Update and brief review below by Ryan Maue…
From Reuters Alert Net: Colder winters possible due to climate change-study
* Colder winters possible in northern regions
* Shrinking sea ice causes airstream anomalies
* Finding does not conflict with global warming
BERLIN, Nov 16 (Reuters) – Climate change could lead to colder winters in northern regions, according to a study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research on Tuesday.
Vladimir Petoukhov, lead author of the study, said a shrinking of sea ice in the eastern Arctic causes some regional warming of lower air levels and may lead to anomalies in atmospheric airstreams, triggering an overall cooling of the northern continents.
“These anomalies could triple the probability of cold winter extremes in Europe and northern Asia,” he said. “Recent severe winters like last year’s or the one of 2005/06 do not conflict with the global warming picture but rather supplement it.”
h/t to WUWT readers e.c cowan and Michael P.
Ryan Maue Update: It took me some doing to find this study in the Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres. The study is fine as constructed, but why is this worthy of a press release?
This study employs a climate model to determine the sensitivity of the atmospheric circulation to sea-ice concentration. The ECHAM5 model is used with T42 spectral resolution (that is 2.8×2.8 degree longitude/latitude spacing !!!) and 19 vertical levels. This is about the model setup of NCEP’s operational weather forecasting models in the 1980s. Six “simulations” (or scenarios) were performed of 100 years duration with differing sea-ice concentration in the Barents-Kara (B-K) sector. Their results are therefore 100-year averages obtained from the simulations.
The conclusions are not conclusive at all but very equivocal in nature. This is contrary to the press release. Since European winter climate is strongly controlled by a host of climate modes such as ENSO, NAO, AO, PDO, etc., their study cannot include the non-linear interplay between the actors and their sea-ice concentration scenarios. This is a very idealized experiment with results that are very preliminary when it comes to relating to the true atmosphere. There is no analysis of the 2005/2006 winters to determine if indeed the sea-ice mechanism was responsible for the cooler winter.
The study’s conclusions with respect to future climate change are very speculative to say the least. This is the case with many of these types of climate scenario experiments. Step one is to find a phenomenon that goes against the AGW consensus: here it is a cold winter in the Northern Hemisphere. Step two is to construct an experiment which explains the phenomena in the context of AGW. Step three is to connect step 2 to step 1 and issue a press release containing facts not in evidence.
If AGW isn’t halted soon, we’ll be in an Ice Age before we know it!
I lit a fire in my fire pit last night. This angered my neighbor because his property cooled due to my fire. He is consulting a lawyer as we speak to get a restraining order.
I bet we could get a grant to study whether we could put in our air conditioners backwards and make it cold outside.
I seems to me that the only people surprised that the climate changes are the climate scientists.
Actually, that’s not true. The politicians, bureaucrats, and media are equally surprised.
The believers are gathering for another conference soon, so expect more of this propaganda to soften people up….
Oh I see. Climate Change leads to…..climate change. I’m glad we have climate pscientists to find this stuff out for us.
I’m a diurnal pscientist – I predict it will get dark before morning. I really need to study this hypothesis some more. Is there a funding organisation I can apply to for a grant?
“Colder winters possible due to climate change-study”
It used to be that the cartoons were funny. Now I take just a small sip of my coffee to make sure I have time to swallow it completely before the guffaw that may follow the next headline I read.
Reuters, a press agency that does its best to make us think along politically-correct lines, would have headlines written by headline writers. Those do that for a living and and do not always know what they do or understand what the headline they write is all about. Therefore it is reasonable to expect a confusion of cause and effect that makes it past the editors who perhaps know even less.
It’s a good thing. It lightens up the day.
Petoukhov’s study is not about tomorrow’s weather forecast but about longtime probabilities of climate change. “I suppose nobody knows,” he says, “how harsh this year’s winter will be.”
It looks like they really don’t know what kind of weather is coming this winter and they are trying to save face with respect to their previous unprcedented warming predictions and blame it all on global warming again prior to the Mexcican conference . The public may not buy this .
Sooner or later they will have to bite the bullet and tell the public the truth, that the global mean temperature curve has now swung down to 20- 30 years of possible cooler weather and global warming of the kind we just had will not return again until the 2060’s. We can anticipate that the global mean annual temperature anomaly could be 0.4-0.5 C lower than today at the bottom of the cycle expected to be around 2030-2040] Regionally the weather may be much cooler [ comparable to the late 1970’s and early 1980’s]
This study is one a many reasons why CAGW is bunk and climate change “science” should be lumped in with sociology, anthropology, and any number of other soft sciences.
