From the “with models, we can make anything believable” department.
New paper argues for a stronger influence of Arctic sea-ice loss on recent Eurasian cooling, thus causing colder winters and more snow in Europe due to climate change.
A reconciled estimate of the influence of Arctic sea-ice loss on recent Eurasian cooling
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0379-3 (paywalled)
Abstract
Northern midlatitudes, over central Eurasia in particular, have experienced frequent severe winters in recent decades1,2,3. A remote influence of Arctic sea-ice loss has been suggested4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14; however, the importance of this connection remains controversial because of discrepancies among modelling and between modelling and observational studies15,16,17.
Here, using a hybrid analysis of observations and multi-model large ensembles from seven atmospheric general circulation models, we examine the cause of these differences. While all models capture the observed structure of the forced surface temperature response to sea-ice loss in the Barents–Kara Seas—including Eurasian cooling—we show that its magnitude is systematically underestimated. Owing to the varying degrees of this underestimation of sea-ice-forced signal, the signal-to-noise ratio differs markedly.
Correcting this underestimation reconciles the discrepancy between models and observations, leading to the conclusion that ~44% of the central Eurasian cooling trend for 1995–2014 is attributable to sea-ice loss in the Barents–Kara Seas.
Our results strongly suggest that anthropogenic forcing has significantly amplified the probability of severe winter occurrence in central Eurasia via enhanced melting of the Barents–Kara sea ice. The difference in underestimation of signal-to-noise ratio between models therefore calls for careful experimental design and interpretation for regional climate change attribution.
Data availability
The monthly SST and SIC in HadISST33 are available from the Met Office website (www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/). The ERA-Interim reanalysis data sets44 are available from the ECMWF website (http://apps.ecmwf.int/datasets/). The six additional AGCM outputs analysed are freely available from the NOAA FACTS website (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/repository/alias/facts/). The MIROC4 AGCM output generated and analysed in this study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Comments by climate scientist Reto Knutti on Twitter:
The tricky question is whether that is just due to a random series of unusual years or partly due to Arctic warming. In our simulations we found no link.https://t.co/2NXkdICrh6
The new paper argues the real link is stronger than in models.— Reto Knutti (@Knutti_ETH) January 15, 2019
At its roots climate ‘science’ is often little more than, heads you lose and tails I win, in action. This paper merely follows that route.
“CLIMATE CHANGE” IS RARELY IF EVER DEFINED – IT IS A DELIBERATELY VAGUE STATEMENT, UNSCIENTIFIC NONSENSE.
“Climate change” is rarely if ever defined – it is a deliberately vague statement, not even a hypothesis, because it can mean everything and nothing. It is obvious from past ice ages that climate has always changed.
The great minds of our age have stated that you cannot disprove a vague hypothesis:
“A theory that is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.” – Karl Popper.
“By having a vague theory, it’s possible to get either result.” – Richard Feynman
The “Climate Change” (aka “Wilder Weather”) hypothesis is so vague and changes so often that it is not falsifiable. It has been defined as warmer and colder; less snow and more snow; more windstorms and less windstorms – it must be rejected as unscientific nonsense.
It’s like whatever proves the hypothesis, mann.
“Climate change” isn’t even a force. A change in climate is the result of 30 years’ worth of repeated weather significantly different from the long-observed norms. It’s the RESULT of long-term weather change, not a cause of it.
One may as well claim the wet sidewalks caused the rain.
“…warming causes colder…”
Riiiight…
James wrote: “One may as well claim the wet sidewalks caused the rain.”
Well, most climate scientists already claim that the future causes the past:
I proved 11 years ago that atmospheric CO2 trends LAG temperature trends at all measured time scales.
Best, Allan
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/08/what-does-trump-s-pick-science-adviser-think-about-climate-science-2014-talk-offers
ARGUMENT B:
As I published in January 2008 and Humlum et al expanded in 2013:
1– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
2– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
3– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1551019291642294&set=pob.100002027142240&type=3&theater
?dl=0
It’s a bit complicated, but most people (warmists excepted?) would agree that the future does not cause the past in our current space-time continuum.
