Here we go again: Warmer Arctic claimed to create colder US temperatures

From Rutgers University and the “Nor’easter’s weren’t as bad before global warming” department comes this “story I’ve been telling for a couple of years now…”. See the commentary after this article.

NOAA’s GOES East satellite (GOES-16) captured the Nor’easter storm over the East Coast this morning (13:15 UTC). The National Weather Service reports heavy snow and strong winds impacting New England. The U.S. East Coast provides an ideal breeding ground for Nor’easters. During winter, the polar jet stream transports cold Arctic air southward across the plains of Canada and the United States, then eastward toward the Atlantic Ocean where warm air from the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic tries to move northward. The warm waters of the Gulf Stream help keep the coastal waters relatively mild during the winter, which in turn helps warm the cold winter air over the water. This difference in temperature between the warm air over the water and cold Arctic air over the land is the fuel that feeds Nor’easters.


Warm Arctic means colder, snowier winters in northeastern US, study says

Rutgers scholar says warming Arctic’s connection to US weather is ‘no coincidence’

Scientists from Rutgers University-New Brunswick and Atmospheric and Environmental Research (AER) have linked the frequency of extreme winter weather in the United States to Arctic temperatures.

Their research was published today in Nature Communications.

“Basically, this confirms the story I’ve been telling for a couple of years now,” said study co-author Jennifer Francis, research professor of marine and coastal sciences in Rutgers’ School of Environmental and Biological Sciences. “Warm temperatures in the Arctic cause the jet stream to take these wild swings, and when it swings farther south, that causes cold air to reach farther south. These swings tend to hang around for awhile, so the weather we have in the eastern United States, whether it’s cold or warm, tends to stay with us longer.”

The research is timely given the extreme winter of 2017-2018, including record warm Arctic and low sea ice, record-breaking polar vortex disruption, record-breaking cold and disruptive snowfalls in the United States and Europe, severe “bomb cyclones” and costly nor’easters, said Judah Cohen, director of seasonal forecasting at AER and lead author of the study.

In their study, Cohen, Francis and AER’s Karl Pfeiffer found that severe winter weather is two to four times more likely in the eastern United States when the Arctic is abnormally warm than when the Arctic is abnormally cold. Their findings also show that winters are colder in the northern latitudes of Europe and Asia when the Arctic is warm.

Paradoxically, the study shows that severe winter weather in the western United States is more likely when the Arctic is colder than normal.

The researchers found that when Arctic warming occurred near the surface, the connection to severe winter weather was weak. When the warming extended into the stratosphere, however, disruptions of the stratospheric polar vortex were likely. These disruptions usually cause severe winter weather in mid- to late winter and affect large metropolitan centers of the northeastern United States.

“Five of the past six winters have brought persistent cold to the eastern U.S. and warm, dry conditions to the West, while the Arctic has been off-the-charts warm,” Francis said. “Our study suggests that this is no coincidence. Exactly how much the Arctic contributed to the severity or persistence of the pattern is still hard to pin down, but it’s becoming very difficult to believe they are unrelated.”


Of course, Nor’easters are nothing new. Even before climate numptys like Cohen and Francis tried to carbon-spin the reason for them, they were bad. For example:

Ash Wednesday 1962: The Most Extreme Nor’easter on Record to Hit the Mid-Atlantic Coast

Ash Wednesday is remembered by some on the East Coast as more than a Christian holy day. In 1962, it brought the most extreme nor’easter on record to the mid-Atlantic states.

The March 1962 Ash Wednesday Storm pounded the mid-Atlantic coast for nearly three days, battering the shoreline, sweeping beach homes, hotels and boardwalks into the ocean, while bringing near-blizzard conditions to inland areas.

“The Ash Wednesday Storm … was probably the largest East Coast winter storm in terms of land loss and number of homes damaged or destroyed,” the U.S. Geological Survey says.

The nor’easter reached the mid-Atlantic coast on Tuesday, March 6, 1962, and continued into Thursday, March 8, with huge waves and ferocious winds up to 60 mph. Protective dunes and sea walls crumbled because they could not withstand this storm’s fury, and that left the coastline unprotected.

The nor’easter developed during an upper-level blocking weather pattern, featuring high pressure to the north and low pressure to the south.

High-pressure systems have a clockwise circulation, while low-pressure systems have a counter-clockwise circulation, so this setup allowed for a long path of the air over the ocean before reaching the coast, better known as the fetch. As a result of this disastrous setup, water and high waves were driven toward the shoreline.

more here:

TWC’s Stu Ostro seems concerned that the 1-2-3 effect might be a sign….

Joe Bastardi gets the last word:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 13, 2018 1:55 pm

Oddly enough, the nor’easters sped by the mid-Atlantic area of DC, and this is one of the least snowy winters in DC. Local media reported: “with just 3.7 inches of snow falling in measly dustings at Reagan National Airport, this winter ranks as the 11th wimpiest winter on record.” Is that “global warming” too?

Reply to  stronginva
March 13, 2018 7:42 pm

To me, it makes more sense if the Arctic is cold and exports the cold air to the US.

Wayne Job
Reply to  rogerthesurf
March 13, 2018 10:10 pm

Rog you are right the Arctic was warm -30 instead of -60 still bloody cold.

Reply to  stronginva
March 14, 2018 2:17 am

People in Europe and UK better get ready for another visit from the ‘Beast from the East’, because it arrives on Saturday morning and dissipates into Wednesday next week.,52.000,30.000,3,i:pressure
I’ve been watching the European pattern developing in the models since last Saturday, and it has only gotten more established with each run. Sunday into Monday looks the worst.

