New peer reviewed paper refutes claims of blizzards of last winter being driven by “global warming”

Paging Joe Romm:

In fact, this record-breaking snowstorm is pretty much precisely what climate science predicts.  Since one typically can’t make a direct association between any individual weather event and global warming, perhaps the best approach is to borrow and modify a term from the scientific literature and call this a “global-warming-type” deluge.

From Columbia Earth Institute, home to NASA GISS:

“This paper explains what happened, and why global warming was not really involved. It helps build credibility in climate science.”

See PR below and a link to the full paper follows. Hemisphere winter snow anomalies: ENSO, NAO and the winter of 2009/10, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L14703, doi:10.1029/2010GL043830.

Via Eurekalert: Converging weather patterns caused last winter’s huge snows

Last winter was the snowiest on record for Washington, D.C., and several other East Coast cities. Image via Eurekalert Credit: FamousDC.com

The memory of last winter’s blizzards may be fading in this summer’s searing heat, but scientists studying them have detected a perfect storm of converging weather patterns that had little relation to climate change. The extraordinarily cold, snowy weather that hit parts of the U.S. East Coast and Europe was the result of a collision of two periodic weather patterns in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, a new study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters finds.

It was the snowiest winter on record for Washington D.C., Baltimore and Philadelphia, where more than six feet of snow fell over each. After a blizzard shut down the nation’s capital, skeptics of global warming used the frozen landscape to suggest that manmade climate change did not exist, with the family of conservative senator James Inhofe posing next to an igloo labeled “Al Gore’s new home.”

After analyzing 60 years of snowfall measurements, a team of scientists at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory found that the anomalous winter was caused by two colliding weather events. El Niño, the cyclic warming of the tropical Pacific, brought wet weather to the southeastern U.S. at the same time that a strong negative phase in a pressure cycle called the North Atlantic Oscillation pushed frigid air from the arctic down the East Coast and across northwest Europe. End result: more snow.

Using a different dataset, climate scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration came to a similar conclusion in a report released in March.

“Snowy winters will happen regardless of climate change,” said Richard Seager, a climate scientist at Lamont-Doherty and lead author of the study. “A negative North Atlantic Oscillation this particular winter made the air colder over the eastern U.S., causing more precipitation to fall as snow. El Niño brought even more precipitation—which also fell as snow.”

In spite of last winter’s snow, the decade 2000-2009 was the warmest on record, with 2009 tying a cluster of other recent years as the second warmest single year. Earth’s climate has warmed 0.8°C (1.5°F) on average since modern record keeping began, and this past June was the warmest ever recorded.

While the heavy snow on the East Coast and northwest Europe dominated headlines this winter, the Great Lakes and western Canada actually saw less snow than usual—typical for an El Niño year, said Seager. Warm and dry weather in the Pacific Northwest forced the organizers of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver to lug in snow by truck and helicopter to use on ski and snowboarding slopes. The arctic also saw warmer weather than usual, but fewer journalists were there to take notes.

“If Fox News had been based in Greenland they might have had a different story,” said Seager.

While El Niño can now be predicted months in advance by monitoring slowly evolving conditions in the tropical Pacific Ocean, the North Atlantic Oscillation— the difference in air pressure between the Icelandic and Azores regions—is a mostly atmospheric phenomenon, very chaotic and difficult to anticipate, said Yochanan Kushnir, a climate scientist at Lamont-Doherty and co-author of the study.

The last time the North Atlantic experienced a strong negative phase, in the winter of 1995-1996, the East Coast was also hammered with above average snowfall. This winter, the North Atlantic Oscillation was even more negative–a state that happens less than 1 percent of the time, said Kushnir.

“The events of last winter remind us that the North Atlantic Oscillation, known mostly for its impact on European and Mediterranean winters, is also playing a potent role in its backyard in North America,” he said.

David Robinson, a climate scientist at Rutgers University who was not involved in the research, said the study fills an important role in educating the public about the difference between freak weather events and human-induced climate change.

“When the public experiences abnormal weather, they want to know what’s causing it,” he said. “This paper explains what happened, and why global warming was not really involved. It helps build credibility in climate science.”

###

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

Here’s the full paper (PDF, thanks to Leif Svalgaard)

Abstract:

Winter 2009/10 had anomalously large snowfall in the central parts of the United States and in northwestern Europe. Connections between seasonal snow anomalies and the large scale atmospheric circulation are explored. An El Niño state is associated with positive snowfall anomalies in the southern and central United States and along the eastern seaboard and negative anomalies to the north. A negative NAO causes positive snow anomalies across eastern North America and in northern Europe. It is argued that increased snowfall in the southern U.S. is contributed to by a southward displaced storm track but further north, in the eastern U.S. and northern Europe, positive snow anomalies arise from the cold temperature anomalies of a negative NAO. These relations are used with observed values of NINO3 and the NAO to conclude that the negative NAO and El Niño event were responsible for the northern hemisphere snow anomalies of winter 2009/10.

Citation: Seager, R., Y. Kushnir, J. Nakamura, M. Ting, and N. Naik (2010), Northern Hemisphere winter snow anomalies: ENSO, NAO and the winter of 2009/10, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L14703, doi:10.1029/2010GL043830.

Figure 1. The correlation of snowfall with (top left) the NINO3 index, (bottom left) the NAO index and (top right) the standardized NINO3 minus standardized NAO (NINO‐NAO) index and (bottom right) the regression of snowfall on the NINO‐NAO index. All indices and the snowfall are for the winter (December to March) mean. Units for the regression are inches. -click to enlarge

Conclusions

[11] In winters when an El Niño event and a negative NAO combine, analyses reveal that there are positive snow anomalies across the southern U.S. and northern Europe. In western North America and the southeast U.S. snow anomalies are associated with total precipitation anomalies and southward shifts in the storm track. In the eastern U.S., north of the Southeast, and in northwest Europe positive snow anomalies are associated with the cold temperature anomalies accompanying a negative NAO. The relations between large‐scale climate indices and snow anomalies were used to attribute the snow anomalies for the 2009/10 winter with notable success in pattern and amplitude. We conclude that the anomalously high levels of snow in the mid‐Atlantic states of the U.S. and in northwest Europe this past winter were forced primarily by the negative NAO and to a lesser extent by the El Niño. The El Niño was predicted but, in the absence of a reliable seasonal timescale prediction of the NAO, the seasonal snow anomalies were not predicted. Until the NAO can be predicted (which may not be possible [Kushnir et al., 2006]), such snow anomalies as closed down Washington D.C. for a week will remain a seasonal surprise.

