bigdinny
February 21, 2011 11:03 am

Would these findings refute those in the paper published in Nature discussed by Willis Eschenbach earlier, or is there a difference between extreme rain and extreme snow events?

Alan F
February 21, 2011 11:05 am

“If NOAA supports the IPCC consensus, why aren’t they simply telling the world the obvious?”
Invest in one rhetoric, shift to another and the year’s accreditation would be brutal at best with a chance of turning into a monetary bloodbath. Every year the best salesman or woman has to take up the clipboard and make that funding pitch. If you ever get the chance, sit in on one (governmental branch is irrelevant as it always plays out the same) and prepare to be dazzled by Jedi like verbiage. “These are not the budget cuts you were looking for…”

Latitude
February 21, 2011 11:21 am

if human-induced global warming could have caused the snowstorms due to the fact that a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor.
=============================================
First they tried to claim that global warming made the air warmer, and the warmer air holds more moisture….
….then they realize that 12-24 inches of snow, is only about 1-2 inches of rain
…then they have to admit that actual precipitation as water is down
Then they try to explain how global warming made the air warmer, but the warmer air didn’t hold more moisture…..
…..it was just colder, and the colder made the less moisture in the air snow, instead of more rain if the air had been warmer
It’s the warmcold, wetdry, flooddrought, snowrain and is consistent with all of the climate computer games……….

1 2 3 4