Reply to  WXcycles
March 14, 2018 3:35 am

It looks more like a hamster from the east. Forecast temperatures dropping from around 12C now to 7 C Saturday 3C Sunday and back up to 9 C on Monday. Mind you, forecasts and reality are not necessarily the same thing. If only they had more money….

Whit Tarleton
Reply to  stronginva
March 14, 2018 7:32 am

wow! We’ve gotten much more snow than that in central NC. Probably at least a foot or so, all told.

Duncan Smith
March 13, 2018 2:01 pm

When weather is climate, “whether it’s cold or warm”……like winning a race, even in last place.

Reply to  Duncan Smith
March 13, 2018 4:48 pm

Poetic and funny.

Bruce Cobb
March 13, 2018 2:05 pm

Here in New Hampshire, we’re being battered by the third nor’easter in 12 days, this one bringing a heavy dose of snow of possibly 20″ or more. Damn “global warming”! Or is that “climate change”? “Global weirding”? But fossil fuels, which are keeping us warm, and keeping the lights on are “evil”. Yeah.

John V. Wright
March 13, 2018 2:10 pm

“but it’s becoming very difficult to believe they are unrelated.” Believe. Exactly. She cannot even go back to cross-reference weather in 1962. And weather was ‘happening’ 100,000 years before that. And 100,000 years before that. And…
These are climate scientist children with a very narrow vision, most of it focused on justifying their existence in time for the next funding round.

Reply to  John V. Wright
March 13, 2018 2:34 pm

Just imagine what might have been accomplished in important research areas if the time, effort and money had been put into them instead of this utter waste of resources.

Reply to  John V. Wright
March 13, 2018 3:55 pm

Last Sat (3/10), I was talking to a local farmer here in S. VT, we were marveling on the recent 20+ incher. Hadn’t had one in years. Now another one within 3 days. I do like this weather.

David L.
March 13, 2018 2:11 pm

Why do climate prognosticators seem to have absolutely no knowledge of basic thermodynamics? Shouldn’t a good course on thermodynamics be a core requirement of anyone studying climate?

Reply to  David L.
March 13, 2018 2:47 pm

Precisely David L:
They gaze at their computers and puzzle how the clouds work and none of them appear to have a clue how the Rankine Cycle works, where the 680 WattHr/ kg
agent heat of water goes or how all that ice growing in the cirrus clouds gets there.

Max Dupilka
Reply to  David L.
March 13, 2018 3:13 pm

I was associated with a climatology professor/scientist. He came to us one day to ask a very fundamental question about meteorology and thermodynamics. We were quite amazed he did not have even this most basic understanding. He knew how to manipulate equations and do programming. However, the extent of many climatologists’ knowledge about atmospheric physics seems rather limited.

Reply to  David L.
March 13, 2018 6:20 pm

They seem to all be mathematics, economics and statistics refugees looking for a job very few of them come form any actual hard science background. Even the big names often commented on here in the field Gavin Schmidt degree in Mathematics, Michael E. Mann degree in geology and geophysics there isn’t a science degree among them all. Among the critics I know Roy Spencer and Judith Curry both have science degrees so it would be interesting to actually list the credentials of all the climate zoo personalities.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  LdB
March 13, 2018 7:22 pm

There are thousands of PhD atmospheric scientists in every university and government agency( that is remotely associated with climate and environment) in the world. The problem is that the ones that started to believe in global warming started to take over all the faculties of Atmospheric science in the 1970s. Once they became department chairmen of those departments ; to get your PhD in Atmospheric science you had to be a believer in global warming. They then spread and infiltrated the meterology, geology, and environmental professions. Today every Atmospheric science faculty at any university is actually THE FACULTY OF GLOBAL WARMING. Non believers are shunned and have their careers ruined and they cant get published. After the warmers took over the universities; government agencies had no choice but to hire these global warmers (Where else would they be able to hire an atmospheric scientist from?). After that it was child’s play to have the media fall in line and then school boards all across the world started teaching AGW as well. Soon after that the politicians fell in line. So we have a new generation entering the global warming faculties in the universities having been indoctrinated in AGW from a very early age. What a mess!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

March 13, 2018 2:12 pm

And not for the first time, I am pleased to point out that, according to NOAA, recent winters in the Northeast have been un usually mild:
So either NOAA’s adjustments are fraudulent, or Jennifer Francis and her chums are talking through their hats!!

Reply to  Paul Homewood
March 13, 2018 3:59 pm

I thought that this “unnatural” mildness was PROOF of AGW. Weren’t we all suppose to worry and fret about coming generations of children who wouldn’t know anything at all about snow?
(the “lack of knowledge of snow” claim may be true in a different sense, the government schools are such ministers of propaganda and indoctrination that they might pervert the minds of children to consider the snow they play in to be pixy magic or ash from a far away planet)

Reply to  Paul Homewood
March 13, 2018 4:02 pm

“Warm temperatures in the Arctic cause the jet stream to take these wild swings,”….
.the jet stream taking these wild swings is causing warmer temps in the Arctic
“”These disruptions usually cause severe winter weather in mid- to late winter and affect large metropolitan centers of the northeastern United States.””
…and she just said without “these disruptions” it causes severe winter weather in large metropolitan centers of the western United States
…I swear you can’t make this up…..sh1ts gonna happen somewhere sometime

Reply to  Paul Homewood
March 13, 2018 4:18 pm

“…talking through their hats!!”…..of course they are….they went looking for something a warmer Arctic causes…not what causes a warmer Arctic
“The researchers found that when Arctic warming occurred near the surface, the connection to severe winter weather was weak. When the warming extended into the stratosphere, however, disruptions of the stratospheric polar vortex were likely.”
A weak vortex will cause surface warming…..a strong vortex will suck it up into the stratosphere

