The 2010 Snowmageddon event was quickly seized upon in an NYT op-ed by global warming zealot Al Gore as yet more proof of…climate…warming…mumble.. something.
Yet in this NASA article highlighting a new peer reviewed paper, global warming/climate change isn’t even mentioned. Hmmm, who to trust?
From NASA: Deconstructing a Mystery: What Caused Snowmaggedon?
In the quiet after the storms, streets and cars had all but disappeared under piles of snow. The U.S. Postal Service suspended service for the first time in 30 years. Snow plows struggled to push the evidence off of major roads. Hundreds of thousands of Washington metropolitan residents grappled with the loss of electricity and heat for almost a week.
By Feb. 10, 2010 the National Weather Service reported that three storms spanning from December to February in the winter of 2009-10 had dumped a whopping 54.9 inches of snow on the Baltimore-Washington area. The snowfall broke a seasonal record first set in 1899. Snowmaggedon, as the winter was dubbed, entered the history books as the snowiest winter on record for the U.S. East Coast.
Two years later, scientists are still searching to identify the unique set of conditions that enabled storms of this magnitude to occur. To determine a direct cause to infrequent but major winter storms, Siegfried Schubert and colleagues Yehui Chang and Max Suarez – all of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., – became detectives.
Schubert is a meteorologist and senior research scientist for Goddard’s Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO). Using a computer model that simulates the atmosphere, called the Goddard Earth Observing System Model, Version 5 (GEOS-5), Schubert pieced together the meteorological whodunit of 2010’s ‘Snowmaggedon.’
“There are things that we know that affect storminess over the U.S.,” Schubert said. “One is when there is an El Niño, which tends to favor more storms. Given the connection between El Niño and sea surface temperatures, we thought we’d actually do a modeling study to see if we could pinpoint the role of sea surface temperatures in driving the snowstorms.”
This is a satellite image of one of the massive “Snowmaggedon” blizzard systems in February 2010. Notice the distinctive comma-shaped cloud pattern. Credit: NASA/GSFC
Warmer Pacific Can Mean Stormy Atlantic
El Niño is an ocean-atmospheric climate pattern characterized by unusually warm sea surface temperatures and heightened rainfall in the central and eastern tropical Pacific. The increased rain occurs when warm sea surface temperatures heat the surrounding air, which then rises and condenses into rain clouds. The end result of these changes in the tropics is a shifting of the extra-tropical air currents, or jet streams. Changes in the jet streams can then alter storm paths around the globe.
Over the U.S., El Niño tends to produce an unusual eastward extension of the Pacific jet stream and storminess across the southern tier of states. Using the GEOS-5 model, Schubert and his team isolated the role that sea surface temperatures played in changing the storminess across the Northern Hemisphere. By initializing the model with the early December 2009 atmospheric conditions and the higher sea surface temperatures from that time, Schubert and his colleagues were able to reproduce many of the subsequent changes in winter storminess.
“El Niño is predictable on monthly and seasonal time scales. But we know that sea surface temperatures don’t control everything about the atmosphere,” Schubert said. “Storms develop in the atmosphere whenever they decide to as a result of instabilities. Models can’t replicate the actual sequence of events in predictions extending beyond a few weeks, but they can predict whether or not there will be more or fewer storms, because of the sea surface temperatures.” Schubert and his team ran 50 different simulations, slightly changing the atmospheric conditions each time while keeping the actual sea surface temperatures the same. In the end, the data showed that the storms were influenced more by the sea surface temperatures, and less by the changing atmospheric conditions.
“The atmosphere is chaotic, but if we do this over and over again, slightly changing the initial conditions, we can average the runs, filter out all the random atmosphere variability and see the part that’s driven by sea surface temperatures,” Schubert said.
Getting Snow Instead of Rain
While El Niño tends to produce greater storminess, it does not necessarily lead to more snowstorms along the East Coast. Without colder temperatures, these storms bring just rain.