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

And yet after all that, Columbia still had to put this piece of CYA as a subtitle in their Press Release:

A Warming World Can Still See Severe Storms

Advertisements

100 thoughts on “New peer reviewed paper refutes claims of blizzards of last winter being driven by “global warming”

  1. “The El Niño was predicted but, in the absence of a reliable seasonal timescale prediction of the NAO, the seasonal snow anomalies were not predicted”

    Didn’t Bastardi predict it rather accurately?

    REPLY: There’s a huge difference between pattern recognition (skill based) and model forecast output. – Anthony

  2. El Niño, the cyclic warming of the tropical Pacific, brought wet weather to the southeastern U.S. at the same time that a strong negative phase in a pressure cycle called the North Atlantic Oscillation pushed frigid air from the arctic down the East Coast and across northwest Europe. End result: more snow.

    Last I checked, Dallas and Houston aren’t on the East Coast… Nor are they in northwest Europe.

  3. “Snowy winters will happen regardless of climate change,” said Richard Seager, a climate scientist at Lamont-Doherty and lead author of the study.

    ???
    According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

  4. Yet another clear report that climate is nothing more than a generalization and bracketed extreme range based on the typical series of weather pattern variations that by and large describes the climate of a particular geographic zone. To say that climate is not weather and weather is not climate is just ludicrous.

    This understanding will one day creep into the verbiage of AGW’ers and they will soon twist it by claiming the sky is falling on “weather pattern/range change”. Instead of the slow “climate” creep of .00005 degrees per decade (sarc/off), they will cry over range change, weather pattern change, etc and will leave the idea of “climate” in the dust as a non-traction item.

  5. I have little use for him, but Michael Tobis called this correctly, too. Joe Romm is just a sad little paid political propagandist. So much dissonance over there; so little time for tuning.
    =====================

  6. What many (most?) people either don’t realize, or fail to acknowledge, is that – given the same amount of energy in the earth/atmosphere system – if it’s anomalously cold (or warm) in one area then it must be anomalously warm (or cold) somewhere else. Or it could be almost imperceptibly warmer (or colder) over a much larger area somewhere else.
    And if you’re inadequately measuring the temperature at that ‘somewhere else’ then it’s easy to be misled – or to mislead others.

  7. pgosselin: July 26, 2010 at 10:34 am
    This is like skeet shooting!

    With the clay pigeons loading the shotgun and handing it to you before they climb onto the trap…

  8. “Snowy winters will happen regardless of climate change,” said Richard Seager, a climate scientist at Lamont-Doherty and lead author of the study.
    ====

    According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
    Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
    ====

    In some years the amount that fell was 60 per cent lower than was typical in the early 1980s, said Christoph Marty, from the Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research in Davos, who analysed the records.
    I don’t believe we will see the kind of snow conditions we have experienced in past decades,” he said.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3342553/Climate-change-threat-to-alpine-ski-resorts.html
    ===
    Frequently Asked Question 4.1
    Is the Amount of Snow and Ice on the Earth Decreasing?
    Yes
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-4-1.html
    ===

    Anyway, there is no longer such a thing as snow: it is now called “extreme weather.”

  9. Well it looks as if the New Word is that last winter’s harsh conditions were not because of global warming but in spite of global warming.

    Well, when one backs down, it is best to do it one step at a time . . .

  10. Nice article, except for this:
    “In spite of last winter’s snow, the decade 2000-2009 was the warmest on record, with 2009 tying a cluster of other recent years as the second warmest single year. ”
    The 2009/10 El Nino was not at the level of 1998, and then there is the cold air plunging that produced all that snow.
    To have it the second warmest with all that snow is not logical.
    The expectation is that the El Nino warmth was counteracted by the Arctic Air Masses to some extent.
    Something is not right with 2nd warmest ever.

  11. the quoted eureka article still goes on and on with same bs AGW propaganda.

    “…warmest this, warmest that…”

  12. Pamela Gray says:
    July 26, 2010 at 10:51 am

    To say that climate is not weather and weather is not climate is just ludicrous.

    It’s as bad as saying a year is not time, but a century is.
    Without weather, there is no climate.
    Maybe that is what is wrong with the GCM’s and the blown forecasts.

  13. The memory of last winter’s blizzards may be fading in this summer’s searing heat

    This sounds ridiculous to me… there hasn’t been any “searing heat” here, we’re still waiting on summer. Crops went in late, we’re a month behind on our usual precipitation patterns, even flowering plants are all late (3-4 weeks late on peonies).

    I realize that there’s a heatwave on the East Coast, but definitely not here in the West.

    So for those few who think the anomalous heat where YOU happen to be is meaningful, it’s not. I’d gladly trade this chilly season for some of that heat.

    And one only needs to travel one continent south to see the REAL cold. People die for real when it’s colder than usual. And yet, all in all, I have yet to see weather in my lifetime that is outside of “normal”… a word that encompasses a tremendous variation.

  14. Not read the full paper, but I don’t think it explains why the whole of the NH had so much snow?

    Climate is just the history of weather averaged over a long period and says nothing useful about the extremes of what we have to cope with in any particular place. Unfortunately cold kills far more than does warm and catering for the current cooler weather regimen is more important than spending money on the hypothesis of CAGW.

  15. Cold and snow in Florida is clearly due to warmth. The hotter it gets, the more snow and cold we can expect.

    If it keeps warming up, people will be travelling to Cancun for ski vacations, maybe even the equator. Costa Rica may well be the site of the 2022 Winter Olympics. The snow will be blistering hot.

  16. Bookmarked! Using this “peer-reviewed” paper should be fun! Hope the authors don’t get put on some list or something.

  17. My take is that this paper is more about disproving that the extreme winter is not evidence against AGW, is is “only weather”. On the other hand, all warm weather events, or any out of thenordinary weather events not stated in peer reviewed literature to not be proof of AGW is of course proof of AGW.
    sigh…

  18. Used to be a weather forecaster…back in the days when the alarmists were screaming that man-made pollution was causing a new ice age. This was based on the global cooling that occurred between the 1940s and the 1970s–cooling that has vanished with newly implemented methods of data ‘homogenization’ and ‘normalization’. It is implausible that every data alteration pushes the data toward global warming. Of course, this is exactly what one would expect when religionist priests are in charge of ‘climate science’. The results look exactly like ‘creation science’.

