Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
The media has been abuzz with claims that the January 2015 New England Blizzard was worsened by human-induced global warming. One of the outspoken activist members of the climate science community who has been quoted often on the storm is NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth. An example of Trenberth’s interviews can be found in the ClimateNexus post Blizzard of 2015: Normal Winter Weather, Amplified by Climate Change. The subtitle is actually quite funny, bringing back the old “consistent with climate models” nonsense: “Above average sea surface temperatures increase snowfall, consistent with model projections.”
Kevin Trenberth is reported to have claimed the following about the January 2015 New England blizzard:
The number 1 cause of this is that it is winter. In winter it is cold over the continent. But it is warm over the oceans and the contrast between the cold continent and the warm Gulf Stream and surrounding waters is increasing. At present sea surface temperatures are more than 2F above normal over huge expanses (1000 miles) off the east coast and water vapor in the atmosphere is about 10% higher as a result. About half of this can be attributed to climate change.
Interesting. Trenberth noted that only “about half” of the warming of the surface of the North Atlantic off of the east coast of the United States and only “about half” of the additional water vapor in the atmosphere there “can be attributed to climate change”. One has to assume Trenberth is referring to the human-induced type of climate change with that statement and that the other half was caused naturally—in response to the coupled ocean-atmosphere process of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.
I don’t think anyone will disagree with Trenberth’s opening sentence, which associates New England blizzards with winter. But let’s look at the number of ways the rest of Kevin Trenberth’s statement is incorrect. And we’ll also show the obvious flaws in the ClimateNexus author’s declaration “consistent with model projections”.
NOTE: For more information on the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, refer to the NOAA Frequently Asked Questions About the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) webpage and my blog posts:
- An Introduction To ENSO, AMO, and PDO — Part 2
- Multidecadal Variations and Sea Surface Temperature Reconstructions
That NOAA FAQ webpage confirms that the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation can contribute to global warming and suppress it. [End note.]
OVER THE PAST 27 YEARS, BOREAL WINTER WATER VAPOR HAS DECREASED OVER THE NORTHWEST ATLANTIC OCEAN
Dr. Roy Spencer addressed the water vapor portion of Trenberth’s statement in his post Northeast Snowstorms & Atlantic Water Vapor: No Connection in Last 27 Years. Roy Spencer found no correlation between the boreal winter (DJF) snowstorm index for Northeast United States and satellite-based water vapor data for the Northwest Atlantic (30N-50N, 80W-50W) since 1988. The data also indicate that, while water vapor in December has increased in 27 years based on the linear trend, it decreased in January and in February, so, overall, there has been a decrease in boreal winter (DJF) water vapor over the Northwest Atlantic.
Dr. Spencer was very clear that water vapor annually in that region has increased in that time, but during the boreal winter months since 1988, atmospheric water vapor has decreased. Kevin Trenberth’s speculations about water vapor must refer to annual, not winter data associated with blizzards.
BASED ON THE LINEAR TREND OF THE BOREAL WINTER DATA, NORTHWEST ATLANTIC SEA SURFACES SHOW NO WARMING IN 95 YEARS
Figure 1 illustrates the boreal winter (DJF) sea surface temperatures of the western extratropical North Atlantic, based on NOAA’s ERSST.v3b data. I’ve used the same coordinates as Dr. Spencer (30N-50N, 80W-50W). If you’re wondering about the size and location of that region, I’ve highlighted those coordinates on the map here, which was linked to the ClimateNexus post. (You’ll note on that map that the region with warmer-than-normal water actually stretches farther east than the 1000 miles noted by Trenberth, before we run into cooler-than-normal water. As a reference, at 40N, the longitudes of 80W-50W reach almost 1600 miles.) The first data point in Figure 1 is for the 3-month season of December 1880 through February 1881 and the last data point is for December 2013 through February 2014. As shown, the sea surfaces for the western extratropical North Atlantic were warmer for boreal winters (DJF) in the 1930s and 1950s than they have been in recent years. That, of course, is a response to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.
Figure 1
NOTE: There may be an uptick in 2014/15, but we’ll have to wait until early March to see how this winter compares. Adding one year of data, though, is not going to impact the following trend comparison to any great extent. [End note.]
So, working back in time in 5-year increments, I determined the longest time period where the boreal winter data for the western extratropical North Atlantic showed no surface warming, based on the linear trend. Turns out it was 95 years…since the boreal winter of 1919/20. See Figure 2.