Cue the second culprit: a fluctuation of the atmospheric pressure differences in the Atlantic between the Icelandic low-pressure field and the Azores high-pressure field further south. The North Atlantic Oscillation, as it is called, controls the strength and direction of westerly winds, as well as storm tracks across the North Atlantic. Scientists cannot predict these fluctuations very well. But it is known that in a positive phase, the north-south pressure difference is enhanced and the west-to-east winds are strong, effectively creating a wall that keeps cold air in the Arctic. In the negative phase, the north-south pressure difference is reduced, allowing cold Arctic wind to bear down across the North Atlantic.
“It’s a structure that tends to favor cold temperatures on the East Coast when it’s in the negative phase,” said Schubert. While the atmospheric pressure fields oscillate at daily and weekly time scales, the winter of 2009-10 saw the North Atlantic Oscillation in a strong extended-negative phase. Combine the resulting influx of Arctic air for an unusually long period of time with the moisture and storminess from El Niño, and the once fuzzy cause of these monster storms starts to come into focus. The research shows that the extreme weather over the Eastern U.S. in the winter of 2009-10 was part of a response mainly to El Niño and its associated Pacific Ocean sea surface temperatures.
The results were then compared with those of a winter (1999-2000) characterized by having completely opposite conditions: a La Niña and a positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation. When compared with Snowmaggedon, the winter of 1999-2000 showed less storminess and decreased chances of snow. This comparison helped Schubert and his team corroborate the hypothesis, confirming that El Niño-induced sea surface temperatures and an extended negative phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation caused the changes in 2009-10 winter storminess.
Predicting Another Snowmaggedon
In order to improve snow predictions, scientists need to better understand how the North Atlantic Oscillation works and what causes it to stay in an extended period.
There is evidence that the extended negative mode is impacted by sea surface temperatures and maybe even snow cover in Asia. Scientists, however, have not directly linked any one weather variable to the North Atlantic Oscillation.
“People have done these historical studies before to come up with measures, and if you look at the record of major snow storms, some have occurred during El Niño winters and a negative North Atlantic Oscillation phase,” Schubert said. “But sea surface temperatures impacting storminess in the different ocean basins has never been quantified and it’s never been clear what is a relative contribution and in what way they are contributing,” he added.
Richard Seager, a research professor at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, also studies how El Niño and weakened atmospheric pressure contributes to snow anomalies.
“This model not only confirms that a negative North Atlantic Oscillation and El Niño conditions created the conditions that allowed these storms to form,” said Seager, who did not work with Schubert on this research. “But it is useful in showing how the atmosphere can act differently when combining El Niño with different sea surface temperatures. These models provide controlled conditions, which allow us to be sure about the exact causes,” Seager added.
Scientists have predicted that current La Niña conditions and below-average sea surface temperatures might be the cause for the mild 2012 winter on the Eastern U.S. Examples like this, Schubert said, is why it is important to better understand the relationship between sea surface temperatures and storminess. “People want to know whether it’s going to be a snowy winter. Snow prediction is developing but if we predict El Niño, we know it will be more likely stormier. Now whether those storms will be rain or snow depends on the North Atlantic oscillation, which is a big challenge for us because of its constant oscillations.” Schubert and his team’s extended findings on the role of sea surface temperatures in Snowmaggedon will be published in the Journal of Climate this spring.
Christina Coleman
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
LazyTeenager says :
at 3:05 pm
at 3:08 pm
at 3:17 pm
at 3:29 pm
Whoah, Is there more them one of you posting on your account?!
how do you prepare for snowmageddon ? er, domestically, stockpile food. buy produce in summer, enough for 6 months, preserve and store it.
there are such things as solar cookers for those who insist on going solar to cut emissions. I’d recommend a Parvati arrangement. there’s no reason this design couldn’t become multifunctional.
http://solarcooking.org/plans/
key concept ‘domestic solutions’.
Dirk H and Robert E. Phelan: Read what I write and respond to IT. Your examples are of people talking about the “dice being loaded” by AGW. (Whether they are correct in those particular cases is unclear. For example, I don’t think that there is a well-established link between AGW and tornado frequency and severity.) But, be that as it may, my point is that none of these people are saying, “With AGW, you will be getting huge snowstorms even when there is no weather pattern at all conducive to such extreme events” or “WIth AGW, you will be getting huge tornado outbreaks even with weather patterns that are not highly conducive to the development of tornadoes.”