Reply to  Latitude
March 14, 2018 11:00 am

How is it any different than what happened in the 60s. Just returning to past weather patterns? We used to call it an Arctic front. The jet stream stays north or moves south. As it always has

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Paul Homewood
March 14, 2018 5:22 am

Yes, in the words of Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds, its time to embrace the empowering word “and”…

March 13, 2018 2:25 pm

“Exactly how much the Arctic contributed to the severity or persistence of the pattern is still hard to pin down, but it’s becoming very difficult to believe they are unrelated.”
Correlation does not imply causation, except when climate change might be involved. But even if there is a causal relationship, it might be the reverse of what is assumed. Instead of a warmer Arctic causing colder, snowier winters in the northeastern US, it might be the cold air heading south that is leaving the Arctic a bit warmer than it otherwise would be. In other words, what’s being observed could be a periodic weather event rather than climate change. Time will tell.

Reply to  Louis
March 13, 2018 3:30 pm

The warmer Arctic was caused by a large flow of warm air moving into the eastern side of the arctic region. So was that flow being pushed or pulled? When that warm air moved north into the region does the expansion of the warmed air in the region cause the cold out pouring of air to the south?

March 13, 2018 2:29 pm

Hooray! It another study based on computer models.
Warm Arctic episodes linked with increased frequency of extreme winter weather in the United States
Recent boreal winters have exhibited a large-scale seesaw temperature pattern characterized by an unusually warm Arctic and cold continents. Whether there is any physical link between Arctic variability and Northern Hemisphere (NH) extreme weather is an active area of research.

Rob Dawg
March 13, 2018 2:32 pm

Happy anniversary of the Great Blizzard of 1888.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  Rob Dawg
March 13, 2018 3:54 pm

… and the Blizzard of ’78

Kurt in Switzerland
March 13, 2018 2:34 pm

Nor’Easters are all caused by human CO2 emissions, didn’t you know?

March 13, 2018 2:39 pm

little surprise its been clear for sometime they been looking for ‘any’ way to link a cold winter with AGW. but when your ‘scientific approach ‘ is really heads you lose , tails I win , you can always fund the ‘proof’ you need,

Reply to  knr
March 13, 2018 4:05 pm

If not intentional, “fund the proof you need” is most fitting.

March 13, 2018 2:44 pm

Warm Arctic means colder, snowier winters in northeastern US, study says

It looks like, at this particular moment, the arctic temperature is just about bang on normal. link Maybe the timing is another example of the Gore effect.

March 13, 2018 2:47 pm

It’s the other way around, a colder US creates a warmer arctic.
When arctic air slides south, southern air moves north to replace it.

Reply to  MarkW
March 13, 2018 4:08 pm

When arctic air slides south, southern air moves north to replace it.

This is what Marcel Leroux described in his paper The Mobile Polar High: a new concept explaining present mechanisms of meridional air-mass and energy exchanges and global propagation of palaeoclimatic changes. Global and Planetary Change, 7 (1993) 69-93.

Air-mass and energy transportation is chiefly made by large lenses of cold air, the Mobile Polar Highs, the key factor of meridional air exchanges, which organize migratory units of circulation in troposphere low levels. Mobile Polar Highs (MPHs) originate in the downwards airmotion in high latitudes. The cold air injection organizes a dipolar vortex of very large size (2000/3000 km), the anticyclonic side of this vortex (precisely the MPH) is thin, about 1 5 km thick, by reason of cold air density.
Mobile Polar Highs migrate roughly eastwards, with a meridional component towards the tropical zone, through the middle latitudes where they are responsible for weather variability and for rain-making conditions. Their own thermo-dynamic evolution and relief divide them into fragments, and they supply the low-layer of the trade circulation, and eventually the monsoon (previously trade) circulation of a cross-equatorial drift. Eastwards movement and disposition of relief govern the MPHs paths and determine distinct aerological domains, in one of these domains, China is precisely located at the eastern Asian exit of MPHs, stopped by the Himalaya/Tibet range, on their southern side during their eastwards migration.
Power of the MPH, connected with its density, as observed in winter in the present conditions, is a function of the initial temperature, namely of the polar radiative conditions. It is precisely in the high latitudes that radiation balance and temperature changes are the most important, at all scales of time, from the seasonal to the palaeoclimatlc scale, while in tropical latitudes the changes are comparatively always weak.
Two modes of troposphere general circulation are a result of this mechanism
(1) A rapid mode of circulation, connected with a cold situation in polar latitudes, is characterized by strong and extended MPHs and strong winds at all latitudes and all levels.
(2) A slow mode of circulation, connected with a warm situation in polar latitudes, is characterized by weak and less extended MPHs, and weak winds at all latitudes and all levels.
Insolation and surface boundary conditions of high latitudes are the key control of MPHs dynamics, and therefore the key control of palaeoclimatlc changes.

My take on this is as follows:-
Type 1 circulation is zonal in character and is characterised by climatic periods of mid-latitude warming as the polar regions are isolated from the general circulation and therefore retain their cold air.
Type 2 circulation is meridional in character and is characterised by climatic periods of mid-latitude cooling as warm maritime air is preferentially advected into the polar region where the arctic warms and the transported heat is then lost to space. Subsequently the now cooled arctic air is advected south over the adjacent continental land masses of Canada and Siberia leading to bitterly cold winters.