Figure 2
I’ve also illustrated in Figure 2 the average of the sea surface temperatures for that region as simulated by the dozens of climate models included in the CMIP5 archive. Those are the models the IPCC used for their 5th Assessment Report. We present the model mean because it best represents the groupthink (the consensus) about how the sea surfaces of that region should have warmed if manmade greenhouse gases and other contributors (that drive the models) caused the warming. In other words, the average (the multi-model ensemble member mean) represents how the sea surfaces in that region should have warmed if they were warmed by manmade greenhouse gases. (Basically, the model mean represents the forced component, not the “noise”, of the models. See the post On the Use of the Multi-Model Mean for more information.) According to the climate models used by the IPCC, the boreal winter sea surfaces of the western extratropical North Atlantic should have warmed almost 0.6 deg C in those 95 years, but the data show no long-term warming in that time based on the linear trend. Note also that the modeled sea surfaces are too warm over the entire period, on average by more than 1.0 deg C.
The models are in no way “consistent with” reality.
MULTIDECADAL VARIATIONS IN SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES THERE ARE NOT A FORCED COMPONENT OF THE MODELS
True-blue believers in the hypothesis of human-induced global warming say we need to look at 30-year trends, so let’s do that. See Figure 3. It shows the 30-year trends (in deg C/decade) for the boreal winter sea surface temperatures of the western extratropical North Atlantic. The first data point at 1910 illustrates the slight negative trend (cooling rate) of the boreal winter (DJF) sea surface temperatures for the 30-year period of 1880/81 to 1909/10, and the last data point in 2014 shows the boreal winter warming rate for the 30-year period of 1984/85 to 2013/14. Between the first and last data points, the sea surfaces of the western extratropical North Atlantic show a wide range of multidecadal variations in 30-year trends. Note how the (boreal winter) warming rate of the 30-year period ending in 1938/39 was more than 1.5 times faster than the warming rate of the most recent 30-year period ending in 2013/14.
Figure 3
But the vast majority of the warming during the 30-year period ending in 1938/39 was not forced by manmade greenhouse gases. We can show this by adding the modeled trends in sea surface temperatures for the western extratropical North Atlantic to the graph. See Figure 4. The observed warming rate of 0.37 deg C/decade for the 30-year period ending in 1938/39 was more than 5-times faster than the modeled rate of 0.07 deg C/decade. Obviously, the naturally occurring multidecadal variations in the warming and cooling rates of the surface of the western extratropical North Atlantic are not a response to the forcings used by the climate models. And that suggests that it is very likely that most of the warming there in recent decades was also a response to natural variability.
Figure 4
Once again, the models show they are in no way “consistent with” reality.
THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE COOL LAND SURFACES AND WARM OCEANS IS DECREASING, NOT INCREASING
Many of you noticed the likely flaw in Trenberth’s early claim:
In winter it is cold over the continent. But it is warm over the oceans and the contrast between the cold continent and the warm Gulf Stream and surrounding waters is increasing.
Everyone knows that annual, decadal and multidecadal variations in land surface air temperatures are, in part, simply exaggerations of the variations in local sea surface temperatures. If the sea surfaces for the western extratropical North Atlantic warmed in recent decades, and they have, then the air over land should have warmed a little more. So Trenberth’s statement seems to contradict the instrument temperature record. But maybe he was correct for the boreal winter. Let’s look.
The big-3 global surface temperature data suppliers (GISS, NCDC and UKMO) only provide their data in anomaly form, but NOAA’s sea surface temperature data (used by GISS and NCDC) are available in absolute form. So for the land air temperatures in absolute form, we have to refer to a reanalysis to get an idea of the temperature difference between land and ocean during the boreal winter. The reanalysis is called GHCN-CAMS. It has to be kept in mind that a reanalysis is the output of a computer model that uses data as inputs, so, in other words, it’s not data. The authors of the paper that supports the GHCN-CAMS reanalysis also caution against using it for evaluating climate models. That’s fine. We’re not using it for that purpose. We’re simply using the GHCN-CAMS reanalysis outputs to get an idea of the magnitude of the temperature difference between the sea surfaces of western extratropical North Atlantic and the land surface air temperatures for the eastern U.S. and Canada, using the coordinates of 30N-50N, 80W-50W for ocean and land surface temperatures. See the top cell of Figure 5.