My point is simply that the fact that an extreme event was due to certain extreme weather patterns is obvious and the identification of this pattern alone does not provide evidence either way on whether such extremes are made more likely or more severe by AGW.
Geoff Sharp says:
Do you have a link discussing the evidence regarding the trend toward more positive NAO/AO with AGW? This, together with better understanding of what types of patterns set up the Snowmageddons such as this paper discusses, would potentially provide some real clues as to whether they become more likely or less likely under AGW.
I am not strongly wedded either way on the question of whether such events will become more or less likely under AGW since there are competing factors in both directions (e.g., generally warming favoring less snow vs increase in moisture and extreme precipitation events favoring more snow, as well as any general changes in weather patterns).
My point is simply that an extreme event is always associated with an extreme weather pattern and an identification of the weather pattern that caused the extreme event does not in and of itself say anything regarding whether AGW made such an extreme event more likely or more severe.
Geoff Sharp says:
February 10, 2012 at 3:02 pm
There is a lot of research for the past 3 decades doing exactly that, primarily aimed at the low solar/jet stream link. The trouble is most people (including you?) are not aware of this research.
The links between solar activity and climate remain controversial, but headway is being made to oppose the IPCC rhetoric and dogma. Similarly the planetary links to solar and PDO drivers are also making headway as more research comes to hand. Nicola Scafetta has already proposed a Harmonic Climate Model which deals with the level 3 oscillations. Nicola is very aware of the higher levels that need to be fully incorporated, which perhaps may happen in print in the not too distant future.
Oh, wait. Those are your words – not mine!
http://landscheidt.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/grand-harmonic-climate-model/
Charles Gerard Nelson says:
February 10, 2012 at 1:38 pm
I’m not in the Computational Fluid Dynamics business these days, and I don’t know of any attempts to model the laminar/turbulent flow of cigarette smoke, but I assure you millions of computer hours have been spent looking at related stuff. It’s really nice to know if things like control surfaces of supersonic aircraft will work before the test pilot finds out.
Here’s an impressive computer generated image of turbulent flow over a flat plate.
http://www.aps.org/units/dfd/pressroom/gallery/2008/wu.cfm
Follow the links to the image and video galleries for more numerical model simulations as well as physical models (e.g. wind tunnel) and detailed observations of physical events.
Also, take a look at http://www.stanford.edu/class/me469b/handouts/turbulence.pdf – it should give you a good laugh.
Of course these events have been going on forever; storms, drought, floods etc. So how convenient that they all are signs of global warming, this from talking heads who have no idea why the storm happened. What was it in ’79 (then of course it was the coming ice age), 56′, ’45, ’34 and on and on?
By the way, 2010 was no warmer than usual over the past ten years. why didn’t it happen in the ’90s when we were burning up?
So Hansen norLazy Teenager hasn’t the foggiest idea what temps are going to be like in a generation. Certainly no trend is evident.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/05/ncdc-data-shows-that-the-contiguous-usa-has-not-warmed-in-the-past-decade-summers-are-cooler-winters-are-getting-colder/
As soon as I started reading this my thoughts jumped to “North Atlantic Oscillation”; I just wondered why it was taking them so long to get around to it. I was doing some reading on the NOA today and found that the Wikipedia entry was not too bad.
*****
@edbarbar February 10, 2012 at 2:11 pm
“Remember the old cereal commercials? “Chocolate covered sugar bombs are part of this nutritious breakfast, along with whole grain bread, orange juice, and egg whites.”
“Same thing with global warming: every event has to include global warming. “The tide is high, due to the position of the moon and global warming.””
I was reminded of this Thursday as I listened to an interesting segment about giant jellyfish at
http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Radio/1447825254/ID=2194749707 on CBC radio (a local interviewer, interestingly enough). But if you listen to the clip, note the two references to “climate change” (or was it “global warming”?), neither of which is ever taken up again. Since the CBC seems to feel obliged to push the AGW message at every opportunity, I was not really surprised, but I was still disappointed.