    Anyway, as for unexpected snowfall, we had a saying: “Climate is what you expect; weather is what you get.”

  19. “The arctic also saw warmer weather than usual, but fewer journalists were there to take notes.” Yet the Canadian military were there and my brother said “same old same old” when I asked him… maybe the massive event was too sleight to notice without a model to show you the difference?

    ““If Fox News had been based in Greenland they might have had a different story,” said Seager.” Again the opposite side of that coin was they would be back to wheat and barley farming on Greenland in no time.

  20. “Warm and dry weather in the Pacific Northwest forced the organizers of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver to lug in snow by truck and helicopter to use on ski and snowboarding slopes.”

    I hate when people use the Vancouver winter Olympics. They brought in snow for some of the lower altitude events which always have hit or miss weather. Vancouver itself almost never goes below freezing. It’s standard procedure to get snow for world events. Whistler was fine for example. Basically, this was a news event that was a non-issue. It wasn’t blown out of proportions as much as it was completely made up and made into an alarmist event. Sound familiar?

  21. Joe Romm said droughts would be permanent with heat.
    Climate Progress is a sad member of the Journolist cabel.

  22. From the article: “Warm and dry weather in the Pacific Northwest forced the organizers of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver to lug in snow by truck and helicopter to use on ski and snowboarding slopes.”

    The usual nonsense. This applied only to Cypress Mountain, which is always a gamble snow-wise. The rest of the BC ski slopes had more than enough for the Olympics and beyoond; in fact, Mount Washington (named after the admiral, not George) opened for skiing on Fathers’ Day and management has had to use bulldozers to clear the mountain bike trails. No lack of snow on the West Coast, media notwithstanding.

  23. Well. A few days ago D.C. was hot. We have moisture blow in and now storms knock out power. Now it has been adjusted by weather patterns and cooler and wet.

  24. There is no way to win an argument against AGW when it can “cause” a myriad of seemingly opposite effects. That said, it is reassuring to know that reason still sometimes prevails.

    It would be nice to see a similar explanation for the extreme heat expienced of late in the East and Midwest.

  25. “This paper explains what happened, and why global warming was not really involved. It helps build credibility in climate science.”

    It’s curious that the authors relate credibility in climate “science” to the fact that global warming was not involved…

    Anyhow, let’s check the temperature at Vostok…looks like it’s warmed a bit.

    Vostok, Antarctica (Airport)
    Updated: 1 hr 2 min 17 sec ago
    Overcast
    -98 F

  26. Hmmm…this is news? I remember saying the exact same thing while it was happening last winter. El Nino plus the negative AO index is what caused last winters “snow in Florida”. While I believe that AGW is likely happening, I would never try to relate one season’s weather to it.

    AGW can only been seen in looking at patterns of weather over many years.

    But it’s nice to know I was right last winter about the anomalous weather.

    [Reply: Weather is anomalous.]

  27. I said it then, I’ll say it again. We already had proof that the Global Warming / Blizzard line was bunk. To blizzard was supposed to have happened because global warming creates more precipitation. Has there been more precipitation world wide?????? NOPE!

  28. (SUPERFLUOUS PAGES REMOVED)

    stevengoddard says:
    July 26, 2010 at 11:31 am
    Cold and snow in Florida is clearly due to warmth. The hotter it gets, the more snow and cold we can expect.
    ___________

    Steve, I do recall us talking about this very issue last winter. I pointed out the convergence of weather systems (El Nino + the negative AO index) as the cause of the snow in Florida. We also talked about the fact that Colorado’s snowiest months are not the coldest months. Cold air can’t hold as much moisture of course. Also of course, everyone knows that the one of the driest regions on earth in terms of precipitation is also the coldest…Antarctica.

    REPLY: You had 4 pages of quotes from the thread, which was too large and looked like a copy/paste error on your part. I’ve pared it down to the relevant quote which I think you are responding to. – Anthony

  29. Peter says: “What many (most?) people either don’t realize, or fail to acknowledge, is that – given the same amount of energy in the earth/atmosphere system – if it’s anomalously cold (or warm) in one area then it must be anomalously warm (or cold) somewhere else. Or it could be almost imperceptibly warmer (or colder) over a much larger area somewhere else. And if you’re inadequately measuring the temperature at that ‘somewhere else’ then it’s easy to be misled – or to mislead others.”

    True. Note also that heat input at point A to vaporize x megatons of seawater doesn’t equal the heat removed to create x megatons of snow at point B. Additional heat must be lost to turn x megatons of rain into snow.

  30. I recall Joe Romms’s claim that Air France #447 went down due to global warming before they even found the crash site.

  31. From Canada Free Press 25 July 2010
    California snowfall unchanged over past century
    California’s southern Sierra snowfall has not changed over the past century, according to John Christy, a native Californian and atmospheric researcher who’s now in charge of the global temperature-measuring satellites. Christy reconstructed snowfall records at Huntington Lake, CA, from 1916–2009.”

    Source: J. Christy and J. Hnilo; “Changes in the Snowfall of the Southern Sierra Nevada of California since 1916.” Energy and Environment, Vol. 21; 2010.

  32. I think it will take a glacier arriving in Washington DC to kill the CAGW monster…. Of course one should always be careful what one wishes for:

    … one of FDR’s advisors, Hugh Hammond Bennett, was in Washington D.C. on his way to testify before Congress about the need for soil conservation legislation. A dust storm arrived in Washington all the way from the Great Plains. As a dusty gloom spread over the nation’s capital and blotted out the sun, Bennett explained, “This, gentlemen, is what I have been talking about.”

    The most visible evidence of how dry the 1930s became was the dust storm. Tons of topsoil were blown off barren fields and carried in storm clouds for hundreds of miles…. The Dust Bowl got its name after Black Sunday, April 14, 1935…. By 1934, it was estimated that 100 million acres of farmland had lost all or most of the topsoil to the winds. By April 1935, there had been weeks of dust storms, but the cloud that appeared on the horizon that Sunday was the worst. Winds were clocked at 60 mph. Then it hit.