Figure 5
The GHCN-CAMS reanalysis starts in 1948, and since that time, there has been about a 20 deg C difference between boreal winter (DJF) land and sea surface temperatures (ocean minus land) for those coordinates. We know, however, that the sea surfaces of the western extratropical Atlantic were warmer in the 1950s than at present times, so the start date of the GHCN-CAMS reanalysis skews the trend results. Thus, the bottom cell shows the temperature difference between the sea and land surfaces (ocean minus land) for the coordinates of 30N-50N, 80W-50W, starting in 1975, which has been determined through breakpoint analysis to be the start year for the recent global warming period. The temperature difference between land and oceans in that part of the world is decreasing, not increasing as claimed by Kevin Trenberth.
Some readers may not feel confident with the GHCN-CAMS reanalysis. That trend difference does look a little steep. In Figure 6, for the same regions, we’re using the sea surface temperature anomalies and land surface air temperature anomalies based on the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI). It includes the same ERSST.v3b sea surface temperature data used in this post, but they’re in anomaly form in the GISS LOTI. The differences (ocean minus land) also show land surface temperatures rising much faster than ocean surface temperatures in those regions since 1975, but not as fast as the with the GHCN-CAMS reanalysis.
Figure 6
And even climate models contradict Trenberth’s claim. They too show a decrease in the temperature difference for those ocean and land regions since 1975. See Figure 7.
Figure 7
Looks like the climate models got that relationship right since 1975. Too bad they can’t simulate sea surface temperatures over any time frame. Now recall that the oceans cover about 70% of this planet. For more insight into how poorly climate models simulate sea surface temperatures, see the posts:
- Alarmists Bizarrely Claim “Just what AGW predicts” about the Record High Global Sea Surface Temperatures in 2014
- IPCC Still Delusional about Carbon Dioxide
CLOSING
Apparently, alarmist climate-change advocates are still willing to furnish misinformation to the public about the contribution of human-induced global warming to weather events. Somehow, I don’t think many readers will find that surprising. It’s been the norm for many years.
SOURCE
The data, reanalysis and climate model outputs are available through the KNMI Climate Explorer.
Jesus saves and AGW is the source of all evil.
Good.
Glad that is settled.
Trenberth is an evangelist, except the savior isn’t Jesus, it’s green orthodoxy and his bloated self-importance.
Evangelism about climate change and regional weather misses the obvious. If you don’t like snow, then don’t live in New England. If you don’t like snow but have family and friends or simply enjoy the many other advantages of living in New England, then take your medicine and stay there. If you do like snow, live in Norway, seems like a beautiful place and people.
The planet provides a wonderful extravagance of different regional climates. Instead of dwelling on climate saviors and villains, one can decide what climate makes them happiest and work towards moving there. It may take 1 year, 5 years, or 10 years. Doesn’t matter, stop fretting and whining about weather and just do it. From hot to cold, dry to wet, the planet can fulfill any climate preference.
There are very few things as reliable as mendacity.
Pointman
As a former multi-decadal operational meteorologist in the northeastern U.S, in the late 1990s I began looking at winter storminess in the U.S. Northeast, and surrounding areas, using historical information since the history began in the 17th century. I relied on David Ludlum’s seminal work a great deal. While not a statistician, I concluded that winter storms were more severe in the former centuries, when it was colder and the world was in the throes of the LIA. Even winter storms in the 19th century seemed more numerous and boisterous in certain periods, again using and relying on Ludlum’s work. In addition, there seemed to be a cyclicity to storminess. I have tried to relate this to the sunspot cycle, and there does seem to be some correlation (correlation not being causation, though). Winter storminess seems to increase during the “cold” 30 year (or so) periods associated with cool PDO; witness the late 19th century-to-late Teens stormy period in the Northeast, especially the Teens with especially damaging Nor’easters, and the following period of the late 1940s through the mid 1970s. Perhaps this relates somehow to 3 consecutive sunspot cycles (and the Hale Cycle) – a 33-year period, comprised of 3 11-year periods of 2 negative solar polarities sandwiching 1 positive polarity period, followed by the opposite polarity situation, with this alternating situation nested within larger amplitude cycles. I believe this quasi-66 year cycle also extends to a more dominant and noticeable quasi-200 (198) year cycle, and then to about 600 years (especially for temperature – witness multi-century alternating warm and cold periods – about 300 years each?). We seem to have entered another multi-decadal increase in Northeast winter storminess since about 2010 (maybe 2008 or 2009), which I believe will persist through 2040 or 2045 or so. Of course, winter storms are more numerous (and more intense) during El Nino winters (by about a 3-to-1 factor as compared to neutral winters), as has become more well-known in the past decade. NOAA/NWS management was not interested in any of this. But, that’s what the data indicated (spoke loudly) to me. With indications that the next solar cycle will also be low, perhaps very low, I believe it’s going to be somewhat colder with more winter storminess in the U.S. Northeast in the next 3 decades than in the 1975-2010 period. If so, my fear is that cries of a human-caused storminess increase will grow, and that the wholly natural cause for it will be ignored, with a consequent continuation of this deeply flawed and resource-wasteful anti-science of AGW, and especially CAGW. As a pessimist, I unfortunately forecast that the incorrect theory of (C)AGW will continue – and likely grow – for many more decades.
