Bloomberg: U.S. Northeast May Have Coldest Winter in a Decade
By Todd Zeranski and Erik Schatzker
Sept. 28 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. Northeast may have the coldest winter in a decade because of a weak El Nino, a warming current in the Pacific Ocean, according to Matt Rogers, a forecaster at Commodity Weather Group.
“Weak El Ninos are notorious for cold and snowy weather on the Eastern seaboard,” Rogers said in a Bloomberg Television interview from Washington. “About 70 percent to 75 percent of the time a weak El Nino will deliver the goods in terms of above-normal heating demand and cold weather. It’s pretty good odds.”
Warming in the Pacific often means fewer Atlantic hurricanes and higher temperatures in the U.S. Northeast during January, February and March, according to the National Weather Service. El Nino occurs every two to five years, on average, and lasts about 12 months, according to the service.
Hedge-fund managers and other large speculators increased their net-long positions, or bets prices will rise, in New York heating oil futures in the week ended Sep. 22, according to U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission data Sept. 25.
“It could be one of the coldest winters, or the coldest, winter of the decade,” Rogers said.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“NINO3.4 SST anomalies are still in the 0.8 to 0.9 deg C range where they’ve been for a few months.”
Ok, I’m probably wrong: This event may well actually meet NOAA’s own definition of an official El Nino occurance. With no winds to pile up warm water, however.
I’m still betting this is a neutral regime and an artifact of elevated H2O and concomitant cloudiness leaving the Tropical atmosphere a better retainer of heat.
MartinG.Atkins
Since the climate of this planet is the result of many factors, no single variable plotted against the global temperature anomalies will show perfect correlation. I have looked at a number of variables on the same graph like ENSO/PDO, AMO, NAO, VOLCANO ERUPTIONS, ETC., to get a more complete picture. Bob Tisdale has done many excellent graphs showing various Ocean SST vs. various regional global temperatures and showed some good regional correlations.
I have found that a plot of ANNUAL AMO and annual global HADCRUT3 anomalies gives a fair picture on a decadal basis only and part of the total the picture .Adding NAO to this plot makes it more informative . The best correlation I have found is the Southern Hemisphere SST with Hadcrut3. This is understandable as Southern Hemisphere SST is a major part of global HADCRUT 3. Also regional graphs show better correlation. Joe D’Aloe has many of these plots on his ICECAP blog. For Europe I would use AMO and NAO and for winters, I would use Winter NAO and AMO..
matt v. (14:21:19) :
If you need sources for the data let me know
Thanks for the offer matt but I have a whole slew of data sources here.
TonyB (14:29:00) :
Interesting graph. as you say there doesn’t seem to be a lot of correlation.
Here’s one of NAO and England winter. It’s a much better fit than AMO.
http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/MartinGAtkins/NAO-Eng-Temp.jpg
And one for rain. Although it’s a messy fit it does indicate a positive NAO leads to wetter and warmer England winter conditions.
http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/MartinGAtkins/NAO-Eng-rain.jpg
My solar based forecast for the three months of this N.H winter indicates a warmer wetter period from around the solstice for 5 or 6 weeks. I would expect to see well below normal temperatures through November and the first half of December, and February turning sharply cold after the milder January. Heavy N.H. snow is likely at the end of December/start of January. Late heavy snow falls are likely in S.Hemisphere locations such as New Zealand and S.America in November.
I see Harris Mann has a similar outlook for the US this winter.
I won’t claim an understanding of the El Nino/winter temperature connection, but here, we just had to turn on the heat for the time. Here is within a few miles of UAH, incidentally.
MartinGAtkins
Martin , you have it right on . I had only done similar plot of winter NAO but for all of Europe.
MartinGatkins
Have you done an Excel type of verical bars graph showing the winter NAO bar and corresponding UK winter temperature bar. The line graph can be misleading since these are specific winter periods only and not related from year to year. It is only useful for comparing trend of individaul lines and not specific individual winter fits as well. [Does a negative NAO result in a temperature decline ] I found that for Europe as a whole only 2/3 of the winter temperature changes could be accounted by a corresponding NAO in the same direction.