    “The impact is like a shovelful of fine sand flung against the face,” Avis D. Carlson wrote in a New Republic article. “People caught in their own yards grope for the doorstep. Cars come to a standstill, for no light in the world can penetrate that swirling murk… We live with the dust, eat it, sleep with it, watch it strip us of possessions and the hope of possessions. It is becoming real…

    Technically, the driest region of the Plains – southeastern Colorado, southwest Kansas and the panhandles of Oklahoma and Texas – became known as the Dust Bowl, and many dust storms started there. But the entire region, and eventually the entire country, was affected.” http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/water_02.html

    After reading about the 1930’s dustbowl, and comparing it to today, one realizes what a tempest in a teapot CAGW is and how devastating it would be if we relied on the 1930’s or before methods to grow food.

    1/3 of the population of the southern plains/dust bowl area sickened and died – not of starvation, but of “dust pneumonia” (i.e. lungs and body just filled up with dirt) http://www.ishthink.org/the_worst_hard_time_book_about_dust_bowl_and_great_depression

    Here is the US temperatures (raw and adjusted)

  33. Tenuc says: July 26, 2010 at 11:25 am
    Not read the full paper, but I don’t think it explains why the whole of the NH had so much snow? Climate is just the history of weather averaged over a long period and says nothing useful about the extremes of what we have to cope with in any particular place.

    From what I have read here on WUWT over the last 12 months the records show it has been very cold throughout the Northern Hemisphere in its last winter and it is very cold here in the Southern Hemisphere this winter. My observation of last summer’s weather here (NZ) was that it was quite cool. But all of these reports are from separate places and are termed ‘just weather’ and so dismissed by the so called experts who ‘manage’ the global data. This global data is called (by them) CLIMATE. What I find surprising is that all the individual reports and my own observations lead me to conclude that it has been rather cool in the world last year, yet these expert climatologists say it the second warmest on record. So everyone says its cold where they live but the experts who don’t live there say it’s warm. Year right!
    Doug

  34. Global Warming mantras are not repeated so often as years ago, THEY are losing momentum. What is it now Al baby whereabouts?

  35. ““If Fox News had been based in Greenland they might have had a different story,” said Seager.”

    Interesting how the obligatory zing at Fox makes its way into the story. That right there tells me that the article has a political bent. There is only really one reason for doing that. I don’t recall Fox reporting anything other than it was really snowy.

    That one sentence right there tells me that article is junk.

  36. “REPLY: There’s a huge difference between pattern recognition (skill based) and model forecast output. – Anthony”

    So, Bastardi is better than the models, yes/no?

  37. This is nothing to do with climate, or science. This is all about doing serious violence to the English language, and mangling the meanings of words. After a while, nearly every word will have several meanings and can be interpreted in any way anyone wants, the significance or relevance of any particular word or phrase being lost.

  38. “Peter says:
    July 26, 2010 at 11:04 am
    What many (most?) people either don’t realize, or fail to acknowledge, is that – given the same amount of energy in the earth/atmosphere system – if it’s anomalously cold (or warm) in one area then it must be anomalously warm (or cold) somewhere else. Or it could be almost imperceptibly warmer (or colder) over a much larger area somewhere else.
    And if you’re inadequately measuring the temperature at that ‘somewhere else’ then it’s easy to be misled – or to mislead others.”

    So given what’s going on in South America right now, which will likely cause grave damage to the producers of my cherished Malbacs and Carmeneres, is that precipitous or POSTcipitous? :)

    What’s the forecast for the Northeast for this coming winter? :)

    JimB

  39. The temperature anomaly is calculated against an average temperature. What the present research show is that the standard deviation of the average weather is important and sometimes it can get out of the “normal” range. It would certainly be interesting to see the standard deviation on the temperature anomaly graphs. That would certainly put things in perspectives when they claim the hottest years ever…

  40. Climate has always been in my mind a definition of the range extremes for all weather related parameters. Traditional climate zones use range extremes to designate each zone. When I was in high school studying geography, our Atlas included something similar along with other kinds of information, like temperature extremes. Other areas around the globe have also been divided into climate zones based on range. Here are two sources of information related to the traditional understanding of climate.

    http://www.backyardgardener.com/zone/index.html#usda
    http://www.usna.usda.gov/Hardzone/ushzmap.html

  41. You people do realise that when we go back to the bitter winters of the late 1960s and 1970s Warmists will say that the models predicted this and that it is a sign of ‘climate change’. They have already begun.

    10 Feb 2010 – Time Magazine
    Snowstorm: East Coast Blizzard Tied to Climate Change
    28 Jan 2010 – Reuters
    Extreme US winter signals climate change

    So, global warming can lead to record breaking winters I see:
    2 Mar 2010 – The Guardian (UK)
    British winter was the coldest for 31 years
    1 March 2010 – Met Office UK
    Coldest UK winter for over 30 years” and a year earlier it was the “Coldest winter for a decade
    6 Jan 2010 – Daily Telegraph UK
    Britain’s freezing weather: worst snow for 50 years
    24 Feb 2010 – Onearth.org
    Massive snowstorms can coincide with climate change
    Then we have this great piece from the Washington State Department of Ecology
    Warmer temperatures mean more precipitation will fall as rain, not snow

    And I haven’t even touched on the rest of Europe, Asia up to China this past winter. There must be a lot of global warming goin on in the NH. Is there more ‘global warming’ just around the corner? You’d better hope not!

  42. rbateman: July 26, 2010 at 11:20 am
    Nice article, except for this:
    “In spite of last winter’s snow, the decade 2000-2009 was the warmest on record, with 2009 tying a cluster of other recent years as the second warmest single year.”

    Proofreading error. He obviously meant “…the warmest on record for the current decade…”

  43. Let’s not overlook Seager’s nasty little crack about Fox news and Greenland, for it tells us everything we need to know about the mindset of the warmists. The implication was that Fox misrepresents weather events through ignorance. Never mind that their coverage was accurate.

    There was no reason for the remark, except to sling mud at conservatives who, unsurprisingly, are overwhelmingly of the skeptical persuasion.

    The larger question is why virtually all the AGW proponents display marxist/fascist orientations. There are a few lefties in the skeptic community, but not the other way around.

    Why should this be so? Something about control, maybe….