Please comment on how it is that since the 1970s, the Earth’s Climate warmed, yet solar output diminished.
You could do a better job of observing the magnitudes of solar cycles warren.
Cycles 21 & 22 since the 1970s were two of the highest cycles in the record, from 1978-1997. Even cycle 23 was greater in magnitude than about a dozen other cycles going back to 1700, and it lasted longer than the average cycle. In contrast, this cycle is the lowest in 100 years, and from all indications, has started declining towards the minimum.
Bob,
You could also explain the concept of lag. Wouldn’t do any good, though.
IIRC, solar brightness increased over that period, presumably due to fewer particulates in the atmosphere.
Here are some IPCC projections about 14 years ago.
Rutgers
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/images/nhland_season1.png
Seems like there is a better use of mind(time). Three(3) Snow Storms this week. It`s called WEATHER. Always has been. Always will.
From http://www.livescience.com/31880-countdown-10-worst-blizzards.html
“More than 400 people in the Northeast died during the Great Blizzard, the worst death toll in United States history for a winter storm. On March 11 and March 12 in 1888, this devastating nor’easter dumped 40 to 50 inches (100 to 127 cm) of snow in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. Huge snowdrifts buried houses and trains, and 200 ships sank in waves whipped up by fierce winds.”
So, was that 1888 blizzard due to “global warming” or “climate change”? “Climate science” is so confusing!
I’d say it was due to local weather conditions, wouldn’t you?
Yes, natural variability, just like this recent blizzard. If it was ‘climate’ then the annual winter water vapor for that region would have increased.
It hasn’t.
warrenlb, I agree, but Trenberth adds more spice. Kevin Trenberth apparently said that the local New England Blizzard was worsened by human-induced global warming. See the first sentence of the post.
… and if (assuming for the sake of argument) the climate did change, that doesn’t automatically prove that man-made co2 did it!!
Trenberth came out of his hole; saw his shadow and, determined that we will get 6o more years of global warming.
sarcasm Trendberth is right every extreme weather, hot, cold, wet, dry is caused by the mighty molecule CO2 and it’s dreaded cause of climate change Everyone knows that /sarcasm
but wait…..
Isn’t any “common sense” reader of any article pro or contra AGW aware that….
climate is always changing?
though it’s unbelievable how they now go from believable points in the early 90’s to complete erratic bulls***t to promote global warming.
honestly i wonder what kind of study and discoveries guys like Spencer, Bob tisdale, and other scientists with “nutral” vieuwpoints would bring if they had the same research funds as the IPCC has
i bet much more interesting stuff then what the IPCC does!
@Frederik. The IPCC does no research.
The IPCC, in effect, ‘commissions’ research which suits their advocacy agenda.
“… if they had the same research funds as the IPCC ”
But we know that left-wing organizations don’t use their own funds to ‘commission’ the research they need for their activist agenda. The actual funds mostly come from tax-payers (like you and me), funneled (in effect) through a gigantic money-laundering scheme known as “Big Government”.
The World Wildlife Fund [WWF] was doing ≈40% of the IPCC’s research. Until they were both caught.
Ha ha. Though you are coming close to the bone.
Could this be why the Himalayan glacier fairytale got past the peer ‘reviewers’ of the IPCC ‘gold standard’ report? Naaaah.
This is what leads to anger and voodoo science I suppose – money.