Now this gets very interesting – and once more indicates the great value of this blog. Vicky Pope says that Hadley have a better short-term model than Latif – though Latif’s is out there for public consumption at major conferences, and Hadley seem a bit coy about their’s. I had thought this was because it confirmed my view that the next decade would show either more flatlining, or real cooling – hence over-riding the main driver (according to IPCC). The real danger of publicising this before Copenhagen is of course that general science observers such as myself will be thinking – heh! If the IPCC describe their knowledge of oceanic variability as ‘low’ (especially of oscillations), and the models show a natural flatline from 1950-2000 (Fig1 of IPCC 2007 Summary for Policy Makers) without CO2, but now the natural variability overwhelms the signal – then could not the warming signal have been amplified in the first place? Of course it could, and has – all the cycles we know about – PDO,AO,NAO,AMO and ENSO, as well as good ole Sol, peaked between 1998 and 2007, even if we didn’t know what ‘drives’ them. Carbon’s signal comes on top of that – and I argue in my book ‘Chill’ that we can get an upper estimate of the GHG effect – especially by looking at the Arctic – I make it 20% of the driver. Max.
I could be wrong – but it is a valid argument and worthy of debate and I use real data and peer-reviewed papers to support the argument.
Now Vicky Pope brings in the upper ocean heat content. The only data accessible on their website shows broad inter-decadal comparisons – with no analysis of why upper ocean heat content has remained flat since about 2002. A published paper by Matthew Palmer at Hadley confirms the work of Gouretski and others that the previous estimates of upper ocean heat content (Barratt, based on Levitus) were out by a factor of 2. They don’t say how this new work undermines the previous models used by the IPCC – which of course, it does – but that would be to embarrass their own government, to whom they are answerable. So – yes, these ‘improved’ models, using new upper ocean data, show a flatline – and that is very very important. Vicky may say – ‘we expect some warming over the next decade’ – but how much? And how much compared to the previous IPCC model?
And as for the long-term warming….what aspects of the old model are still unrevised? Do the long term models incorporate the ocean cycles? What predictions do they make about solar cycles?
Its time to ask for an open seminar on these questions. Scientist to scientist (even if some of them, like myself, are generalist policy analysers with a background in systems ecology and no published climate papers or professorships to my name). I will make a request and see how far I get. Of course, Hadley will be very busy and it might not be possible before Copenhagen – so, lets hope no irrevocable commitments are made there on the basis of faulty models.
matt v. (10:03:48) :
Have you done an Excel type of verical bars graph showing the winter NAO bar and corresponding UK winter temperature bar.
It is difficult to see but you must remember that the chart begins at 1950 and if grid lines are set too close the dates become cluttered. Try this one with line points. Remember the X axis grid lines are five years apart. To make it easier to see I’ve enlarged the minor ticks.
http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/MartinGAtkins/NAO-Eng-Tem-pt.jpg
I could set the grid at minor xtics but I think you would agree that it would be visually unpleasant.
MartinGAtkins
Thanks for the better graph,but it is still hard to tell. Just eyeballing the graph I counted about half the years showed a relationship. [That is when the WINTER NAO goes up or down the Temperature follows in the same direction in step.
When I looked at Europe as a whole during the last cool spell about [1962-1987] or 26 years
14 years -the NAO and temperature anomaly moved in step [during these 14 years, the AMO was negative during half of these years.
9 years AMO and temperature anomaly moved in step [ but no NAO realtionship[ that is the NAO and temperatures went in opposite directions ]
3 years were a mix where NAO and AMO went in one direction and the temperature anomaly went the opposite[ other factors in play ]
What this showed to me is that both NAO and AMO seem to affect the EUROPEAN winter temperatures . The fact that this entire period was cooler than normal and AMO was negative or cool for 23 of the 26 years , it would appear that the cool or negative AMO lowers the back ground winter temperature and the NAO seems to amplify or reduce this background level depending whether it is negative or positve .
PETER TAYLOR
http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/PowerPoint/Syun_Akasofu.ppt#524,30,Slide 30
Using the above graph for discussion purposes, what Vicky Pope seems to be saying is that the blue and red areas below and above the black line are the result of natural variation in Earth’s cycles? [NAO, AMO, ENSO, etc]. I don’t have problem with this as the latest global warming was just one of these natural cycle bubbles . She seems to be saying that the black solid line [or the long term temperature slope of about 0.5C per century] is due to global warming and that it will go up [I assume she means the slope will rise and not go down due to global cooling ?]. She has not said what drives this solid black long term line to go up, natural cycles or co2. Many of us feel that the slope will go down for the next few decades.The Met Office is saying that this slope will go up by 4C in the next 50 years due to man generated green house gases. It is here where I have problem. The solid black line which has slight slope shows that additional heating is being applied gradually[ or the line would be flat] which ultimately shows up as increased heating through the natural cycle warming. This additional heating has been going on for hundreds of years and prior to any carbon dioxide level increases due to man [since the last ice age] and has periods of active and slow cycles. More recently [the last 100 years] there has been more solar activity and more heating over the long term. In my judgment, the solar energy is transferred by means other than just solar radiation [solar wind generated rapidly fluctuating magnetic fields generated electrical currents which can cause joule heating, lighting heating, etc]. The jury is still out on the exact mechanism for transferring more solar wind energy to the planet and I accept this. I may not have the exact mechanism straight. I don’t know if anyone has? This is where the scientific debate should be, not with carbon dioxide.