In the 11 years since I published this observation, it has largely been ignored or obfuscated. It is the only clear signal I see in the modern data record, and it happens to coincide with a similar observation from the ice core record, where CO2 also lags temperature, by a longer time lag in a longer temperature cycle. Again, the CO2-primarily-drives-global-temperature meme insists that the future is causing the past.
I think we really understand very little about global climate, and we have squandered trillions of dollars and decades of research on dead-end false global warming nonsense and related green energy schemes that are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy.
To me, this is a tragedy of lost opportunity and deliberate academic and political misconduct worthy of a major criminal investigation. In my opinion, global warming alarmism and green energy schemes are the greatest frauds in human history.
REFERENCES:
CARBON DIOXIDE IN NOT THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING: THE FUTURE CAN NOT CAUSE THE PAST
by Allan MacRae
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah5/from:1979/scale:0.22/offset:0.14
THE PHASE RELATION BETWEEN ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE AND GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
by Ole Humlum, Kjell Stordahl, Jan-Erik Solheim
Global and Planetary Change, Volume 100, January 2013, Pages 51-69
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
Actually, the Climate Scientologists of at unreal climate explained this away years ago.
Apparently, the temperature rises a bit. Then the oceans warm a bit. Then a bit later, like 800 years or so, the CO2 outgassed from the warming oceans causes more warming. Which warms the oceans. So in 800 years, that additional CO2 causes more warming. And so on.
I kid you not. That is the explanation of the 800 year lag on CO2 against temperature. The fact that if this were true, even a small bit of warming, for whatever reason, would eventually result in runaway thermageddon, and never actually has, fully escapes their brilliant minds.
Climate Scientology! Is there anything it can’t explain away?
ZZW:
Henry’s Law explains how warming water emits CO2 into the atmosphere. This process can be short-term from shallow water depths or longer term from deeper depths. OK so far.
But if increasing atmospheric CO2 caused major warming, then this process would result in runaway global warming as you say, and this has not happened in Earth’s history.
The most rational conclusion, consistent with Occam’s Razor, is that the sensitivity of climate to increasing atmospheric CO2 is very low, probably much less than 1C/doubling of CO2.
1000 upvotes.
This is the stake through the heart of the CAGW hypothesis, and should be more widely known.
Thank you Graeme.
Based on full-Earth-scale observations, the MAXIMUM climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is about 1C/(2*CO2). Thus, there is no credible catastrophic man-made global warming crisis. Furthermore, based on MacRae (2008) and Humlum et al (2013) as discussed above, actual climate sensitivity is probably much less than 1C/doubling, because atmospheric CO2 trends LAG global temperature trends at all measured time scales.
Lewis and Curry (2018) estimate climate sensitivity at 1.6C/doubling for ECS and 1.3C/doubling for TCR, using Hatcrut4 surface temperatures. These surface temperatures probably have a significant warming bias due to poor siting of measurements, UHI effects, other land use changes, data adjustments, etc.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1
Christy and McNider (2017) estimate climate sensitivity at 1.1C/doubling for UAH Lower Tropospheric temperatures.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf
Both analyses are “full-earth-scale”, which have the least room for errors. Both are “UPPER BOUND” (maximum) estimates of sensitivity, derived by assuming that ~ALL* warming is due to increasing atmospheric CO2. It is possible, in fact probable, that less of the warming is driven by CO2, and most of it is natural variation.
(*Note – Christy and McNider make allowance for major volcanoes El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991+).
Practically speaking, these MAXIMUM sensitivity estimates are similar, and are far too low to support any runaway or catastrophic man-made global warming.
Higher estimates of climate sensitivity have little or no credibility and THERE IS NO REAL GLOBAL WARMING CRISIS.
Increased atmospheric CO2, from whatever cause will at most drive minor, net-beneficial global warming, and significantly increased plant and crop yields.
The total impact if increasing atmospheric CO2 is hugely beneficial to humanity and the environment.