True but they do pick which ‘research’ to use and that is the key to ‘success ‘
Pachauri / IPCC / WWF / Money / activists – no wonder the IPCC is the Gold Standard.
Thanks, Jimbo. Valuable info, as usual.
These groups learned frrom people like Al Sharpton how easy it is to shakedown corporations, and corporations learned from the enviro groups how easy it is to use enviro groups to attack their competitors.
Thos who constantly try to paint folks like us as ‘conspiracy theorists’ either do not understand, or they’re just using Alinsky-style character assassination tactics.
‘Conspiracy theorist’ was a term invented by the press when Sen. Joe McCarthy was accusing people of being communist sympathizers and front men. The label stuck when McCarthy was caught saying he had a list of communists in the State Department. It turned out to be his laundry list [which is where that term came from, too].
When the Berlin Wall came down, top-secret Soviet documents were published that proved categorically that McCarthy was right. His problem was simple stupidity. He tried to pull a fast one.
In fact, there are conspiracies going on all the time. People who don’t believe that are totally naive and credulous. Just because the Chinese and the Russians are kissy-face with us, that doesn’t mean they are not actively conspiring to destroy our country. They are. In 1776 Adam Smith wrote:
Conspiracies are part of human nature. They are a survival trait. Anyone not cognizant of that fact is at a huge disadvantage.
Bruce are you using actual reports of the time because I think you will find that the modelled adjusted reports of the time claim a light dusting and the 200 ships were models sunk on the lake in Central Park during a squall (sarc)
I thought it was global warming. This would imply temperatures rising over the entire planet. One would expect temperature gradients to lessen in such a situation. Clearly that isn’t the case though.
They want it both or all ways, thus the “climate change” BS. Everything is deemed indicative of climate change, specifically man-made.
That’s why I like to call it “anthropogenic global/local warming/change/disruption/cooling”. Covers all contingencies, and hey – I didn’t need to waste precious time thinking it up, they did. 🙂
The ONLY WAY THE ONLY WAY is to start suing the bastards like Kevin. These morons will start to back off when their Junk Science is exposed and personally starts costing them money.
If he means the proximate cause, then that would be the deep arctic trough that developed over the Eastern U.S. If instead he means the root cause, then that would be that the Earth has an atmosphere containing water vapor. Winter is not a reasonable explanation. What happens to these guys once they gain some notoriety?
Trenberth: “About half of this can be attributed to climate change.”
Is anybody else put off by this kind of quantification? I know, it’s done over and over, all the time.
But I mean… really… they think they can calculate percentages of things like that? Really?
Well, it is half vast science.
Thanks Bob.
It is hard to keep up with these spokesclowns. Gina McCarthy went to Aspen to give her take on the climate. I loved the photo with her standing behind an oak podium. A nice touch.
http://blog.coloradoski.com/2015/01/24/epa-administrator-gina-mccarthy-speaks-climate-change-aspen/
~~~~~~ Snow photos, more interesting than saying snow things:
Use the “IMAGES” tab and the search text:
Horse-Drawn Snow Roller
We may need those rollers. Horses might be a problem, though. I could easily find 77 partial horses, but I’m not sure where we’d get the front halves.
This guy makes more sense.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/fawlty-towers-7-facts-anecdotes-3626112
Thanks, Bob.
You write: “Kevin Trenberth’s speculations about water vapor must refer to annual, not winter data associated with blizzards.”
This seems to be a common problem; using general data to analyze localized observations.
Internal contradictions in the AGW hypothesis, presented as “settled science”, as bursting all over the place.
Exactly, just as with the judgement in Dimmock v Secretary Of State For Education And Skills:
Justice Burton’s view: “In scene 12 Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.”
Other scientific views: The World Meteorological Organization explains that “though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point.” They also clarified that “no individual tropical cyclone can be directly attributed to climate change.”
Again, for the hard of thinking like Trenberth: NO INDIVIDUAL [ONE-OFF WEATHER EVENT] CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO CLIMATE CHANGE.
But, but, but “climate change” is “threatening” the ski industry, as well as other winter sports, maple sugaring, tourism, etc. etc. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/us/climate-change-threatens-ski-industrys-livelihood.html?pagewanted=all
Heads they win, tails science loses.