  44. R Shearer says:
    July 26, 2010 at 11:58 am

    Ask, and you shall receive:
    Global Cooling causes a drier atmosphere which shrinks due to the loss of water, lets in more heat during daytime and loses more during nightime. So, Global Cooling causes wild extremes due to the expansion of the diurnal. It’s the resulting anomalous humidity feeds, that mix with the searing daytime heat, which produces the killer hot & humid heat waves.
    I just made all that nonsense up, to show how easy it is.

  45. <i.Jimbo says:
    July 26, 2010 at 1:24 pm

    You people do realise that when we go back to the bitter winters of the late 1960s and 1970s Warmists will say that the models predicted this and that it is a sign of ‘climate change’. They have already begun.

    Which is why the world + dog thinks they have lost it.

  46. Everyone on all sides of this debate seems willing to admit that the global climate is a mechanism of such overwhelming complexity that it is at present and for any foreseeable future beyond the capability of human intelligence to comprehend fully. The “barely able to crawl toddler” science of the climate has amassed some evidence, mostly not very reliable, deeply flawed, and too limited spatially and temporally to be really meaningful, about global average temperature, which is one of an uncounted myriad of factors comprising the global climate, which may or may not prove to be the most significant of those factors in determining what our future weather and planet will look like.
    Indeed the evidence of recent times suggests that warmer GATs will make the weather less extreme rather than more so. If you think about it logically that is what we should expect. Extreme weather phenomena are generally created by strong differentials, in temperature, atmospheric pressure, humidity,etc., and what data we have suggests that the warming that has occurred is not so much the result of increasing maximum temps but of declines in the range of max to min temps.
    The incredible amount of attention that is given to weather as a result of the contentiousness of the CAGW kerfuffle means that every episode of extreme weather anywhere in the world is fodder for the global climate propaganda machine, but the fact that we are now paying more attention doesn’t mean that those extreme events were not happening in the past, it means only that in the past we didn’t much care. Once you get past the scare headlines almost every story eventually gets to a line of the general form of “We haven’t seen this for XX number of years” and usually that XX is well within the historical record.
    Nobody ever gets to experience the global climate. All that any of us ever see is the weather where we are at the moment. Whatever the GAT does in the future the weather where people live will continue to cycle within the same limits it always has. There will of course be events that are truly unprecedented. After all records are meant to be broken and the only climate that would be really unprecedented would be one which did not bring a number of new records each day. And yet, from what little real “evidence” we do have, that seems a more likely scenario than any that the alarmists support.

  47. “The memory of last winter’s blizzards may be fading in this summer’s searing heat, but scientists studying them have detected a perfect storm of converging weather patterns that had little relation to climate change.”

    Not here in middle of Norway ;) We have only had two months in my part of norway with temps around normal. Rest of the months have all been way below normal including june. The summer here this year is pretty much non existant and a few days ago a town just south of here recorded the coldest july night in 100 years with night lows reaching -2.1c.
    Absolutely every month this year have set multiple cold records in some way or another.

    I am not looking forward to this winter.. Long term forecast shows a cold start of august as well and summer here usually ends somewhere between middle of august-early sept.

  48. This is just another CYA paper.
    Everyone made fun of the “no more snow” forecast, immediately followed by record breaking snow falls.

    So, true to form, here they come with a paper covering their slimy butts, saying they can’t predict anything, and more or less snow has nothing to do with climate change.

  49. Peter (July 26, 2010 at 11:04 am): “What many (most?) people either don’t realize, or fail to acknowledge, is that – given the same amount of energy in the earth/atmosphere system – if it’s anomalously cold (or warm) in one area then it must be anomalously warm (or cold) somewhere else.”

    Not really true. There are many simple proofs of why not, but the simplest is the UAH bouncing around all the time http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ Another simple proof: because there is more albedo somewhere does not mean there is less somewhere else.

    What is true about your statement is that the cold in the southern US last winter was part of a pattern that warmed the Arctic. But those did not balance each other at any point in time or over any period of time.

  50. Q.: How can it be, that cold air was rushed from the Arctic into Northern America AND into Europe – AND into China, too, for that matter! – causing enough snow on it’s way to bring the western as well as the eastern World almost to a grinding halt for WEEKS, and STILL have enough cold air in ther Arctic left for a close recovery of the sea-ice cap against all odds?

    There must have been one helluva lot of really cold air up there, to achieve all these “goals” at a time last winter, methinks! But where did it come from? Looks like this “peer-reviewed paper” doesn’t explain much, but only dislodges the source of their dilemma up North, instead.

    So again: How was this humongous mass of really cold air cooled down so much, as to be able to achieve all that SIMULTANEOUSLY?

  51. jorgekafkazar (July 26, 2010 at 12:15 pm) “Note also that heat input at point A to vaporize x megatons of seawater doesn’t equal the heat removed to create x megatons of snow at point B. Additional heat must be lost to turn x megatons of rain into snow.”

    That those take place in different places is proof enough that there is no such thing as a balance in energy except to some extent over long periods of time with constant forcing and feedback.

  52. Michael Schaeger asked:

    “So again: How was this humongous mass of really cold air cooled down so much, as to be able to achieve all that SIMULTANEOUSLY”

    Obviously because it’s part of a recently begun cooling trend. The writers of the article are just trying to explain it away for as long as they can.

    Although they have noted a basic truth they wont accept the implications.

    The fact is that global warming wasn’t involved. Global cooling was but because we are near the top of a 500 year warming part of the cycle with ocean temperatures still relatively high it is still difficult to prove that the turn has begun. Indeed we might still see a couple more upward steps before the real long term downturn but it’ll take another 25 to 30 years to see one.

  53. GeorgeGr said:
    “My take is that this paper is more about disproving that the extreme winter is not evidence against AGW, is is “only weather”.”

    That was an unfortunate double negative. Of course I meant to write “proving” or asserting, not “disproving”. Clearly this paper is by warmists trying to “defuse a bomb”. Sorry about the typos!

  54. Some people are so confused by this “global warming / climate change” bit.

    To the normal intelligent person climate change is when things in weather are no longer what they used to be years ago and never return. Such as: “It used to rain frequently but now we hardly ever see rain” or “It was always so cool at night but now we have to run our air conditioner all night”. And this has to prove true over at lease one or two decades to stick. If the apparent change reverts back to what was deemed normal years ago that was just a warm spell. If it become rainy again after a dry decade, that was just a dry spell. This bit of tracking 1/10th of degrees and inferring climate change or in the ’90s as global warming is just a figment in some climatologists imagination.