Best, Allan
…..Just curious about your opinions? Do you think we would have “warmists” and all of the delirium of their bull wash and unsupportable booschwah if there was no internet?
Is there any meaningful contribution to the discussion that the typical politician could make?
30, 50, whatever, period of time is a pretty arbitrary way to define “climate”. Here in Southern California, dry/wet annual cycles can last a decade or more. I’d say as much as a millennium is really needed to define a climate.
“Climate Change” in the google-ads era is totally indistinguishable from common garden-variety weather cycle changes. Indeed, they are just weather cycles.
The loss of arctic sea ice, especially during the winter should make the Gulf Stream stronger.
Why?
Greater evaporation and cooling. Creates more water sinking.
And so it begins…
I don’t have time to read the actual paper, but the appearance is that they modeled what the reduction in sea ice should be and then modeled what effect it should have on the weather. And then they timed it just right so it was published just as severe natural storms hit.
Some time ago I was reading about the State of the Art in Artificial Intelligence in writing articles. One exercise of this had a computer writing excellent sports articles that passed the Turing Tests. From what I understand, it took box scores, had a trivia and history database, added idioms and other eye wash and thus allowed news rooms to RIF sports journalists.
I wonder how many of these articles are triggered to be AI written when thresholds are passed in short term local WX forecasts.
I had the same thought. The summary doesn’t sound like it’s describing anything more complicated than “lake effect snow.” Prevailing winds + plus open water + winter = snow. The usual suspects will miss the point that the cause of increase in snow hasn’t actually happened. They’ll just hear that more snow was predicted, and they have more snow now.
https://www.iceagenow.info/syrian-refugee-camp-in-lebanon-buried-in-snow-and-ice-relief-organization-chairman-blames-climate-change/
Syrian Refugee Camp in Lebanon Buried in Snow and Ice – Relief organization chairman blames ‘climate change’
January 9, 2019
________________
Climate refugees. Out of the rain and into the eaves.
Climate has been changing and will be changing. What a fantastic financial opportunity!
Geez, Lebanon used to be known as the Switzerland of the Middle East – in the 1970s. I was living in Zurich, but yearned to ski Lebanon just to say I had.
Iran gets lots of snow in the Elburz Mountains north of Teheran as well – they’re over 18,000 ft high (~6000 m). Very impressive from the streets of Teheran!
Allan: More global-warming-driven snow? I sure hope all this extra snow from AGW doesn’t impair performance of solar and wind!
“….Syrian Refugee Camp in Lebanon Buried in Snow and Ice – Relief organization chairman blames ‘climate change’
January 9, 2019..”
I remember back in the ’60s when ‘they’ extolled the virtues of Lebanon’s climate by claiming that you could snow ski in the morning and waterski in the afternoon of the same day… so what’s changed?
Cheers
Mike
I saw nothing in the AGW predictions 10, 5 or 2 years ago to justify the statements in this article.
You have check back hourly for the newest version….LOL
Nature has been so uncooperative with their predictions that they’ve segued into ad hoc explainism.
The claims by the alarmists that AGW causes both global warming and global cooling violates the Law of Noncontradiction, a basic tenet of logic which is intrical to mathematics. A future problem would be policies enacted at the direction of the alarmists leading to demonstrable cooling. They could claim their policies are responsible, but no way to disprove which strikes at the heart of the principle of falsifiability.
Based on the provenance of the theory, I’m betting none of the policies promulgated in the name of “climate change” will ever be beneficial to humans! Of course, this will all be justified as just retribution to the culprits who caused the problem in the first place!
The problem is, your reliance on logic and science is racist, sexist, homophobic, and probably a result of your toxic masculinity. So it’s can’t be good to use, and thus they can ignore logic and make their own conclusions that are 100% Safe For All.
…..And you are a deplorable compounded for a lifetime.
.. until it doesn’t
“Our results strongly suggest that anthropogenic forcing has significantly amplified the probability of severe winter occurrence in central Eurasia via enhanced melting of the Barents–Kara sea ice.” — This appears to be part of natural variation in climate change. One is in below the average pattern and the other is above the average pattern. This is nothing to do with anthropogenic greenhouse gases related to global warming, as it is insignificant to cause any impact on long term weather patterns.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Makes perfect sense. If arctic is warming someplace must be cooling. My A/C works just like that.