The co2 issue appears to me to be a diversion perhaps to demonize fossil fuel, sell more nuclear plants, give out more free money for research and give an excuse for taxing the world with global carbon tax . This is big business now.
I have suggested on the tips and notes thread here that Anthony institutes a lighht hearted competion to see who makes the best forecast for the NH winter.
We have a number of interesting forecasts here-all very credible.
MartinGAtkins
Thanks for the NAO graph update. That appears to be a pretty good fit but seems to be looking back. Are you able to extrapolate its current mode into what is likely to happen this winter in the UK?
tonyb
MattV/Peter Taylor
Matt- your link didn’t work-can you repost? I have read your post with interest I have always been doubtful of the hypothesis that climate is as sensitive to man made co2 as is claimed (it obviously has some affect though)
I produced a series of graphs-I don’t have the resources of Nasa or Scripps so it is a work in progress- that explored the relationship and sensitivity of co2 to our climate. The graph reproduced below (one of a sequence of ten) is based on several fixed points;
1) We know the actual CET temperatures back to 1660
2) We know the claimed co2 emissions back to 1750
3) We know the actual co2 figures from 1960 to 2008
4) We know the current temperature and the current co2 levels.
It night be necessary to adjust scales, so this is an early attempt at combining actual recorded temperatures over actual known (and speculative) co2 emissions.
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken.xls
After looking at the graph above I came to one of three conclusions;
1) The graphs are hopelessly incorrect and to the wrong scale!
2) Co2 lags temperature by many years and the current co2 levels are responding to the higher temperatures of the MWP
3) There is very little correlation between co2 and temperatures
AS a result of 3) I then inserted some of the figures that Ernst Beck produced of historic measurements for co2-recorded from 1830 onward-these are the gold dots. (the graph is interactive so hover your mouse over the data points)
If you look at the graph you will see I have inserted various notes and amplify them here;
* Firstly it can be seen where the idea of co2/rising temperatures scare came from- until they are seen in a historic context
* Temperatures preceded co2 rises
* Bearing in mind these are mostly ‘Little ice age’ temperatures the modern era temperatures are not ‘unprecedented’ and are not even particularly warm
* Inserting Co2 spikes pre 1960 (Beck and the Victorians) goes a long way to explaining the previous high temperatures- otherwise they were apparently achieved without the benefit of high levels of co2.
* Co2 levels are responsive to temperatures (temperatures rise first) and reading across the chart the high Port Barrow Co2 measurements in the 1940’s (warm temperatures) and the low co2 levels at the start of the (cold) period when Scripps commenced observations in the late 1950’s can be seen in context.
This all leads to the question-Are co2 levels much more variable than we believe? We have only recorded them through a warm period- except the early seventies-cold period-when they declined markedly
I understand there is a potential exchamge of 160GT of co2 betwen ocean and atmosphere so the variable amountss shown here are well within potential variability. The Beck figures are ‘disproved’ by ice cores. However after reading on the subject and the problems with fractionation I tend to view them with an even more jaundiced eye than I do tree rings.
All in all there appears to be great natural variation either without man made co2 or by variable levels of co2 not picked up since 1958. Whatever is the real answer this seems to chime with your post.
Beck is somewhat ridiculed by the scientific intelligentsia so generally the data is not discussed in polite scientific circles.
Peter Taylor makes some reference to his 2007 work in his book ‘Chill’ but generally Beck’s work has not achieved any great traction.
I would be interested in anyones reaction but in particular perhaps Peter could clarify his latest thoughts on the subject bearing in mind our knowledge of climate (which seems very imperfect) is moving on all the time.
tonyb
Peter Taylor (13:16:33) :
“[…]Now Vicky Pope brings in the upper ocean heat content. The only data accessible on their website shows broad inter-decadal comparisons – with no analysis of why upper ocean heat content has remained flat since about 2002. A published paper by Matthew Palmer at Hadley confirms the work of Gouretski and others that the previous estimates of upper ocean heat content (Barratt, based on Levitus) were out by a factor of 2. They don’t say how this new work undermines the previous models used by the IPCC – which of course, it does – but that would be to embarrass their own government, to whom they are answerable. So – yes, these ‘improved’ models, using new upper ocean data, show a flatline – and that is very very important. Vicky may say – ‘we expect some warming over the next decade’ – but how much? And how much compared to the previous IPCC model?