IanM
“R. Gates says:
The research indicates that warmer ocean temperatures are closely associated with events such as …“______________________.
Just fill in the blank. With anything.
“Ocean heat content is much higher than 30+ years ago.
Data sufficient to support that assertion do not exist.
“Climate models show ocean heat content will continue to rise with increasing CO2. “
Such observations of ocean heat content as we have contradict this aspect of climate model output. CO2 has continued to rise, but the heat content of the ocean that we are able to measure has not continued to rise. Even over the period during which it was rising most recently, it was not rising as fast as the models … uh … “predicted”.
“Snowmaggedon is consistent with AGW…”
Of course it is. So is everything else. That is because AGW is not a scientific proposition. It is not falsifyable.
“… not proof, just consistency of expected effects.”
Expected effects which include: hot temperatures, cold temperatures, rising temperatures, falling temperatures, droughts, floods, decline in snow fall, rise in snowfall, more El Ninos, fewer El Ninos, more La Ninas, fewer La Ninas, melting glaciers, growing glaciers, etc, etc, etc.
Speaking of predictions … chief model worshipper James Hansen was predicting (on the basis of his AGW model making knowledge) a strong El Nino last year. That being year two of the current double dip La Nina … but it’s all consistent with AGW, so no worries.
The term “model” has become a real put-off. I basically stop reading as soon as I see that term for the third or fourth time in an article. All sorts of things enter my mind when I see that term, like glueing plastic parts together to make a little airplane or racing car. It’s fun but not to be taken seriously.
Its cold here in Japan- apparently a bit unseasonly cold so that some vegetable harvests have suffered frost- to me it seems as cold as last year when we have snow or rain and more cold than normal in sunny days (ice and snow is present in small patch five days+ after the last snow). Metreologist blame the Arctic and don’t try to push anything more than that.
Joel Shore says:
February 10, 2012 at 6:24 pm
Do you have a link discussing the evidence regarding the trend toward more positive NAO/AO with AGW? This, together with better understanding of what types of patterns set up the Snowmageddons such as this paper discusses, would potentially provide some real clues as to whether they become more likely or less likely under AGW.
I am surprised you are not aware of this common knowledge,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/15/arctic-oscillation-spoiling-nasa-giss-party/
It appears very clear that a neg AO corresponds with increased snow activity in the NH. The last 3 years have been an eye opener for some. Even the past two weeks provide a perfect example of the phenomenon. There is building evidence that solar UV changes have a marked effect on the AO/NAO position.
The models that incorporate increasing positive AO occurrences due to perceived CO2 influence obviously need to be scrapped.
David L says:
The term “model” has become a real put-off.
It is not the term that should put you off. There is nothing wrong with using models. The problem is with how people use them, and that generally stems from how they view their models. When you start seeing people refer to their model outputs as “data”, or when you see them refer to their models “showing” or “demonstrating” or “confirming” some assertion of theirs – particularly when that assertion itself arises from the assumptions and logic embodied in the model – then run for the hills. Those people view their models as objective reality, rather than as a distillation of their own incomplete and flawed understanding of that reality.
Model results are not “data”. Models do not “confirm”. Models are confirmed – by data. Or invalidated by data. Models are hypotheses.
John F. Hultquist says:
February 10, 2012 at 6:32 pm
Oh, wait. Those are your words – not mine!
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to your point. It is totally elusive at present. Moreover it would be beneficial if you conveyed to us that you have a basic knowledge in relation to atmospheric science necessary to understand some of the solar/climate research taking place over several decades. Instead of hitching your wagon to Leif’s bogie, can I suggest you do some research of your own.
It was -16C here in central England last night. I have searched back through the February daily data to 1878 and the nearest previous minimum was -13.6 in 1947. The maximum that day was 0C.
Yesterday it was 2C so there was a fall of 18C. Compare that to 1947 when there was a fall of 13.6C. Why hasn’t the increase in CO2 since then reduced the difference? In fact we are loosing more heat by 4.4C. The next little ice age is beginning!