My fireplace is only warming.
You clearly didn’t pay for the Game of Thrones blue cold flame version.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00779.1
Now how is this going to effect their prediction of warmer moving north?
It is sad to see such dancing around attempting to make a bogus theory fit reality.
Or is it the other way around?
The change from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”, I thought was due to so many practical people pointing out that warming and interglacials go together.
No, it was genius to invent “Climate Change”. Anything becomes a new original sin.
(Off topic
Good to see you here, Bob. I admire your work. And like the way you’re prepared to possibly lose clients by holding fI’m that AGW is not sensible science.)
“Recent cold winters in Europe can be explained by trends in atmospheric variability (pressure patterns).”
An eloquent orator can explain anything. How about predicting them?
That is rather like saying that heat waves can be explained by high temperatures. Formally true but with somewhat limited explanatory power.
“Here, using a hybrid analysis of observations and multi-model large ensembles from seven atmospheric general circulation models, we examine the cause of these differences.”
WTF does that mean??
“Hybrid analysis of observations and multi-model ensembles”… means they mixed bull shit with facts.
YES, they mixed bullshit with facts. As usual.
When we were having winters with light snowfall…
“With higher average temperatures in winter expected, more precipitation is likely to fall in the form of rain rather than snow, which will increase both soil moisture and run off, as noted by the IPCC (1996) and found in many models.” – Kevin Trenberth
“Northern Hemisphere snow cover, permafrost, and sea-ice extent are projected to decrease further.” – IPCC Third Assessment Report
“According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.”
When we started having winters with heavy snowfall…
“The fact that the oceans are warmer now than they were, say, 30 years ago means there’s about on average 4 percent more water vapor lurking around over the oceans than there was, say, in the 1970s”. Thus “you can get dumped on with more snow partly as a consequence of global warming,” – Kevin Trenberth
“Warmer waters off the coast help elevate winter temperatures and contribute to the greater snow amounts. This is how global warming plays a role.” – Kevin Trenberth
(Paraphrasing) “Heavier snowfall is ‘consistent with’ global warming. – Union of Concerned Scientists
“Climate science” HAS NO CREDIBILITY. Anything perceived as “bad,” weather-wise, is just blamed on “climate change” or “global warming,” EVEN WHEN IT DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS PREVIOUS ASSERTIONS.
The ARROGANCE of these pseudo-scientists who act like they’re standing on the “high ground” scientifically is SICKENING.
It means that they run a lot of models a lot of times until they get a run that fits their theory.
Let me see if I can translate this properly. “Northern midlatitudes, over central Eurasia in particular, have experienced frequent severe winters in recent decades. A remote influence of Arctic sea-ice loss has been suggested; however, the importance of this connection remains controversial because of discrepancies among modelling and between modelling and observational studies.”
Translation: “The models don’t agree with each other, and none of them agree with observations.”
“While all models capture the observed structure of the forced surface temperature response to sea-ice loss in the Barents–Kara Seas—including Eurasian cooling—we show that its magnitude is systematically underestimated.”
Translation: “The models capture the basic structure of the presumed-with-no-evidence temperature response to sea ice loss, but are still low, so our assumed forcing is probably not large enough.”
“Correcting this underestimation reconciles the discrepancy between models and observations.”
Translation: “We increased the fudge factor in our models until the presumed forcing was big enough to match the observations, allowing us to claim that a relationship that is totally still unproven caused 44% of the observed change and is all humanity’s fault.”
That sound about right?
James S,
Pretty darn good. Have you considered helping the alarmists with their purported “science communication” problem, the one that prevents the great unwashed from understanding the urgency we’re facing… 🤓
“New and improved! Now includes 44% more highly-enriched anthrophobia!”
We’ve been modelling away hard and by using turtles we have been able to show conclusively that Global Warming will result in colder winters and much more snow, especially in Europe. Already the grants are coming in to us.