I was thinking the same thing. Some shaman suggest climate change will mean less snow, putting ski areas at great risk. Indeed, isn’t there an organization called “Save our Winters.” Now we get another shaman claiming climate change will mean more snow. Maybe we need to get both on a podium and debate as to which outcome (more or less snow) is more likely.
The good news-You would only need one Warmista to present both sides. The bad news-no self-respecting climate scientist would lower him/herself to appear on the same stage with that deni*r in the mirror.
Rent-seeking mendacious SOBs like Trenberth we will always have with us. The problem is getting the mainstream media to understand that’s all he is.
An oldie but a goody.
TRENBERTH LOSES HIS STRAWBERRIES
(See the courtroom scene in the movie “The Caine Mutiny”.)
As greenhouse gases still accrete
This captain of the climate wars
Is searching for the missing heat
That he believes the ocean stores
He’ll prove to all humanity
That danger in the deep resides
The Kraken that he knows to be
That Davy Jones’s Locker hides
The soul’s more heavy than we think
A truth that everyone must face
And to what depths a soul may sink —
Oh, to what dark and dismal place!
Does Captain Trenberth understand
That data offers no appeal?
He tumbles in his restless hand
Three clacking balls of stainless steel
MY GEOMETRIC LOGIC PROVES
HEAT TELEPORTS FROM PLACE TO PLACE!
FROM SKIES INTO THE DEPTHS IT MOVES
AND IN BETWEEN IT LEAVES NO TRACE!
When silence faces stare at you
It’s always best to shut your jaw
But Trenberth is without a clue
As he believes they stare in awe
Eugene WR Gallun
Seasonal averages really have very little to do with extreme events, like blizzards. Arctic amplification is being blamed for extreme Jet Stream patterns, which bring warm humid air from the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic crashing into cold dry air from central Canada. These events obviously occur on timescales of days to maybe a week, so “DJF” averages are moot.
Barry, what were the extreme Jet Stream patterns in the 70s blamed on?
Silence?
…and still silence.
The Jet only became know thanks to Japanese using them to lurch balloons into the USA during WW2 , and yet there existed long before they where ‘found ‘ and therefore any affect they may have had existed only these got blamed on something else. Now that is a useful lesson for ‘settled ‘ climate ‘science’
Isn’t it odd, and not a little bit strange that Barry and his friend Warren are quick to say ‘it’s just local weather,’ when it’s cold. I look forward to their saying the same, when its reported as warm. But I don’t think I’ll hold my breath.
It still seems to me that a massive amount of cold air would be required to keep the water vapour forming into ice rather then into rain. Were does the cold come from??
Alf,
For the US east the warm moist air comes from the south.
When it rises, the volume increases, molecules are farther apart, and the temperature drops. Meaning the random motion of the molecules is less. The water vapor might then condense or solidify (many forms).
When there is cold air coming from the northwest – cold air is more dense and will stay nearer the surface – the warmer/moist (less dense) air will get forced up. What form the water is in when it hits the ground is dependent on several factors. Note, though, that the cold air on the ground is not necessarily the source of what is falling.
Search for warm-front & cold-front, and cyclogenesis. Maybe start with the IMAGES tab.
Here are some historical blizzards per CLIMATE4YOU fine web page for New England when global warming induced climate change had not even been invented . This region is prone to this type of weather as far back as our records go. Global warming had very little to do with it back then and very little to do with it today
These latest alarmists statements are all part of the pre Paris climate conference posturing . Expect more to come .
Winter of 1740-1741
Not only was the winter 1740-1741 characterised by very low temperatures, but also by huge amounts of snow. People in the region saw this winter as the most severe since the European settlement began. There was 23 snow storms in all, most of them being strong. On 3 February about a foot of snow fell, and about one week later there were two more storms, filling the roads in Newbury, Massachusetts, up to the top of fences. Snow depths of about 3 metres were reported from some places.
1747-1748: A memorable winter in Massachusetts
In 1891 Sidney Perley (Perley 2001) writes: “The old people of to-day think that we do not have as severe winters as they had when they were in their youth, and they certainly have good reasons for such considerations. The winter of 1747-48 was one of the memorable winters that used to be talked about by our grandfathers when the snow whirled above deep drifts around their half-buried houses. There were about thirty snow storms, and they came storm after storm until the snow lay four feet deep on the level, making travelling exceedingly difficult. On the twenty-second of February, snow in the woods measured four and one-half feet; and on the twenty-ninth there was no getting about except on snow shoes”.