And as for the long-term warming….what aspects of the old model are still unrevised? Do the long term models incorporate the ocean cycles? What predictions do they make about solar cycles?
Its time to ask for an open seminar on these questions. Scientist to scientist (even if some of them, like myself, are generalist policy analysers with a background in systems ecology and no published climate papers or professorships to my name). I will make a request and see how far I get. Of course, Hadley will be very busy and it might not be possible before Copenhagen – so, lets hope no irrevocable commitments are made there on the basis of faulty models.”
Reply: I don’t think that even the best of the current generation of climate models are capable of predicting future climate with accuracy and it will take many more years before this becomes a possibility. it is important to realise that this is still a very young science and it is trying to deal with an extremely complex system, using limited amounts of data of low granularity.
The accuracy of some of the older historic data used by the modellers also leaves much to be desired, with error bars often greater than the precision the model is trying to achieve. So even models which hind-cast well have less predictive power.
The other problem faced is that our climate is non-linear system. To attempt to produce models with good predictive power for these sorts of dynamic chaotic systems requires several bits of the jigsaw which are still missing.
The first big piece of this puzzle is an accurate and quantifiable understanding of how all the different climate mechanisms work together and the rate of energy transfers involved across the total of these climate interaction.
The second is that chaotic systems are very sensitive to initial conditions and the floating-point accuracy of current generation supercomputers is insufficient to avoid error divergence in the models which grows rapidly over time.
My view is that this generation of climate models are useful gaining insight into how different climate systems operate, but are not yet capable of making accurate enough forecasts for the UN and world governments to base policy on.
Panicking about the largely falsified CAGW hypothesis is not the way forward for the peoples of this Earth.
tonyb
try this. I Reposted it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8258000/8258459.stm
The radio conversation took place Sept16 onBBC RADIO 4 TODAY PROGRAM. iT was called Temperatures ‘to continue rising’ I found it unde BBC ENVIORNMENT section of the internet.
Tonyb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Winter-NAO-Index.png
Winter NAO pattern is less prdictable than say AMO or PDO . The past pattern does show a period of negative NAO in the 1950-1970’S corresponding with cooler winters . It seemed to go more positive the next 20-30 years thereafter with much warmer winters for the affected areas . The current trend is again going negative [last winter as well]. Some of us feel that the pattern of 1950-1970’s may repeat.
TonyB (00:58:03) :
MattV/Peter Taylor
Matt- your link didn’t work-can you repost? I have read your post with interest I have always been doubtful of the hypothesis that climate is as sensitive to man made co2 as is claimed (it obviously has some affect though)
I produced a series of graphs-I don’t have the resources of Nasa or Scripps so it is a work in progress- that explored the relationship and sensitivity of co2 to our climate. The graph reproduced below (one of a sequence of ten) is based on several fixed points;
1) We know the actual CET temperatures back to 1660
2) We know the claimed co2 emissions back to 1750
3) We know the actual co2 figures from 1960 to 2008
4) We know the current temperature and the current co2 levels.
It night be necessary to adjust scales, so this is an early attempt at combining actual recorded temperatures over actual known (and speculative) co2 emissions.
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken.xls
After looking at the graph above I came to one of three conclusions;
After looking at the numbers in the spreadsheet I came to the conclusion that the victorian CO2 ppm figures (are these Beck’s?) are highly suspicious. The ppm numbers for 1827, 1828 and 1829 are 481, 431 and 385 respectively. In 2 years around 96 ppm seems to have been removed from the atmosphere. in 1843, the concentration is 308.6 ppm but in 1844 it’s jumped to 400 ppm. Where did ~90 ppm suddenly come from? It’s a similar story throughout the record – flat periods followed by huge rises/falls representing the addition/removal of hundreds of Gigatons of CO2. How come we haven’t noticed these massive fluctuations in the past ~50 years.
Beck is somewhat ridiculed by the scientific intelligentsia so generally the data is not discussed in polite scientific circles.
There might be a reason for this.
Peter Taylor makes some reference to his 2007 work in his book ‘Chill’ but generally Beck’s work has not achieved any great traction.
Hmmm.
Quoting the orginal article in NEWSCIENTIST re M.Latif’s prediction of global cooling ahead for the next several decades , he said ,
Breaking with climate-change orthodoxy, he said NAO cycles were probably responsible for some of the strong global warming seen in the past three decades. “But how much? The jury is still out,” he told the conference. The NAO is now moving into a colder phase. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
To look at the past global warming periods, one has to look at the annual NAO index , not just the winter NAO. The Annual PC based NAO index [ per Jim Hurrell’s data] shows the following pattern of number of positive NAO years per 3 decades.