It is indeed Humpty Dumpty science meaning Global Warming will be whatever they want it to mean. In 2017 a Swiss study forecast:
Link here:
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-shorter-season-alps.html
Who funds this nonscience? The authors just wait for the adverse weather conditions that supports their theory and then publish. With man made CO2 linked to every adverse weather event there will be no end to this lunacy. Weather has become synonymous with Climate Change.
A “hybrid model” means splicing together two models that don’t work.
Snow! The thing of the past.
I was thinking the same thing, we aren’t supposed to know what it is or looks like.
As long as the data is the leas bit equivocal, climate alarmism is will never cease. The only way it stops is if we have a major turndown in global temperatures. That wouldn’t be enough for some, but as long as the trend is flat or ever so much upward, the insanity of blaming everything on a single cause will continue.
Desperation modeled into nothing.
Models and words are tortured until these yahoos get the results they intend.
Isn’t it amazing that a small sub-polar area is somewhat without ice, somehow causes severe Eurasian winters.
Lindzen is correct on climate science reaping the dregs of meteorologists and physicists.
Given that weather follows a regular patter that trends directionally from Northwest to Southeast. The Barents- Kara sea lies North of Russia; with the Kara sea frozen over and half of the Barents sea iced over.
http://www.aari.ru/odata/_d0015.php?lang=1&mod=1
“Models are tortured”
Anyone else have a Wreck It Ralph rendition of a centralized meeting place where tortured models go for support?
For those of you that never saw the movie, the main characters in video arcade games used to meet up with each other in the surge protector after the arcade closed for the night.
Can you imagine the surge protector hosting weekly support meetings for tortured programs? I can after reading the first blurb of that crapola.
I want to know 1 thing (in all seriousness)–underestimated from WHAT exactly?
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-samsung&ei=xNE_XOXmK8XRswGltomQCg&q=catholic+pilgrims+pope+stop+glaciers+expansion&oq=catholic+pilgrims+pope+stop+glaciers+expansion&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.
That could be a mistake.
This sounds very much the same as the infamouse “Mikes Nature Trick” of the Climategate days.
Just adjust the models to what is happening in the real world, problem is now solved.
So why do our politicians accept this garbage as the real thing ? and then tax us to “Save the Planet”.
MJE
I liked the way the alarmist used to explain the cold winters. That the temps would have or should have been even colder if it wasn’t for global warming.
No climate model fits all climates.
But sure there’s enough staff on ETH Zurich Reto Knutti can tell:
Walk my climate models and bring me the news.
That’s why it’s not science. Anything that happens (cold or warmth) can be made consistent with the theory.
I do urge all these climate scientists to stay away from casinos, lest they discover that streaks of red or black are much more common than human intuition believes they are.
Reto Knutti on ETH Zurich climate vice –
Maybe they have a theme song. For the trailer.
Don’t forget, human CO2 alone causes climate change global warming and all that extra snow, so it is still all our fault – apparently….
Haha
We should be calling this sciensplaining.
Or “Warmspreading”
I don’t subscribe to Nature. Have they retracted the studies that predicted shorter and warmer winters in Europe. I guess kids will know what snow is in the future!
Negative AO/NAO episodes drive cold shots to the continents, and they drive sea ice loss through Arctic humidity events, Arctic cyclones, and warm AMO pulses.
Negative AO/NAO has nothing to do with AGW, but everything to do with low solar.
IOW, It IS the Sun, stupid!
Question:
Say you have a bowl of room temperature water and two ice cubes get dropped into it. The ice melts slowly and the water cools down.
Then you start over with the same bowl and water, then chop up two identical ice cubes into 16 pieces, then put them in the bowl. The extra surface area allows for the water to be cooled down quicker, although the ice melted proportionally faster.
End result is the same in final temp of water after all ice melts.
So if the polar ice cap is breaking up on the edges, is it cooling down the surrounding ocean water faster than before, even though the demise of this same ice would be quicker ?