    They understand that people have built where they shouldn’t have and so floods are going to affect them. They have built up coasts so of course hurricanes are going to affect them.

    The truth is that the people you converse with around the globe are not seeing any lasting or long-term change that has happened. That is what makes your normal intelligent person to think this “global warming” or “climate change” is but a bunch of malarkey. They see right through the political aspect. It’s crumbling. The more they yell, the more it becomes apparent. Keep up the good work trolls, we can’t convince all people that everything is normal but you can by the words between your lines and you are doing such a great job.

  55. Thanks Jimbo for the new link.
    BTW: In another blog, MGmirkin, writes about: In Slumber, Sun Reveals Effects on Earth’s Climate!

    Kristian Birkeland wrote: With a constant magnetization, the zones of patches will be found near the equator if the discharge-tension is low, but far from the equator if the tension is high.

    The Discovery Channel article wrote:In an upcoming paper, Haigh’s team provides evidence that when the sun is more active, Earth’s jet streams weaken and shift toward the poles, taking with them storm tracks and weather systems that carry heat. The result is a subtle warming around Earth’s mid-latitudes.

  56. All the snow storms of last winter were caused by global warming, short term spurts of warming from the Sun. It was cold enough beforehand for the precipitation to arrive as snow rather than rain. Winter precipitation is always driven by temperature uplifts, summer rainfall is driven by temperaure drops.

  57. Kate says:
    July 26, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    This is nothing to do with climate, or science. This is all about doing serious violence to the English language, and mangling the meanings of words. After a while, nearly every word will have several meanings and can be interpreted in any way anyone wants, the significance or relevance of any particular word or phrase being lost.

    I don’t know what you mean!/smiles Fortuneately for Post Normal Science’s purposes, everyone will still “understand” the might which makes right and at the same time tries to eliminate the function of thought, words, and real Science which instead aim at real, evolved human understanding of things.

    The very same “might making right” is the ultimate functional meaning of Post Normal Science’s “climate change” and its machinations. It’s nothing else, nothing new, and actually more of an atavistic or evolutionary “throwback”, or at least a rather obvious “dead end”.

  58. Michael Schaefer says:
    July 26, 2010 at 1:51 pm
    “Q.: How can it be, that cold air was rushed from the Arctic into Northern America AND into Europe – AND into China, too, for that matter! – causing enough snow on it’s way to bring the western as well as the eastern World almost to a grinding halt for WEEKS, and STILL have enough cold air in ther Arctic left for a close recovery of the sea-ice cap against all odds?

    There must have been one helluva lot of really cold air up there, to achieve all these “goals” at a time last winter, methinks! But where did it come from? Looks like this “peer-reviewed paper” doesn’t explain much, but only dislodges the source of their dilemma up North, instead.

    So again: How was this humongous mass of really cold air cooled down so much, as to be able to achieve all that SIMULTANEOUSLY?”

    I’m will you on this one. For some reason the sun has gone into quiet mode and is failing to put enough heat into the oceans to mitigate the effects of winter. These weather regime oscillations can be seen in the historic temperature record, with a cold period appearing as expected:-

    1410-1500 cold – Low Solar Activity(LSA?)-(Sporer minimum)
    1510-1600 warm – High Solar Activity(HSA?)
    1610-1700 cold – (LSA) (Maunder minimum)
    1710-1800 warm – (HSA)
    1810-1900 cold – (LSA) (Dalton minimum)
    1910-2000 warm – (HSA)
    2010-2100 (cold???) – (LSA???)

    Caution: These are only quasi-cycles and various processes in our deterministically chaotic climate can effect the timing and size of each 100(ish) oscillation. Having a good stock of non-perishable food and plenty of fuel for heating is a wise precaution for this coming winter, which is likely to start much earlier than we’ve seen in recent years.

  59. Enneagram says:
    July 26, 2010 at 2:23 pm

    How quickly they forget the jet stream loops that stretched 2-3000 miles N-S, carrying the heat up to the Pole from whence it escaped.
    And that’s how all that snow and cooling got accomplished in the middle of an El Nino.
    After the S. America stunt the Weather just pulled, and a lagging solar cycle, guess what’s for Winter?

  60. David Robinson, a climate scientist at Rutgers University who was not involved in the research, said the study fills an important role in educating the public about the difference between freak weather events and human-induced climate change.

    So, they’ve actually come out and said that extreme heat events are global warming and extreme cold events are weather. Morons.

  61. Enneagram says:
    July 26, 2010 at 2:23 pm
    ……The Discovery Channel article wrote:In an upcoming paper, Haigh’s team provides evidence that when the sun is more active, Earth’s jet streams weaken and shift toward the poles, taking with them storm tracks and weather systems that carry heat. The result is a subtle warming around Earth’s mid-latitudes.
    ___________________________________________________
    This “discovery” will no doubt be used to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period and Roman Optimum again, and to explain away the severe cold in the coming winters The cold is all local but it is the warmist year EVAHhhh

    With warmist pscyhentists playing a shell game with the real temperature data we can not know what is actually happening.

    Graph of raw vs “adjusted” temps for the USA: http://i31.tinypic.com/5vov3p.jpg

  62. here we go again….

    AFP: Climate change could spur Mexican migration to US: study
    Researchers led by Michael Oppenheimer of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University estimated the sensitivity of migration to climate change and predicted the number of Mexicans who would migrate under a range of different climate and crop yield scenarios.
    In the worst-case scenario would occur if temperatures were to rise by one to three degrees Celsius (1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2080, if farming methods had not been adapted to cope with global warming and if higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide had not spurred plant growth. This would mean crop yields in Mexico would fall by 39 to 48 percent, the study said.
    “In that case, the increase in Mexico’s emigration as a share of population would be between 7.8 percent and 9.6 percent,” said the study, which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences…
    But the findings are relevant to the many countries in Africa, south Asia, and Latin America, and even to Australia, where the authors of the study predict migration will become a “significant issue” as climate change drives temperatures up and crop yields down
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/usmexicoclimatefarmimmigration;_ylt=AqXPnfdPZao5hxRzeKQH1Aes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTQzZW02N3NqBGFzc2V0A2FmcC8yMDEwMDcyNi91c21leGljb2NsaW1hdGVmYXJtaW1taWdyYXRpb24EY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwM0BHBvcwMxBHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5faGVhZ

    Climate change linked to mass Mexican migration to US
    Los Angeles Times – Anna Gorman – ‎8 minutes ago‎

    Global Warming Means More Mexican Immigration?
    National Geographic – ‎51 minutes ago‎

    Mexican ‘climate migrants’ predicted to flood US
    Nature.com – Zoe Corbyn – ‎3 hours ago‎

    Climate Change May Mean More Mexican Immigration
    Scientific American – David Biello – ‎3 hours ago‎

  63. re J Peden and Kate above: The new “Might makes Right” derived of Post Normal Science and its “Precautionary Principle” as applied to CAGW: “It Might warm up and that Might be bad, so we have the Right to force you to change how you live to how we want you to live.”