WINTER 1786-1787
December 1786 was unusually severe with frequent snow storms. A very strong storm began December 4, resulting in flooding and the loss of several ships. Wind pressure and low air pressure lifted the ocean surface near Boston, and water overflowed the ‘pier’. Quantities of wood and lumber floated away. Great quantities of snow covered the landscape so deep, that travel became difficult. At Rockland, Maine, snow remained on the ground as late as April 10, 1787. Later the same week, another terrible snow storm with strong northeast wind began, continuing for about two days. This storm deposited huge amounts of snow, so travel now became extremely difficult, and in many places impossible (Perley 2001). In Boston, a number of people had to be employed in ‘levelling’ the snow in the streets. The next day the Massachusetts Gazette of the time said, “It is hoped they and many others will turn out this day for the same laudable and necessary purpose.” The roads were completely filled from wall throughout New England. This was one of the most difficult storms to withstand that was ever experienced in New England. Several persons who were out in it became lost and died in the snow.
http://www.climate4you.com/index.htm
WHALES FACE INCREASED DANGER FROM LIGHTENING STRIKES
Global warming induced climate change has increased the ferocity of ocean thunderstorms
putting the world’s already threatened whale stocks into even greater danger!
Said one GreedPeace scientists — Imagine yourself in the middle of a whale pod and all around you the waters hiss to steam from carbon enhanced bolts of fire from the sky! These whales must be equipped with moblle lightening rods!
Contact ROD-THE-PODS to make your donation. Remember in a green world – LESS IS MORE – so the less money you have the more we will have. Donate As Big As The Whales Facing Imminent Electrocution!
Eugene WR Gallun
Bob, thanks for the detailed rebuttal to the silly remarks by Trenberth, Dr. Jennifer Francis, and the Mann himself. Actually, it’s a much more thorough analysis than the idiotic remarks the three put into that Climate Nexus article really deserve.
Dr. Francis says: “there are a few climate-change related factors that are likely conspiring to make this storm potentially one for the record books”. The key weasel words here are “likely” and “potentially”, since the storm didn’t top the record books. Sorry.
Mikey says: “The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found that Nor’easters like this one may grow stronger w/ human-caused climate change, as they are driven by the contrast between cold Arctic air masses and ever-warming ocean surface temperatures”. The key weasel word here is “may”, and the storm didn’t. It was a pretty good storm, like hundreds of others over the North Atlantic in the past century.
But all three tout the same meme about “both a strong land-ocean temperature contrast to help fuel the jet stream and also additional oceanic moisture” due to higher ocean temperatures. However, doesn’t “arctic amplification” also warm the winter temperature over land MORE than it warms the lower latitude and heat-hiding oceans, thereby REDUCING the temperature contrast? That “should” weaken storms overall when the world – especially continental North America in the winter – warm. As should be obvious to anybody but a modeler, it actually snows more in cold winters in the northeast USA http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/29/frequency-of-big-snows-northeast-u-s-and-colorado/
And the Extra Moisture claim violates physics. Since snow is frozen, the amount of moisture available for a snow storm is capped by the water content of the atmosphere at zero (0) C, known as the freezing point. Warm it up to get more moisture, and you get rain, not snow. Two years ago I wrote a response to the same nonsense from Seth Borenstein in a WUWT post “Whac-a-moling Seth Borenstein at AP over his erroneous extreme weather claims, Comments on Yesterday’s paean to Global Warming” Posted on February 19, 2013
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/19/whac-a-moling-seth-borenstein-at-ap-over-his-erroneous-extreme-weather-claims/
Yesterday it was Chicago’s turn, so to pre-emptively strike at the inevitable Warming angle on that one, here’s some stuff about the last few big storms there: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/03/chicago-snow-2011-and-1967-global-warming-then-too/
The Big Wet Snow of the type global warming should produce hit Chicago in 1967. That’s 48 years ago.
So now we have to whac-a-mole Trenberth, Mann, and Francis.
Who will it be tomorrow, or next year?
More on cold and snow….
•Colder winters are three times more likely to be snowier than the median.
•Snowy winters are three times more likely to be cold.
•Warm winters are three times more likely to have less snow than the median.
•Less snowy winters are three times more likely to be mild.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/05/are-huge-northeast-snow-storms-due-to-global-warming/
Everything Trentberth says is a travesty.