In your analogy the colder water from the ice soon heats to room temperature. However your analogy is backwards from the real world. In the real world the oceans have 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere. There hasn’t been any extra melting in the Arctic in the summer time. The higher temperatures have only occurred in the late winter early spring when temps were still too cold for melting. There is more ice in the Arctic now than at any time in last 4 years. Looking at the Polar Portal map of the Danish Meteorological institute, it shows proof of previous statement plus it shows same thing with sea ice extent. Also since sea ice extent presently covers the complete Kara sea, that can’t possibly have anything to do with any melting. So that leaves the Barents sea north of Norway and Sweden..etc Well since all ice grows until it peaks in March no amount of melting is going on anywhere in the Arctic at the present time. If there was more melting in Barents sea which is much larger than the Kara sea , that melting would have had to occur 6 months ago. The Danish polar portal never showed any abnormal increase of Arctic temperatures last summer. Sea ice extent ebbs and flows. there is always cold ice snow melting every year and the waters of the Barents sea would understandably be colder for a short period of time after the summer melt. However by the time winter set in, in November that cold water would have circulated in the world’s oceans. The amount of the annual melt in Barents sea is so small in comparison to total water volume of Barents sea. Even Wikipedia acknowledge that the Barents sea is the arctic hot spot. So this is not news. However the reason for that is that “The main climate-forming factors are…….. the influence of the warm Atlantic water masses, entering the Barents Sea in the west. ”
To claim that any extra melting of the Barents sea waters 4 months earlier (given the regular warm waters from the Atlantic ) has anything to do with more snow in Eurasia is to stretch a correlation to a causality to the same extent of 1000’s of order of magnitude of trying to stretch a rubber band that would span the globe.
http://www.barentsinfo.org/Contents/Nature/Barents-Sea/Physical-characteristics
Loss of Arctic sea ice will cause a loss of heat from the Arctic Ocean, so I am not surprised there would be descending high pressure cold fronts on to those areas during the winter. Combine that feature with precipitation events, and more snow ensues.
Nothing to do with CAGW though.
Could be to do with toxic warm-spreading
A time frame difference of 6 months later after oceans have had time to circulate the little amount of extra melt water that may have occurred (Danish site info showed no abnormal melting in Barents sea last summer) compared to total amount of ocean in the Barents sea; tells me that precipitation events 1000’s of miles way and 6 months later has absolutely nothing to do with any recent Eurasian storms.
Is there any other discipline where journals can publish articles that forecast forcing X will result in Y (warming), and then a few years later publish articles forecasting that the same forcing will result in the opposite (cooling) without retracting the previous studies.
I mourn the degeneration of the institution which used to be one of the best scientific/engineering schools in the world. Part of the future could be seen in the Atmospheric Physics department in the 1970s when the dept head demonstrated that if you didn’t take his word for gospel you were in deep trouble in the department. Anyone wanting to finish a Doctorate had to kiss the “ring”.
From that point on, anything that got the department more funding was gospel.
But, but, but….. 97% of all scientists believe CAGW is real and even worse than originally predicted, and is no longer even up for further debate or scrutiny…. Not so much…
We’re in an El Niño cycle which usually generates milder winters and less snow, which isn’t happening.
Niño 3.4 SSTs will likely fall below 0.5C next week, marking the beginning of the end of the current El Niño cycle. The current El Niño cycle peaked in October 2018, so given the 4~5 month lag between El Niño temp spikes and lower troposphere temp spikes, UAH 6.0 temp anomalies should start to increase over the next 5 months. If they don’t, it’ll likely mean some other cooling mechanisms are offsetting normal El Niño warming, like: “The Blob” ending, the early stages of 30-year PDO/AMO/NAO ocean cool cycles, and the early stages of a 50-year Grand Solar Minimum event.
Although still very early in the year, Arctic temps are some of the lowest in 10 years, and if this continues, this year’s Arctic Sea Ice Minimum could be one of the highest in 10 years. Oops…
The next 2020/21 La Niña cycle will likely be a strong one (Niño 3.4 SST hitting -1.5C), and if this occurs, UAH 6.0 could fall to -0.3C by 2021, which may even cause a 25-year hiatus to reappear from mid-1996.