March 13, 2018 2:49 pm

I may have been conceived during this storm. We lived in Philadelphia PA. I was born on Dec 10 of that year?

save energy
Reply to  Macusn
March 13, 2018 2:56 pm

“I may have been conceived during this storm”
Is this a good thing….or a bad thing ?

Reply to  save energy
March 14, 2018 4:00 pm

From my perspective it was a good thing.
From Dad’s perspective it would have been a good thing.
Mom says she does not remember, that might be a good thing.

Tom in Florida
March 13, 2018 2:56 pm

Well, wouldn’t it make sense that in order for the great ice sheets to come into being the temperature would have to have been warm enough so that there was plenty of open water to provide the source of the precipitation that would fall that far from the coasts?

March 13, 2018 3:13 pm

Anytime air-masses move out of the high Arctic toward mid-latitudes, air must move north into those Arctic areas to replace it. So the effected mid-latitude areas will be colder-than-avg, and the evacuated Arctic areas not as cold as avg. So their “claim” has cause and effect backward. An amateurish error.

Reply to  beng135
March 13, 2018 3:42 pm

I was thinking that it was the warm surface winds entering from the Atlantic side which pushed the cold air to the south. That is what appeared to be happening at the time. That was also the last push of surface winds to move up the North Atlantic since then. This new pattern has held for 15 days so far. It is a cooling pattern. …,71.14,672/loc=-40.160,70.041

Reply to  goldminor
March 13, 2018 4:12 pm

Also of interest when looking at the photo above. ls the amount of cloud cover over the northern Atlantic.
Which will certainly add to the cooling.

Reply to  taxed
March 13, 2018 9:00 pm

Plus clouds around the South Pole, I started a new folder for saving daily pics of clouds, …,-92.34,672/loc=50.927,-79.800

March 13, 2018 3:15 pm

It’s sad to see what’s happened to Rutgers’ meteorology department. I recall a TV show regarding AGW 15 or 20 years back where Rutgers’ Alan Robock, in response to a mention of the LIA and trying to defend human-caused warming, said something like, Yes, temperatures are rebounding from the LIA, “but what does that mean?” Embarrassing. How do these current researchers explain the historically active periods of extreme nor’easter and winter storm frequency and severity in earlier years, such as the 1910-1920 period, the 1830s and 1840s, and the 1730s and 1740s? That it was just colder, and the arctic was colder then too? How would they know about the arctic then? And wouldn’t that be contradictory? Apparently cold causes storms, and warmth causes storms. It seems to me that this has been a standard winter, where the Pacific-North American pattern has become entrenched, and, while we haven’t had the serious cold we had in the northeast and upper Midwest that occurred in December (and which was theorized to recur in February but didn’t), we retained an active PNA pattern which resulted in several nor’easters in a short time, but a series which is certainly far from unprecedented. It’s not just Rutgers; it seems most if not all western academia and research institutions have metastasized. Maybe the Russians have better atmospheric science education.

Reply to  4caster
March 13, 2018 3:24 pm

one thing that comes out loud and clear in this debate is there appears to be a problem within the learning establishments responsible for the output of climate scientists and in turn their output.
i thought university was supposed to teach critical independent thinking ? where are the big debates within the tenured community, the up and comers with the new ideas to challenge the current paradigm ? is climate science populated by drones all singing from the same hymn sheet ?

Wayne Job
Reply to  bitchilly
March 13, 2018 10:40 pm

The job of a teacher is to instruct and to teach you how to teach yourself. Any other method is propaganda.

J Mac
March 13, 2018 3:23 pm

Soon the AGW believer’s children won’t even know what weather looks like…..

Pop Piasa
Reply to  J Mac
March 13, 2018 5:25 pm

But, their lives will be a whirlwind of climate change. The present gauge of climate in the media has shrunk to only include last years hurricanes, floods and drought, so this kind of confusion will be a factor for the millennials, especially when the hot gulf waters and polar air excursions combine to produce a high ACE index again this year. climate ambulance-chasers will have a heyday of hindsight!

March 13, 2018 3:24 pm

Makes you wonder….
Was the Arctic region not warm — subjected to series of SSW events with a southerly tracking loopy jet stream, and a anomalously warm Gulf Stream at the start of the last LIA — maybe, maybe not? And was there not a reduction in Arctic ice at the North pole when the LIA started?
Who ever said that a warm Arctic indicates a warm planet? Perhaps they were grasping at political straws instead of science.
Answers on a postcard to J. Hansen.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  tom0mason
March 13, 2018 4:01 pm

Does the curiosity of warm water freezing faster than cold have any significance with regard to Arctic Ocean surface heat transfer into the atmosphere?

Pop Piasa
Reply to  tom0mason
March 13, 2018 4:03 pm

It’s all in the spin, my good man.

Cardin Drake
March 13, 2018 3:32 pm

Duh. Every time a huge cold air mass from the arctic slides down to cover the lower latitudes, a warm air mass replaces it in the arctic. It has NOTHING to do with global warming. It’s called weather.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Cardin Drake
March 13, 2018 5:38 pm

Cardin, it has more to do with pressures than temperatures, geopotential heights- to sound technical. You can be reassured that nobody has yet connected CO2 to that yet, but history provides plentiful precedents for the present patterns (man, I gotta P again).

March 13, 2018 3:52 pm

ln the last few days temps in the Arctic have dropped sharply lower. Should that remain the case, then NE America could be in for a stormy spring. As that colder air will add power to any storms that form, and with the way the jet stream is looking at the moment.
That could be quite often.

Pop Piasa
March 13, 2018 3:55 pm

I have a peck of problems with the idea of displaced cold.
Particularly when Weatherbell cited the analog years for the present pattern and has predicted this scenario so successfully, it’s spooky.