  64. Khwarizmi says:
    July 26, 2010 at 11:15 am

    Thanks for your collection of links. The first thing that crossed my mind while reading the article was something like; “I thought they were claiming just a few weeks ago that children won’t even know what snow was?” I have been searching the CBC for a piece with none other than Andrew Weaver of UBC, going on for close to an hour about how snow has been predicted to be a thing of the past due to climate change/global warming/crazed carbon kittens. The show was hosted by one Claire Martin BSc, the mother corps newest Euro import weather lady/climate hysteric. Funny, but I cant seem to find it… Memory hole?

  65. rbateman says:
    July 26, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    “…How quickly they forget the jet stream loops that stretched 2-3000 miles N-S, carrying the heat up to the Pole from whence it escaped….

    That interests me. Some others here have from time to time written about the effect of the jet streams. As I understand them, the four jet streams occur at the interfaces of the Hadley cells, the Temperate cells and the Polar cells.

    If the Pacific is in El Nino phase, shouldn’t the Hadley cell (north version) really be cranking heat and mass into the system, which would tend to expand the northward reach of the Hadley cell, thus forcing the northern mid-latitude jet north? As I observe winter here in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, given a map of the northern mid-latitude and polar jets and a map of winter storms entering the West Coast, I can fairly well predict whether and when a major snowstorm is going to arrive on my doorstep.

    Maybe Willis’s next phase of the Thermostat Hypothesis is to look at how the various convective cells interoperate to move heat and moisture north and south.

    Just an observation, backed by no real knowledge. And probably something that others have addressed ad nauseum, but I didn’t follow the links. Apologies in advance.

  66. No, the 2000-2009 decade was NOT the warmest on record. “Record” has been manipulated by the interested parties to show warming where there was none. Any article asserting this is a totalitarian propaganda of lies.

  67. R. Gates says:
    July 26, 2010 at 12:10 pm
    (SUPERFLUOUS PAGES REMOVED)

    stevengoddard says:
    July 26, 2010 at 11:31 am
    Cold and snow in Florida is clearly due to warmth. The hotter it gets, the more snow and cold we can expect.
    ___________

    Steve, I do recall us talking about this very issue last winter. I pointed out the convergence of weather systems (El Nino + the negative AO index) as the cause of the snow in Florida. We also talked about the fact that Colorado’s snowiest months are not the coldest months. Cold air can’t hold as much moisture of course. Also of course, everyone knows that the one of the driest regions on earth in terms of precipitation is also the coldest…Antarctica.

    REPLY: You had 4 pages of quotes from the thread, which was too large and looked like a copy/paste error on your part. I’ve pared it down to the relevant quote which I think you are responding to. – Anthony

    _______
    Thanks…I was hoping you’d do that.

  68. MattN says:
    July 26, 2010 at 10:35 am

    “The El Niño was predicted but, in the absence of a reliable seasonal timescale prediction of the NAO, the seasonal snow anomalies were not predicted”

    Didn’t Bastardi predict it rather accurately?

    REPLY: There’s a huge difference between pattern recognition (skill based) and model forecast output. – Anthony

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    I think I do remember Joe Bastardi factoring in the North Atlantic Oscillation.

  69. Creation belief is far more rational. There is at least no physical evidence which falsifies the concept of creation, best I know of. There is physical evidence after physical evidence which falsifies at least one of the assumptions that is required to be true for AGW to be true. “Underlying assumptions” is what I call the underlying assumptions, which all have to be “true”, each and every one, for the hypothesized concept to be “true”.

    Saves a lot of time, ferreting out these underlying assumptions, to see if any have been falsified since when. Lots have been falsified, but it takes a long, long time for the word to get out, all of the real and useful scientific research being done these days, most of the findings by scientists who don’t want to make any waves. Even so, these scientists still have to use the words, “climate warming” or “climate change” somewhere in the paper to avoid getting themselves blacklisted, never to get government grants for research again.

    And I am certainly not a creationist in any way, shape or form.

  70. MattN says:
    July 26, 2010 at 10:35 am

    “The El Niño was predicted but, in the absence of a reliable seasonal timescale prediction of the NAO, the seasonal snow anomalies were not predicted”
    Didn’t Bastardi predict it rather accurately?

    IIRC, he and Joe D’Aleo were both calling for a very cold New England. We were certainly on track for that in December with 13 days where the high temperature was below freezing. However, January had only 14 despite normally being the coldest month of the year, and February had 7 – the last day was the 8th!

    Hmm the first half of January had 10 cold days, the other three were the last three days of the month. The effect was pretty dramatic on my heating bill, so that helped make up for the pitiful snow season we had (hey, at least the snow went to DC!)

    What happened was that the record-setting AO brought maritime air up into Canada and what would typically be frigid continental polar air flow to us from the northwest was the far more moderate maritime-sourced air. So yeah, Joe and Joe both had pretty good forecasts, but the weather was a bit more extreme than they expected.

  71. If someone discussed this statement about the NAO, I missed it

    “While El Niño can now be predicted months in advance …, the North Atlantic Oscillation— the difference in air pressure between the Icelandic and Azores regions—is a mostly atmospheric phenomenon, very chaotic and difficult to anticipate, said Yochanan Kushnir …”

    Wait, what? – I though the NAO cycle was on the order of 20-30 years between positive and negative switches. Is he referring to the same NAO? What am I missing here?

  72. I see this study was funding by a grant from NOAA. It would be nice to know how much of our taxpayer money was wasted on this study when those of us whose have some experience and expertise in weather pattern recognition were predicting it months in advance. I also wonder if NOAA’s Lawrimore will reconsider his statements on relating the snow in DC & Baltimore to global warming.