It’s also reasonable to expect Arctic Sea Ice Extents to continue increasing once the PDO/AMO/NAO are all in their 30-year cool cycles, the absence of The Blob, and the effects of 50-year Grand Solar Minimum all start a global cooling cycle as they have in the past.
I’m sure there will be many more “hybrid” climate models suggesting Global Warming causes Global Cooling and increases in Arctic Sea Ice, but at some point, even the most ardent CAGW acolyte will have to conclude CAGW is a bust…
The next 3~4 years should become really interesting.
We’re due for strong La Niña
They will blame next ice age on global warming , remember you heard it here first
Well, to be more precise they’ll blame it on “climate change,” the Gumby-like pseudo-theory that can be twisted into a pretzel to explain anything, even diametrically opposed things.
I think it snowed quite a bit back during World War II in Europe, and then there was the Little Ice Age before that and then the Big Ice Age before that. I think it has snowed quite a bit in Europe for a long time. It’s not a recent phenomenon.
Yes. During the last 30-year PDO/AMO/Nao cool cycles (1945~1976), global winters were often brutal and global temperatures fell. The 30-year ocean cool cycles before that (1980~1910) were also brutal and we experienced 30-years of global cooling…
It’s logical to assume that once these 30-year ocean cool cycle return from around 2021, global winters and global cooling will likely occur again.
We’ll see soon enough.
Arctic Ice extent January 15, 2009 to 2019. 13.4 km2, +-0.4 km2*. Essentially identical. This “variation” is thought to be (second only to C02 increasing by 10 ppm, more or less, in the same time frame) controlling the European climate? Label this Realist a Skeptic or even a Denier if you must but I’m not buying it.
*https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Were there big snows in 1935 when Arctic ice was where we are now?
I expect there were heavy snows in 1935 when Arctic ice was like now. Not?
I live in Europe. Our winters have become warmer in my lifetime. If the claim were true, the Glaciers would be growing, they have not. The idea of bringing the complexity of the climate to a simple set of equations is pretty useless, as has been proven numerous times, so why bother?
Barents-Kara sea ice particularly low and a cold blast of arctic air causing 1 in 100 year snowfall in Austria etc. Clearly this paper is bang on the nail!
What data do you have that the lower sea ice extent is due to temperature and not wind? IMO sea ice extent is a worthless metric of warming/cooling because wind can affect it as much as temperature can.
How come Global Warming Fanatics were predicting our children would never see snow?
Children of people who live in lowland England that is.
But dont let that stop you from interpreting Viner’s comment as for current ‘children’ and for the whole Earth.
That would let a good strawman go to waste.
So when are we supposed to believe them.
Should I believe that global warming means kids well never see snow again.
Or should I believe it means kids will be buried in the stuff.
Truth is I can no longer believe anything any “scientist” ever says, unless I can prove it myself.
Switzerland, Bavaria and Austria must be ready for heavy snow.
So hot is the new cold ? Good thing they told us. Now we will de-ice and anti-ice in summer.
*palmface*
Surely one can challenge this by demanding proof that CO2 causes the observed effects?
So what would global cooling do, how many places would get warmer .. less wet less snow and far less severe storms ?.
“In summary, we argue that recent anomalously cold winters may not be triggered by sea ice or SST anomalies alone”
Correct.
The proposed mechanism is more complicated than that …..
https://cyber.sci-hub.tw/MTAuMTAyOS8yMDExZ2wwNDk2MjY=/cohen2011.pdf
Essentially, a more open Arctic ocean in late Autumn and early winter, allows more sensible, latent heat and therefore WV to enter the atmosphere there. Resulting in more snowfall over Siberia at that time. There is seen to be a correlation between a fast expanding Eurasian snowfield during October and the intensity of the Siberian High in early winter …. this leading to a more significant later winter Arctic high. The mechanism here is heat flux into the stratosphere as air is drawn over the Himalayas and diverted over and above to cause a SSW (Sudden Stratospheric Warming event). One such is occurring now and the surface effects are lagged some weeks later, to often (but not always) give rise to v cold Eurasian air to advect east into western Europe. The same mechanism also causes a portion of the Arctic PV to sink into Canada and the eastern US. NWP forecasts bring v cold Eurasian air into the UK during the last week of Jan.