Bill Illis
March 13, 2018 4:19 pm

All cold weather (currently US northeast) is blamed on Arctic warming.
Arctic warming is blamed on CO2
All other extreme weather events are blamed on CO2.
In other words, people need to keep believing in global warming.
People need things to believe in. The goddess, God, Allah, global warming, factual scientific proof of a theory, he environment, weed, computer games, facebook.
It is part of the human condition. We need to have faith in something. We need something to put our energy into. The warming crowd is fully committed until we give them something else to put their commitment into.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Bill Illis
March 13, 2018 7:34 pm

My only faith is belief in the scientific method. I worship at the alter of logic. I have no false gods ( or gods of any kind).

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
March 13, 2018 11:36 pm

My only faith is belief in the scientific method. I worship at the alter of logic. I have no false gods ( or gods of any kind).

You might want to run that through a spill chucker.
Or rephrase it.
Or join the IPCC!

Reply to  Bill Illis
March 14, 2018 11:34 am

it always ends the same way. Kill the unbelievers!

March 13, 2018 4:34 pm

Ah, more circular logic from the – climate change causes everything, and everything causes climate change crowd.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  ScienceABC123
March 13, 2018 5:56 pm

It’s sure to be the last bastion of “all-inclusive” living.

March 13, 2018 5:08 pm

In late March of 1745, a fleet of New England colonists sailed up the coast to beseige Louisbourg, Cape Breton Island, where the French fleet was harbored. It was used as a base so that the French Navy could sail out and attack the English fishermen, the Bastonnais as the French called them, to destroy their fishing fleets.
On the way the New England fleet ran into a Nor’easter. “A terrible northeast storm” had fallen upon them, and, he says, “we lay rolling in the seas,with our sails furled, and among prodigious waves.” “Sick, day and night,” writes the miserable gunsmith, “so bad that I have not words to set it forth.” The gale increased and the fleet was scattered, there being, as a Massachusetts private soldier writes in his diary, “a very fierce Storm of Snow, some Rain and very Dangerous weather to be so nigh ye Shore as we was; but we escaped the Rocks, and that was all.”
The weather around here today isn’t significantly different from 300 years ago. It’s been snowing now for 12 hours which means I’ll have to plow out my two feet of global warming in the morning.

March 13, 2018 5:20 pm

It’s the opposite where colder US temperature result in warmer Arctic temperatures. There’s a real simple explanation for this which is Conservation of Energy, There’s only so many Joules to go around. It’s odd that the left doesn’t get this as zero sum economics is at the core of their beliefs, where for one to benefit, another must suffer.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
March 14, 2018 12:54 am

negative sum economics might be a better description.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
March 14, 2018 12:25 pm

co2 –
I agree. I’m perfectly willing to accept the general explanation for cold NH winters as due to warmer than normal arctic conditions. What I don’t see any proof of, though, is that this is indicative of warming in general. So the joules have moved from the south to the arctic? So what? The fact that we have a general explanation of this is itself evidence that this falls within the range of what we consider normal.
Thus, we can conclude there’s no reason to worry when confronted by cries of “highest Arctic temps evah!” Right? It’s just our heat. Moved north for the winter. Kinda like the bizarro-world version of our New Englanders who vacation in Florida for the winter.

March 13, 2018 5:27 pm

Warmer. Warrmerr. Warrrmerr. Colder! Colder!! Warrrrmerrrr ….

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Max Photon
March 13, 2018 6:00 pm

Max, you remind me of my wife and the thermostat.
By the way, good to have you here again. 🙂

Reply to  Pop Piasa
March 13, 2018 7:53 pm

Your wife must be hot! Oh no, wait … cold! Oh no, wait …

J Mac
Reply to  Pop Piasa
March 13, 2018 10:00 pm

Hot tongue and cold shoulder??? I’ve had that ‘for supper’ once or twice…

Mike Maguire
March 13, 2018 5:30 pm

This weather is the result of the extremely negative AO…..which flushes air from high latitudes in the WInter-where there isn’t much sunshine/daylight to warm air masses and thus its dang cold……..towards the mid latitudes where that air mass is anomalously cold vs that regions average.
Here is a good explanation for how that works:
Here is the most recent graph of our extremely -AO, and the -NAO along with the model forecast for the next 2 weeks:
Also having a -NAO(which often works in tandem with the -AO) gives those Arctic origin air masses an additional push south in the East, along with opportunities for the upper level troughing to deepen quickly in the Northeast.
This often results in a strong temperature contrast too between the extreme cold coming from the north and the sometimes much warmer air over the ocean or just east of the upper level trough line. A strong baroclinic thermal contrast is the recipe for explosive development for storms.
Note that we don’t have “bombs” in the Summer or warm months because there isn’t enough cold to produce the temperature contrast needed to supply the energy.
I found another study from 14 years ago, with one of its authors, Judah Cohen also the same as in this study that contradicts statements from this study from that person:
“The NAO and AO were in a positive trend for much of the 1970s and 1980s with historic highs in the early 1990s, and it has been suggested that they contributed significantly to the global warming signal. The trends in standard indices of the AO, NAO, and NH average surface temperature for December–February, 1950–2004, and the associated patterns in surface temperature anomalies are examined.”
“While the NAO and AO may contribute to hemispheric and regional warming for multiyear periods, these differences suggest that the large-scale features of the global warming trend over the last 30 years are unrelated to the AO and NAO.”
Maybe they learned a few things since then………………or, MUCH MUCH more likely(based on the actual data) is that this is a natural, decadel cycle that flipped from having frequent +AO/NAO Winters until the early 1990’s to having increasingly frequent -AO/NAO Winters since then.
While I understand the “theory” of Arctic amplification which can’t be completely discarded here, the reason for what has been happening is completely explained by a natural cycle(s) which actually makes MUCH more sense looking at the data going back the last 70 years.
Note the extremely negative AO values in the 1950’s and 1960’s……..during modest global cooling(causing conditions even MORE favorable for this exact same kind of weather being blamed on climate change/the warm Arctic):
The 1960’s storms noted by Anthony and Joe B are good examples.
However, objectivity often lacks, when scientists and others start out looking for the human caused warming/climate change fingerprint and use the data to support that vs letting the historic data tell the story.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Mike Maguire
March 13, 2018 6:06 pm