Ric Werme…the example of modelling turbulence around a fixed wing or areodynamic shape is exactly the kind of modelling that is useful and feasible…the main reason being that for many years data was gathered from actual/practical wind tunnel tests.
Atmospheric modelling has too many variables to offer anything other than a ‘simulation’ of one possible outcome. The actual outcome will always be beyond the reach of even the fastest computer.
Lazy Teenager, R Gates and others after a few rampant solar cycles the oceans had taken on extra heat. The reaction is a negative feed back dumping heat, many even now are suffering many feet of white cold. The warm waters melted some arctic ice also dumping heat, our chaotic heat pump has thermostats, time lagged they do tend to overshoot before correction. It may get even colder even as the oceans cool under a sleepy sun. We would be cooked if our climate was not controlled by negative feed backs, there are no positive ones, the only real heat source is the sun. Anything that mankind can do to our planet is overwhelmed by the negative feed backs, AGW is impossible.
Snow = Snow, however you put it NASA.
****
R. Gates says:
February 10, 2012 at 4:30 pm
The research indicates that warmer ocean temperatures are closely associated with events such as the “Snowmaggedon” as the energy and moisture to move all that water must come from somewhere. Ocean heat content is much higher than 30+ years ago. Climate models show ocean heat content will continue to rise with increasing CO2. Snowmaggedon is consistent with AGW…not proof, just consistency of expected effects.
****
Donkeyfritters. In the mid-Atlantic states, 2010’s winter precip was actually no greater than avg. But it all occurred as snow. So what was unusual wasn’t the amount of precip, but the presence of unusually cold air. Gulf of Mexico water was actually cooler than avg when the storms occurred.
Please get these simple facts straight before posting.
Sunspots influence low-level clouds which then influence climate. A wider lower solar cycle can have the same influence on climate as a narrow high one. The sunspot time-integral (properly reduced by the energy radiated from the planet) exploits this. Google ‘sunspot “time integral”‘ and follow the links to find an analysis that resulted in a simple equation that calculates average global temperatures since 1895 with 88% accuracy and accurately (std dev less than 0.1C) predicts temperatures since 1990.
Who woulda thought.
wayne job said:
“We would be cooked if our climate was not controlled by negative feed backs, there are no positive ones…”
____
So skeptics are now resorting to the notion that there are not even any positive feedbacks in the climate system? Sad, but not surprising…
R. Gates says: February 10, 2012 at 4:30 pm
The research indicates that warmer ocean temperatures are closely associated with events such as the “Snowmaggedon” as the energy and moisture to move all that water must come from somewhere.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why, in that case did these so-called ‘scientists’ predict LESS snow?
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
Gates, you and your fellow Greens are running a ‘heads we win, tails you lose’ scam, and well you know it.
.
Too many people take certain parts of the climate statistics and use them for their own benefits. This year the winter in the U.S. seems to be milder so naturally some people will say that global warming is happening here. Other parts of the world seem to be having a devastating winter so what will they say about that? They will then use the term “climate change” and that the colder weather is also man’s fault. Statistics can be manipulated if you decide just to use the parts that benefit you the most. People need to look at the whole picture and make logical decisions.
Joel Shore says: February 10, 2012 at 6:24 pm
Read what I write and respond to IT. Your examples are of people talking about the “dice being loaded” by AGW. (Whether they are correct in those particular cases is unclear. For example, I don’t think that there is a well-established link between AGW and tornado frequency and severity.)
Joel, I was responding to what you wrote. Your contributions here are often very nuanced; these published academics offered no nuance at all in this discussion: AGW causes more and more intense storms. When challenged, they did not respond with “loaded dice” scenarios, they demanded an explanation for what else could have caused a specific tornado event if not AGW. As for your assertion about a well-established link, the empirical evidence shows no link at all. The “loaded dice” metaphor is plain and simple hand-waving.
On the NOAA NAO page, http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/teledoc/nao.shtml, I thought I would find a prediction of the NAO for the next few weeks and months. It appears that, beyond about a week, they have no idea. Their predictions look like random musing and guesswork. They apparently have no idea what causes a negative or positive trend. Surprising that something so important to weather would still be such a mystery.