Interesting. But it doesn’t explain the 180 degree pivot from what the “experts” claimed was happening 15 years ago. Remember? No more European ski industry, the end of reindeer, extinction of polar bears, Mediterranean on the North Sea, etc. Have the models changed or just the inputs?
The science of SSWs has come a long way in 15 years, as has Arctic seaice decline.
The warming will still cause the average freezing level to rise and so reliable seasonal snow in the lower alpine ski resorts much more variable on weather rather than climate. BTW. Siberian winds are dry and they give the UK snowfall because of a Lake effect as they cross the North Sea.
The heavy snowfall in Austria and Germany recently was due to an unstable, moist northerly …. not unusual in an average winter – its persistence and it’s moisture content was.
The forecast of the stratospheric polar vortex indicates the inflow of Arctic air to Europe.
Glaciations are cases of extreme global warming.
During periods of very low solar activity, ozone is not pushed out from the polar circle.
Doublethink claim: Global Warming is actually Global Cooling.
Don’t you know that the cold air has to migrate south because it’s too hot at the pole?
I hate to repeat myself, but this ‘science’ is so similar to astrology, in that no matter what happens, believers can show how it was ‘predicted’ – at least after the fact.
Again, if there is no result that can prove CAGW false, then I don’t see how it can be science.
I believe in God… but it is my BELIEF, not science. They really need to change this movement’s name to ‘Climate Religion’, not climate science. It drags down all science.
“Global warming causes colder winters and more snow in Europe”
Of course it does. It causes everything.
“Northern midlatitudes, over central Eurasia in particular, have experienced frequent severe winters in recent decades”
They were more frequent and severe, decades before recent decades.
All this is a sign of a planet reversing roles from warming to cooling. Climate spin has been becoming popular over recent years where what ever just happened, even if not as bad as before is now the new scapegoat.
I remember a winter in Germany in the 1980th when I walked in t-shirt alongside the Havel in Berlin the 24. december. Toda there is some snow,ok. its wintertime in Europe. Nothing new. But in the eyes of the hardcore alarrmist its CAGW- we’re all doomed.
“Correcting this underestimation reconciles the discrepancy between models and observations, leading to the conclusion that ~44% of the central Eurasian cooling trend for 1995–2014 is attributable to sea-ice loss in the Barents–Kara Seas.”
Between 1940’s and 1970’s there was central Eurasian cooling trend and yet there were increases in sea ice in the Barents-Kara Seas. This trend lasted longer than the timeline quoted here.
These both contradict each other so there is a high chance that sea ice change in the Barents-Kara Seas has no influence in Eurasian trends.
What actual global climate parameter has changed during 1994 and 2014 that explains changes in atmospheric pressure systems? With trends compared with the AO and NAO for example showing changes in the polar jet stream.
Solar activity has declined and these out breaks of frequent severe winters in Europe tend to occur more often when there are few or no sun spots for extended periods.
This winter 2018/19 was myself predicted to have one of these events because of the sun’s decline to mostly no sun spot days over recent months before December. (with other teleconnections favourable)
The Barents-Kara Seas was low the year before and year before that and could go on too, but there were no European severe winter episodes back then?
So why did this not occur over previous low sea ice years because there were more active sunspots indicting a more active sun during those years. This helps drive the jet stream in becoming more zonal especially during the northern hemisphere winter. This zonal pattern maintains colder air in the Arctic with Europe avoiding the severe freezes.
SSW’s events occurred more often during the colder winters between the 1950’s and 1970’s in USA/Europe. Warm air has to be moved towards the Arctic to displace the colder air to mid latitudes around the northern hemisphere. This science has been known for decades, but some so called climate scientists think it is something new.
THE ANALYST’S DILEMA:
Knowing more and more about less and less leads ultimately to knowing everything about nothing!
Cheers
Mike