Whenever a criticism of CAGW is gaining prominence in this case the public is questioning why we’re experiencing record cold and snow immediately a “study” is produced to counter the criticism. Basically the “science” is made to order. This reminds me of the time when some gay “researcher” created a study of twins that “proved” gayness was genetic because that was the popular rationale of the gay movement at that time.
Whatever the CAGW crowd needs to make a particular point they can pull it out of their hats at a moments notice.
This is a standard propaganda ploy; say it often enough in as many ways possible using every available communication modality, and the masses will believe. The greenies are laying the groundwork for their next campaign. They are expecting cooling temps. No one remembers the study, but they remember the headlines of the press releases(when prompted). The rest is cascade effect. Expect daily press releases and news stories about the press releases screaming about AWG caused cooling and AWG caused drought.
Jason Calley
November 17, 2010 at 6:23 am
I expect to see a press release sometime soon that says:
“Climate Scientists at the University of Yoo-hoo announced today that their experiences inside the virtual World of Warcraft have convinced them that the threat of continuing, inter Kingdom, Global-Warming-Cooling-Stability remains a threat demanding the highest level of non-virtual funding.”
##
You know, the “Cataclysm” is coming, it is expected to hit on December 7. It will change the world as we know it!
The whole AGW agenda can be neatly summarised by a paraphrase of Lewis Carroll’s Red Queen; “AGW means just what I want it to mean”.
This “study” is like a pre-emptive strike. With this study the CAGW promoters have all of their bases covered. If it’s really cold they have a counter argument at the ready. If it’s a mild winter then it will be business as usual for the CAGW promoters. As someone above brilliantly stated “heads we win/ tales you lose.”
“Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster”
We of the “Fellowship of the Chocolate Glazed Donuts” will declare you heretics and deep fry you in a vat!
These crooks rewrite their predictions after the fact to make them coincide with observed weather patterns. They predicted warmer winters, but that didn’t happen; the winters got colder. So now they claim their models predict colder winters due to global warming.
Postdictions are the height of fraud, and common in scriptures written after the events they claim to foretell. That the AGW crowd has now adopted this classic religious con is revealing. I hope someone is cataloging all of these papers, reports, news releases, etc., because at some point those responsible will be held accountable. I foresee countless individual and class-action lawsuits in the not-too-distant future, and thousands of self-described climate scientists and environmental reporters losing their shirts and reputations.
Well, in my northern region called northern Canada we have a tendency to prepare for cold winters, so I predict we will all stay warm and do fine here.
Okay, now that I’ve recovered from a good laugh at the illogical chimera of global warming causing colder winters (after they prognosticated winters so hot that snow will be a thing of the past), I am reminded they can’t help themselves. They suffer from a socially accepted form of AGW insanity.
“Global warming” forecast to impact Europe in about 10 days time, according to GFS :
http://www.meteogroup.co.uk/uk/home/weather/latest-model-forecasts/gfs-popup/archiv/Europe/thgt850/2010111712/nothumb/on/240/ch/5de8edf07fdbe3e1cb76ce710f5f4e48.html
This study employs a climate model to determine the sensitivity of the atmospheric circulation to sea-ice concentration.
The study’s conclusions with respect to future climate change are very speculative to say the least. This is the case with many of these types of climate scenario experiments.
Uh excuse me, but running a computer model IS NOT an experiment.
ryanm: u r quibbling
Global Warming was way to specific. Climate Change was vague but not quite there. Climate Disruption vaguer still but could do better. How about Climate Thingy?
This appellation seems to me to characterise the rigour of the erstwhile discipline and its proponents perfectly.
What does CAGW mean? Is it citizens against governments waste? I don’t get it since AGW means Anthropogenic global warming.
REPLY: Catastrophic AGW
of course CLIMATE CHANGE can lead to colder winters. the climate changes and it gets colder, it changes again and it gets warmer etc etc etc. That is surely the definition of climate change. However thats not the same as Arthropogenic Global Warming which again by definition must mean the clmate changes, it gets warmer, it changes again it gets warmer still etc etc etc. the clue you see, is in the word warming. Simples
I haven’t quite managed to get my head around this yet. Global warming in the northern hemisphere will make for a cooler winter. Does that mean that here in the southern hemisphere I will be able to keep my air conditioning switched off come January? Or will that lost energy in the north swirl down to the south and leave me sweating as usual?
GIGO: This paper is based on model projections, OH my mistake the models are right [ well at least the warmist keep telling us that]. The straws they are grasping for are getting smaller so what they spout off as fact is getting bigger.
“PaulM says:
November 17, 2010 at 4:54 am”
His post has a URL with hundreds of things that were alleged to be caused by global warming. However I have come across only one thing that would be proof of global cooling. And that was 30 years of globally cooling temperatures. Does any one have a second thing that would prove global cooling?