Good call, Mike. Folks really should watch the freebies on Weatherbell. Last weekend’s summary makes what you said crystal clear.

Reply to  Mike Maguire
March 13, 2018 6:43 pm

Ash Wednesday 1962: The Most Extreme Nor’easter on Record to Hit the Mid-Atlantic Coast
Anthony, I remember that storm well, living just a few miles South of Philadelphia and commuting to Phila in huge snow accumulation to take some exams since I graduated from college in 1962. You are correct.
That storm was much worse for the NJ coast than the recent Northeast storm.
As I recall Long Beach Island off the NJ coast was breached from that Northeaster and split into several islands with numerous homes and boats destroyed. Only portions of the island were very mildly flooded this year so the severity of the storms has been significantly less for New Jersey. My son lives on the island and his street had no flooding.
Several years ago Francis co authored a paper on global Vortex (covered by WUWT) making claims that these would be much more common with negative consequences. I exchanged several e mails with her asking some tough questions. All her replies were superficial indicating no depth but obvious she was in the tank for global warming without substance..

Reply to  Catcracking
March 13, 2018 6:48 pm

Correction “polar vortex”

John F. Hultquist
March 13, 2018 6:19 pm

Paul Homewood put up a map and caption for Iceland to Rome from H. H. Lamb.
Date is 1 March 1785. Weather was similar to this month’s weather. Homewood
About the USA, I found this:
“The weather of 1785: A case study”
And this LINK HERE – search for 1785 –
On Feb 13, 1785 there was “Flaming Ocean” – – I’ve no idea.
Severe European winters gets a hit; as does
Great winters in the Northern Hemisphere, followed by floods

4 Eyes
March 13, 2018 6:20 pm

Thanks Joe for the comment on 3 in 6 days. Living memory is all that seems to count to most climate scientists, and to all activists.

Reply to  4 Eyes
March 13, 2018 10:51 pm

Not to nit-pick, but 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 is seven days in my arithmetic (unless the first and the last are not counted fully in).
Well, it was Bastardi’s statement.

Pop Piasa
March 13, 2018 6:21 pm

Seems like this all comes down to what you observe vs. what confirmation bias will allow you to accept.

Gerald Machnee
March 13, 2018 6:40 pm

In the 1970’s they blamed global cooling for the storms and the Arctic Vortex.
Any excuse will do for them now.

March 13, 2018 7:15 pm

If warm weather in the Arctic causes cold winters in the Eastern US then well documented cold weather in the past suggests that the Arctic was also warmer in the past, thus confirming a none event all round. I will sleep better tonight.

Joel O’Bryan
March 13, 2018 7:23 pm

Well, let’s be clear. The 4 Laurentian Ice shields over 500K yrs across the Northern Hemisphere high latitudes didn’t get there from a cold dry atmosphere.
Those ice shields came from copious amounts of water pulled off the warmer surrounding oceans.

John Smith
March 13, 2018 7:43 pm

Warm winters are due to climate change. Unless they turn out to be cold. And then cold winters are due to climate change. Got it.

Kaiser Derden
March 13, 2018 8:22 pm

correlation is not causation …

March 13, 2018 8:28 pm

OT: Steve Hawkings died today. (He was a believer in AGW.)

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
March 13, 2018 10:56 pm

He was a great theoretical mathematician of seventies who proved you can excel from a wheelchair. I try to think his AGW speak as just what was expected of him to say on something he wasn’t very interested in.

Reply to  Hugs
March 13, 2018 10:57 pm

by the way, it is Stephen Hawking, of course

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
March 13, 2018 11:39 pm

well RIP Stephen. He wasn’t a great mind, but he was tireless in his exploration of theory.

Richard Barraclough
Reply to  Leo Smith
March 16, 2018 12:02 pm

. ‘He wasn’t a great mind’
Tells you all you need to know about Leo Smith

March 13, 2018 8:51 pm

Makes sense to me. A warmer Arctic/less ice coverage allows more heat to escape to space from the ocean which precipitates colder air masses descending south toward New England during the winter. Bob Tisdale has additionally pointed to El Ninos and La Ninas influencing New England weather.

Gary Pearse
March 13, 2018 8:55 pm

This is desperation on the part of these no-matter-what global warmers. l look at that 1962 storm geometry and see the jet passing through Montana, the Dakota’s, Minnesota, Wisconsin… I was living in Winnipeg to the north of it and Marches there can be the snowiest part of the winter with severe blizzard conditions. Are these researchers telling us that normally the jet stream is far north of Winnipeg in winter. Search out temperature lows all the way south on the prairies down through the US historically.
How does 148 days a year avg below freezing.