1890-1910 [9] COOL PERIOD
1920-1940 [14] WARM PERIOD
1950-1970 [9] COOL PERIOD
1980 -2000 [17] WARM PERIOD
M.Latif seems to be right. Positive NAO tends to give milder winters for eastern North America and warmer weather over Europe. This tends to contribute to more global warming in years when the ANNUAL NAO is positive.
Tenuc
As you are aware ,scientists from all over the world have been saying that the multi-decadal weather is more the result of the interaction between the atmosphere and ocean surface temperatures as modified by deep ocean currents than any changes in the global carbon dioxide levels. Professor William Gray wrote about this extensively in his paper entitled Climate Change: Driven by the Ocean not Human Activity. http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/24891.pdf
Prof. Gray said,
Following a lag of 5-10 years global surface temperatures undergo cooling during times of stronger than average MOC conditions and warming during times of weaker than average MOC conditions.
He also said,
More upwelling of colder water in the Southern Hemisphere tropical oceans during positive MOC periods gradually brings about more upper-ocean cooling (estimated 2-4 W/m2averages over the globe).
I have previously noted that the multi-decadal cycle changes of AMO, PDO and NAO seem to correlate with global temperature anomalies. If Professor Gray is right, then there should be early warnings of global temperature changes in the temperature anomalies of the Southern Hemisphere tropical ocean temperature prior to this showing up in the AMO or PDO.
According to Gray, when the MOC has been strong for a long period and cold water upwelling in the Southern Hemisphere has been greater than the long period average, this leads to global temperatures becoming gradually cooler than average.
Changes in Southern Hemisphere STT are the earliest indicators of Global cooling or warming [Even earlier than AMO, NAO or PDO?] The Southern Hemisphere starts to cool before the Northern Hemisphere cools and seems to point to an eventual global temperature change.
Currently Southern Hemisphere SST and South and North Atlantic ocean SST anomalies have been dropping for several months [since July]. Cool weather ahead?
I don’t know what the MET OFFICE models include for above or below surface conditions , but these maybe clear early signs of possible cooling ahead as Prof Gray claims.
.
John Finn
OK, so you must agree therefore that we can have very considerable natural climate variability at a constant 280ppm?
tonyb
Here is what Sept month end ice extent averages (NSIDC) look like:
September (month end averages) NSIDC (sea ice extent)
30 yrs ago
1980 Southern Hemisphere = 19.1 million sq km
1980 Northern Hemisphere = 7.8 million sq km
Total = 26.9 million sq km
Recorded Arctic min yr.
2007 Southern Hemisphere = 19.2 million sq km
2007 Northern Hemisphere = 4.3 million sq km
Total = 23.5 million sq km
Last yr.
2008 Southern Hemisphere = 18.5 million sq km
2008 Northern Hemisphere = 4.7 million sq km
Total = 23.2 million sq km
This yr.
2009 Southern Hemisphere = 19.1 million sq km
2009 Northern Hemisphere = 5.4 million sq km
Total = 24.5 million sq km
On September 12, 2009 Arctic sea ice extent dropped to 5.10 million square kilometers (1.97 million square miles).
Another month is done and it’s time for more data to be released.
My view is Nino 3-4 will be down. The weekly chart shows it hovering at +0.79. This is a nice site for those of you that like to follow these things and will give values for all weekly ENSO zones.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml
So 0.79 looks good for the Sept average. SOI says down for next month.
http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/MartinGAtkins/soi30-1.png
AMO is some what more difficult as there are is no weekly data and as it’s a complex composite the monthly value usually comes out late.
Zooming in to 1979 onward the values seem high.
http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/MartinGAtkins/amo79.jpg
And for the region the latest SST’s seems to say that it won’t stay that way. This site has no archive but my obsevations say that September will be down for AMO.
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/nwatl_anomaly_ophi0.png
UAH and RSS at least for equatorial values should be down for September.
I don’t know how almost all of the readers of this blog missed the lesson on the difference between weather and climate. It also appears that most of your readers lack a basic understanding of statistics.
You CAN NOT use one, two, or even 5 years of weather to draw conclusions on climate.
n= N-1. When n>30 the assumption that S = sigma can be used.
REPLY: Wrong. This article is about forecasting weather for winter. You’re the one who is confused, but perhaps not, you are showing clear signs of trollism now. Readers just ignore him