    Oh well, at least it is nice to know R Gates was “was right last winter about the anomalous weather”. I’m sure he used his influence to correct his warmist friends on the fact that it wasn’t global warming that caused the snow and he didn’t just show up here to tell us he was right.

  73. Dave in Deleware: I think you are getting the NAO and the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) mixed up.

  74. Anthony:

    In spite of last winter’s snow, the decade 2000-2009 was the warmest on record

    (Slightly off on a tangent, but semi-briefly…)

    (…preaching to the choir stuff, I guess, too…)

    Anthony, I have to say that I don’t accept that to be true. We all seem to accept the adjusted values, even when we all KNOW there are lots of specific met stations where the adjustments are demonstrably WRONG. We do NOT have to keep throwing them a bone about “warmest decade ever.”

    Poppycock!

    When all the raw data is finally in, and we can see what they’ve done to bastardize (homogenize) the data, and when they use REAL adjustments for every specific met station, not globally averaged adjustments – and those adjustments use corrected UHI values, I am pretty damned certain that the real averages are going to be right at about the average for the last century or so (allowing as we ARE coming out of the Little Ice Age which ended only 160 years ago).

    I don’t even see that this position makes me into some kind of extremist, either. It is THEY who need to demonstrate their declarations.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. One guy’s un-backed-up work is not enough. Their allegations are only that so far – until someone outside their coterie replicates their work. We who “deny” their claims – why should WE be the ones who need to meet higher standards? They make the claims, then deny Steve M et al the information with which to persuade ourselves that they are correct. (We all know that if they ere confident of their results they would have made it easy for anyone to access their data and know their methods.) We do not need to push their agenda for them.

    TOB adjustment values for regions is bad science, lazy science. Cherry picking trees in Yamal. Dropping over 80% of met stations at a time when we have much greater computer capacity to deal with data. Bad code writing. Intentionally increasing adjustment values, over time, written into code. 69% of US surface stations rated only “Fair,” “poor” or “worst.” Hiding declines. Sloppy data management. All bad science. None of it is verified, except by their pals. Therefore any claims based on the bad science are hollow claims that we should not go around repeating without caveats.

    So, no, I don’t accept that “the period 2000-2009 was the warmest on record” is a fact. Not at all. Even if you do.

    I want to see solid science first. Call me old-fashioned.

  75. Feet2theFire says:
    July 26, 2010 at 6:33 pm

    “…I want to see solid science first. Call me old-fashioned….”

    Couldn’t have said it better. This “warmest this and warmest that” stuff has got to be challenged, and I believe, refuted. They are cooking the books, so to speak.

  76. Feet2theFire says:
    July 26, 2010 at 6:33 pm

    When all the raw data is finally in, …
    —————————————————————————
    You can also add that the raw data also can also contain errors. I occasionally collected temperature data in the early 80’s from a Stephenson’s Screen while in graduate school. This was the old fashioned method of looking at the gauge, guessing what it read and writing it down. I would guess there was a couple of degrees in error in that data. I really hope none of that temperature data is actually being used to determine 0.1 C temperature anomalies. But don’t blame me, I was in the Geology department at the time. The Atmospheric Science people should have known better :)

    [REPLY – You happen to remember the location or the station number? ~ Evan]

  77. [REPLY – You happen to remember the location or the station number? ~ Evan]

    It was in Monroe, LA. I checked the USHCN sites via the surfacestations site and it was not listed. Thankfully! I would have hated to find out that I contributed to GW :)

  78. “This paper explains what happened, and why global warming was not really involved. It helps build credibility in climate science.”

    Why this obsession with “credibility?” Credibility will come when it achieves accuracy, which should be the goal of any scientific enterprise.

  79. And the sun does not cause climate issues – sure is funny that last negative phase in North Atlantic also occurred at a SOLAR MINIMUM. Is that coincidence or is that solar irradance?

    “The last time the North Atlantic experienced a strong negative phase, in the winter of 1995-1996, the East Coast was also hammered with above average snowfall. This winter, the North Atlantic Oscillation was even more negative–a state that happens less than 1 percent of the time, said Kushnir.”

  80. pat: July 26, 2010 at 3:40 pm
    here we go again….
    AFP: Climate change could spur Mexican migration to US: study
    In the worst-case scenario would occur if temperatures were to rise by one to three degrees Celsius (1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2080, if farming methods had not been adapted to cope with global warming and if higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide had not spurred plant growth.
    My emphasis.

    That is an atrocious sentence, even by Princeton’s currently-malleable standards — *and* it says nothing will happen because whatever might have happened has already been forestalled by things that have already happened.

  81. [REPLY – You happen to remember the location or the station number? ~ Evan]

    I collected the data from a Stevenson screen min/max thermometer for five years at the USDA Central Great Plains Research Station in Akron, CO. Why do you ask?

  82. If records have a random occurrence, the following test can be used to determine it:

    Take the snowfall amounts per winter for, say, Philadelphia starting from the time recordkeeping began. Count the first year as one and then count the first one to surpass the year-one’s level as two, the next year to surpass level-two and so on until the most recent record. If the period covered is sufficiently long – say x= 50 years or so- then the number of records broken since year one should be ln x. This relates to a random ordering of a series of numbers. Incidentally, ln 50=3.91 so there should have been around 4 snowfall records since and including year one (I haven’t checked this – anyone interested?). ln 100 is only 4.6 so we’re likely to break last year’s record only once during the next 50-70 yrs or so. I’ve done this with Red River (of the north) flood records and found this randomness (I’ll wait for a suitable thread to pass this bit of math magic along).

  83. So this paper is saying that winter weather converged to affect almost all of that part of the globe that was undergoing a winter?

    I thought “converged” implied some kind of concentration.

  84. Ref – David Middleton says:
    July 26, 2010 at 10:42 am

    David, Texas is different! Always has been! Always will be! It’s an anamoly. And big too.

  85. I finally got around to reading this paper.

    Excuse me, but how does the following get published in a “peer reviewed” journal?

    The wintry winter has encouraged deniers of global warming,
    and those opposed to restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions,
    to mock climate change science.

    What a load of crap.

    Would this ever make into GRL?
    “The wintry winter has encouraged global warming alarmists and those supporting decreased availability of and more expensive energy, to make a mockery of climate science.”

Comments are closed.