James Schrumpf
March 13, 2018 9:31 pm

After reading here about the US Climate Reporting Network (USCRN) and its high-quality, well-sited membership of top of the line weather stations, I thought I’d go grab the data and have a look.
There are 254 station total, but only 140 of them are used for climate reporting. There’s two in Hawaii, twelve in Alaska, and one way over in Yakutsk (that shows a serious cooling trend). The rest are spread very nicely across the US. The longest records are just over 18 years, so there’s not enough data to get a 30-year baseline, but you can get a pretty good idea of what the temps are up to even without one. It’s been said that the US represents only 3% of the Earth’s land area, but it’s not an insignificant sample. With the Yakutsk, Alaska, and Hawaii stations, and the rest of the stations in the contiguous US, the network covers a decent stretch of land.
I’ve used the TMAX daily temperatures, because TAVG doesn’t tell me anything interesting about the temperature. I’ve plotted both the monthly average for each month in the years, and the highest monthly average in each year, with some interesting results. The large majority of the stations show warming, both in the monthly average TMAX reading and the annual high monthly TMAX average. Still, 20 of the records show definite cooling or are stable at their current temps.
I’m working on getting the plots of each station’s data up on my web site in the easiest, most accessible form I can think of. I’ll let the site know when I’ve got something together.

Reply to  James Schrumpf
March 14, 2018 4:01 am

How does your work compare with Tony Heller’s?

Reply to  James Schrumpf
March 14, 2018 4:37 am

Since you’re doing this analysis, let me suggest that you compute the root-mean-square of TMAX as well. The temperature flutuates from year to year with some kind of probability distrbution and the RMS will give you an error statistic that you can plot along with TMAX. If the distribution were a Gaussian, not necessarily true, then the RMS would be one standard deviation. You should then plot TMAX and TMAX +- RMS as the limits of an error bar.
It’s not standard practice in climate data analysis, but it shows you the long term range of the mean and whether a few degees shift here and there is really meaningful. It should be included in all the weather data plots, but it never is. Easier to scare the rubes that way. The climate “scientists” probably don’t understand this either.

dodgy geezer
March 13, 2018 10:25 pm

…I Cohen, Francis and AER’s Karl Pfeiffer found that severe winter weather is two to four times more likely in the eastern United States when the Arctic is abnormally warm than when the Arctic is abnormally cold. Their findings also show that winters are colder in the northern latitudes of Europe and Asia when the Arctic is warm.
Paradoxically, the study shows that severe winter weather in the western United States is more likely when the Arctic is colder than normal….</i
I think I’m beginning to understand modern Climate Theory. Abnormal things happen when Abnormal things are happening. Which is all the time. Please send more money….

Steve R
March 13, 2018 10:45 pm

Maybe global is the cause of the Laurentide ice sheet?

Timo V
March 13, 2018 10:56 pm

Our metoffice FMI here in Finland is pulling the same trick. Cold and snowy winter that does not seem to end is now caused by climate change, and we can expect more of the same in the future. Ten years ago they were expecting the exact opposite (rolls eyes).

Reply to  Timo V
March 13, 2018 11:30 pm

Of course they do. That kind of behaviour (x confirms y and ~x confirms y) is the very typical appearance of the confirmation bias. To their loss, neither warm or cold or snowy winters are sign of global warming. They’re just weather… mundane. Only trends are possibly related to global warming, but attribution to single events is somewhat dubious. At the current pace, they’ll soon come up with a conclusion that a series of extremely moderate weather is a sign of global warming (hiding some natural cooling variation).

Reply to  Timo V
March 14, 2018 1:35 am

‘head you lose , tails I win ‘ standard practice in climate ‘science ‘ has why when challenged they cannot say what would ‘disprove ‘ the theory .

Reply to  Timo V
March 14, 2018 2:59 am

And of course you can’t question that because the “science is settled”. This debate is utterly broken. Or more accurately, there never was any debate in the first place. Everyone is told that they should blindly believe the basic “facts”: the climate is warming, that is a bad thing, humans are mostly responsible, we can do something about it, and that the best way to do something about it is to invest in renewables and be “sustainable” (whatever that means). And everyone believes these things, not because they have studied the matter, but because they are told that they should believe them. And if you DARE question ANY of these TRUTHS™, you are a DENIER, worse than Hitler, the Eternal enemy of Mother Nature and Mankind, the Bringer of darkness, the Killer of kittens… etc.

March 13, 2018 10:59 pm

The polar vortex in the lower stratosphere is in the phase of division into two vortices. This is indicated by the areas with the least amount of ozone.comment image?oh=3ff4abbe21feadc4aeac0f2dc14a9f44&oe=5B486BAA

Reply to  ren
March 13, 2018 11:05 pm

Magnetic field in the Arctic regions.

March 13, 2018 11:10 pm

Another warm winter for Alaskans: The average winter temperature in Alaska was 12.9 degrees F, 9.3 degrees above average. Much-above-average temperatures spanned the state, with record warmth along the North Slope. Barrow and St. Paul were record warm for the 3-month period.
this is from NOAA
some shoke about this
And, today, I heard about hawking’s death, and I thought hawking would never die RIP.

March 13, 2018 11:11 pm

Sudden jump in temperature in the stratosphere. Previously, such a strong jump occurred in 2009, during the previous solar minimum.

March 13, 2018 11:13 pm

Today very cold air moves over the Great Lakes.

March 13, 2018 11:15 pm

Ice extent in the Arctic is still growing.

Reply to  ren
March 13, 2018 11:16 pm


March 13, 2018 11:19 pm

TSI monthly average from 2003.

March 13, 2018 11:23 pm

Very low magnetic activity of the Sun. Very high levels of galactic radiation in high latitudes.

Reply to  ren
March 13, 2018 11:24 pm


March 14, 2018 2:14 am

There is a (largely) fixed amount of “temperature” in any given area. If one area is warmer than average, another will be colder. Unsurprisingly, the two are correlated.
I am unclear how this is news or science?

March 14, 2018 3:30 am

How the mighty has fallen (Rutgers)

Bruce Cobb
March 14, 2018 3:31 am

For sure, if we were having Spring-like weather now, it would be “global warming”. How the Warmists and True Believers handle the cognitive dissonance, I don’t know. Worth studying. They seem to have absolutely zero self-awareness.

March 14, 2018 4:04 am

I’m not a climate scientist. I don’t even play one on TV…but I’m curious:
If a warmer Arctic causes the US and Europe to be colder, isn’t that a net wash? How, does this constitute global warming?

Kjell O. Foss
March 14, 2018 4:21 am

This is a small thing, but I think that in science it is important to use concepts correctly. Misunderstandings and confusion are often the consequence of incorrect use of words,
«Temperature» can not be hot or cold. It can be high or low. Water can be hot or cold, and so can a lot of other things.

March 14, 2018 5:09 am

Is there anything wrong with the general notion that polar air displaced by warmer air in the Arctic is carried by the jetstream toward the northeastern U.S., which then interacts with warmer and moister southern air to cause nor’easters? I don’t see anything in the Rutgers statement or in NOAA’s discussion that blames any of this on global warming.
There are plenty of suggestions by others elsewhere (and perhaps by the same authors of the above statement) that the frequency of nor’easters is a symptom of climate change, and many of the comments here are a general reaction to the notion that cold winters are a sign of global warming.
But the general mechanism for a colder, stormier northeast appears to be heavily influenced by what’s happening in the polar region, and that has been characterized by warmer than usual temperatures. There’s much debate on the causation of warmer than normal arctic temperatures. But what’s wrong the description above of the mechanism behind nor’easters?

Pamela Gray
March 14, 2018 5:24 am

None of this stuff is new. The Arctic Oscillation is a well known teleconnected system that interacts with the position and shape of the jet stream. All indices point to a normal system which rises and falls relative to the mean.

March 14, 2018 5:30 am

There are a couple of simple facts that even the Catastrophic Global Warmists don’t dispute: 1) the earth rotates once a day, and 2) warm air rises. This means that 100 plus degree F, warm, moist air, is rising at the equator. The earth’s surface is dragging this air along at roughly 1000 mph. Anything less than that is wind. Cold, dry air, at roughly zero degrees F, is also sinking at the poles, at roughly zero mph. Anything more than that is wind. There is NOT 1000 mph wind at the equator, nor is there 1000 mph wind at the poles. Thus, the “Polar Vortex”, aptly described as somewhat like a yarmulke, is a cap of cold, dry air, roughly centered over the poles. It’s simple science! And like a yarmulke, it may sometimes slip down a bit.
Even so, it will always return to its center over the poles. It’s simple science. This little cap, is where it is, and will always be, tethered to the poles, as long as the earth is spinning, and warm air rises. This is true, regardless of the “Average Global Temperature”. Whatever that is.

Reply to  Tom
March 14, 2018 6:09 am

Yes and when that cold air moves south it will turn to the right because it is rotating eastwards slower than the ground beneath it while warm air moving north will also turn to the right since it is rotating east faster than the ground. This is the Coriolis effect and the reason weather systems rotate and develop vorticity and the reason there are never hurricanes at the Equator.
NB. For the southern hemisphere change “right” to “left”

March 14, 2018 6:01 am

Back in the eighties when, climatology was still a science, H. H. Lamb (founder of CRU) studied the changes in the sinuosity of the jet stream and the incidence of blocking highs and found that they increased markedly with a colder climate (see “Climate History and the Modern World”, esp. Ch. 4).

March 14, 2018 6:23 am

The above posting of the Danish Met North of 80 temp is now out of date.
Rapid drop to the Mean curve. From 264 K to 245, real fast.

March 14, 2018 6:53 am

Warm temperatures in the Arctic cause the jet stream to take these wild swings
nope. it is the jet stream that CAUSES the wild swings. they have causes and effect reversed.

March 14, 2018 7:12 am

Three nor’easters in ten days and they can’t think of why retail sales slowed? I think econ reporting is catching up to AGW reporting.

Updated March 14, 2018 10:19 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON—The U.S. job market is booming and worker paychecks are getting bigger, but Americans hunkered down on spending last month, a puzzle for an economy that leans heavily on their willingness to consume.

Matt G
March 16, 2018 12:45 pm

This phenomena is nothing new and why charlatans promoting this alarmist agenda understand little about our planet’s atmosphere and oceans. Every cold outbreak away from the pole requires warmer air to move here first. Otherwise we are stuck in a positive NAO with the jet stream roughly around the same latitude position around the planet, with the pole staying cold with areas below mild.
This behavior is actually the key cog in the major ice age mechanism. A snow machine that builds up around the Arctic causing huge glaciers covering huge areas of continents. This behavior becomes more frequent with lower solar activity.
“ferdberple March 14, 2018 at 6:53 am
nope. it is the jet stream that CAUSES the wild swings. they have causes and effect reversed.”
The interaction between polar air and subtropical air causes these jet stream boundaries and without these there is no jet stream to create wild swings.

March 22, 2018 9:32 am

Reblogged this on Confessions of some snowlover's and commented:
Multiple Nor’easter’s we have been experiencing is nothing new, and can’t always be blamed on climate change.
The following article provides some information on how blocking can effect these storms, and it has happened before…

%d bloggers like this: