For those lucky enough to have completely ignored all climate related threads, and especially the one in the Pit, and actually don’t know what Cohen et al is about, it’s simple enough.
I’ve only mentioned it like three dozen times so far. And wolfpup knows exactly what I mean, we argued about it at length before.
Their theory is in essence, “the increasingly colder boreal winters, with increasing snowfall, can not be explained as natural variability, but are caused by the low arctic sea ice levels, leading to early and heavy snowfall, leading to changes in the circumpolar vortex, so that the trend of colder boreal winters is an unexpected feedback from global warming”.
If this is true, then the winters are going to continue to get “worse”, as in more extreme cold, more snow, and that is an ugly scenario for global warming.
If they are correct, and global warming is actually the cause, then we can expect the trend to continue. As the arctic continues to warm, the boreal winters will get worse, that term of course meaning “worse for the majority of the world that lives where the boreal winters matter”.
As an added ironic bitch slap in the face, this will mean demand for fossil fuels for heating will increase.
And this demonstrates that the concept of asymmetry has not been grasped.
It is still a short time span comparatively speaking but this cold in the north east seems to be a result of the warming elsewhere; the vortex is then, thanks to the changed jet stream, moving a bit south and moving cold air that normally should had stayed in the north pole to do a number on the north east.
While at the same time the west and even Alaska get warmer.
Humorous, since I introduced the concept of asymmetric change, when your objections to the very idea of colder boreal winters first arose. You denied it was happening, remember?
While the alarmists will deny deny deny, the 15 year trend shows the problem with “well at least Alaska is still warming”.
The twenty year trend does as well. Hell, Cohen et al used 1988-2010, and found a clear trend.
Why is any of this on topic? The new head of GISS climate knows. He is even an author of the research.
And certainly if the last 15 years showed a warming trend for NH winters, that would be shoved down the collective throat of the world as proof of global warming.
Since it didn’t keep warming, not the cooling is proof of global warming.
Can not know everything, but I can learn; and no, it is not just me, but the scientists who reported this. It was not your idea.
That is because the warming of the pole is also included, last time I checked the North pole regions are still the northern hemisphere. And Dyson is still under the bus. And in the end Gavin Schmidt is not a nobody regardless of your accusations, his peers decided he was the one needed to lead GISS, not you.
Nothing can refute the fact that there are more seasons than just winter, and in more places than the north east.
Thanks for putting Cohen at al in your own words so we can examine it critically. And clearly, you’re either getting your information from denialist blogs and haven’t read any of the literature, or you didn’t understand the first thing about it. I hardly even know where to begin.
Let’s look at this wonderful quote from you, which I mentioned when I asked you (twice) to explain how Cohen at al support this: “If the thirty year trend (in 5 years time) shows a continued cooling, then there is going to be some real concern, not because the theory was so wrong, but over what, if anything, we can do about it.”
This encapsulates wonderfully your laughably ridiculous claims – in many posts over many recent months – that (a) the earth has been cooling, not warming, for decades, (b) we’re heading into some kind of catastrophic global deep freeze, and that (c) therefore global warming theory is now conclusively proven “wrong”. Where does Cohen say anything like that? Where does he say anything even remotely like the bolded quote above?
This also encapsulates perfectly your unwillingness or inability to engage in an intellectually honest discussion about this topic. Here’s what Cohen is actually saying: he’s confirming the magnitude and continued progression of global warming, he’s confirming the magnitude and continued progression of Arctic amplification just as predicted by theory, and he’s hypothesizing possible causes for recent short-term NH mid-latitude winter cooling in some regions, as a refinement to models to try to provide a better understanding of regional climate variations.
As Cohen points out in his latest (2014) paper, long-term mid-latitude winter temperatures are consistent with warmer-winter projections, while some of the shorter-term ones are not, and are sensitive to timeframes, spatial extent, and the effects of natural variability. There is no consensus at all on what, if any, systemic processes may be affecting NH winter temperatures, and indeed Cohen himself is quick to point out (this is a direct quote) “evidence demonstrating no robust statistical or dynamical link between Arctic amplification and mid-latitude climate variability has also been presented”. But it’s important from a knowledge-advancement perspective to establish whether such systemic processes may exist, or else to conclusively rule them out; as Cohen says in summing up, “More and better observations (for example, of ocean–ice–atmosphere energy exchange, cloud cover and troposphere–stratosphere coupling) would not only improve our understanding of the Arctic and its climate, but also help to elucidate the mechanisms of atmospheric response to Arctic amplification and better constrain the models.”
It’s also important to note, as already said above, the regional and temporal variability of winter temperatures. Many of us think of last winter as being an unusually cold one, for example, but that’s because many of us live in east-central North America where it was. In most of the rest of the Northern Hemisphere, however, including practically the whole of Europe and Asia, winter temperatures were far above normal.
Furthermore, not only are we talking about uncertain short-term effects that, if they exist at all, only affect particular areas at particular times, but we’re also talking about effects that are brought on by generally rapid warming and a strong increase in the earth’s net energy balance, so while extreme weather will be a continuing problem, regional cooling phenomena are likely to be self-limiting. As Cohen said recently,
In short, Cohen is NOT saying any of the things you claimed he said, and it’s not useful or productive to put ridiculous ass-backwards interpretations on this kind of normal incremental research, and couple it with the worst kind of unscientific hyperbole to try to make some unscientific lunatic point.
While you didn’t provide the source (very poor form that), it’s easy enough to find, since it only appears in one web page.
Looking at it in context, always a good idea, it’s quite interesting. The question is straight forward.
In essence, he is talking about the obvious problem. If winters warm, it’s AGW, if they cool, it’s AGW
So in an obvious blunder, he stated winters were getting warmer, and that trend would continue. He was, and still is, wrong about that.
Can’t blame anyone, because at the time, who could have guessed what would happen? Certainly the previous few winters were handwaved away as “chance”, natural variation, all kinds of excuses.
But the trend continued. It’s super ironic that when he wrote that, Dec 2010, the NH was receiving what was at the time, the most snow ever recorded. (that record has since been shattered)
He also couldn’t have know Dec 2010 would shatter other records for cold. Or that 2014 would be so much worse.
Remember that in Apr. 23, 2001 Gavin boldy proclaimed
Warming boreal winters are a prime prediction of the theory. The feedbacks from the warming arctic, and boreal winters is a key feedback mechanism to produce even warmer winters.
So we see both a denial it’s happening, as well as efforts to now say it is a prediction of global warming. Because global warming can have it both ways.
Note how the NH cold was so cold, the global land mean was actually - 0.2 C below the 1980-2010 average. This doesn’t actually show just how unusually cold the hard hit areas were.
The 15 year trend shows just how much colder large portions of the NH have become, in the dead of winter.
December 2010 (when gavin responded on the blog) was the coldest December in 30 years, for the NH land temperatures. The trend is still showing cooling.
And Gavin Schmith is referring to the average and trend, not just the north west and the recent years.
Indeed, And that is because FXMatermind will never find any quote from a scientist at NASA/GISS (or any other scientific organizations) supporting his cherry pick.
No, the “problem” is only in your fantasies. It works like this: if the planet is warming, it’s global warming. By definition of “global” and “warming”. If it’s conclusively due to anthropogenic carbon emissions, it’s anthropogenic global warming. By definition of “anthropogenic”.
No blunder. He said exactly the same thing as I quoted your buddy Cohen saying in the post that you completely ignored: “… there is no doubt that the globe is getting warmer and this will favour warmer temperatures in all seasons and in all locations.” The key is “on average” and “over the long term”. But keep ignoring the facts.
Maybe instead of attacking Gavin – and ignoring the facts – you should try addressing the long preceding post where I provided actual substantive information, and which demonstrated your completely inept misrepresentation of Cohen’s work in which you pretty much got it exactly backwards. I quoted Gavin just to show how common these misrepresentations are among those who either don’t understand the science or have some vested interest in distorting it. Given the current conversation, it was a very relevant observation.
And there you have another example of what the consensus science said. Greenhouse forcing produces warmer NH winters, this is a prediction of the greenhouse theory.
Once again, warmer winters. Not colder winters, with increased snow and ice.
And there is the view of what warming causes. An increase in the winds, the polar vortex. Which causes warmer winters.
Unless you missed it, last winter, when the bottom fell out of the temperatures, weaker winds, a weaker polar vortex, was blamed for it being so fucking cold. Weak winds allowed the cold to “spill out of the arctic”, but global warming was blamed for the weaker winds, which once more brings us to the essential problem.
If the winter had been warm, warmer, that would also be attributed to global warming. The problem is a little more than obvious. If you claim “the science is settled”, and it’s all agreed on, and the consensus is right, and anybody who questions anything is some kind of “science denier”, you just might miss out on some serious shit going down.
Like how the consensus can attribute both warmer winters, and colder winters, to global warming.
But unlike the Orwellian world, there is no memory hole to make the past go away.
And they are not ignored, it does not deny at all that globally that is not the case, and unlike you the scientists do not wilfully ignore the other seasons.
So how is the quest for any scientist that supports your cherry pick?
Your fallacy is that you think I attributed my commentary to Cohen, which I certainly did not. Would not. I said if his theory is correct, if the warming is actually causing the colder winter trend, the increase in snow, then we could be in for some serious trouble.
If the trend continues, NH winters will be approaching the nightmare of the sixties, or worse, the seventies, when winters became seriously fucking bad. Not everywhere of course, but places that actually matter to our civilized world.
Hell, Chicago just had the coldest four month period (Dec-March) ever on record. Ever.
If it was isolated, it could be shrugged off, shit happens. But when you look at the trend, and see it was not unexpected, not unusual considering the long term trend, that means something. It’s not a global problem, the winter trends are not like that everywhere of course. But for where it is showing up clearly, denial is not a good idea.
Lest you forget, in the closed and locked topic I clearly showed using GISS data that the other seasons, mostly, are still warming. That there has been no global cooling for most of the year, but that the winter trend is so fucking much colder, it actually is the cause of the flat line, or slight cooling trend, for the annual values. Globally.
I’m pretty sure you are misunderstanding. Cohen et al 2012, 2013 and 2014 are the source of the theoretical mechanism, that might explain why a warming arctic, and reduced arctic sea ice, might be the cause of the widespread boreal cooling trend.
It’s my contention that if they are right, and the arctic warming is actually causing changes to the circumpolar winds, and leading to cooling winter trends, then since the warming is continuing, the winter trend might continue.
If that is the case, the NH could be facing a continued trend of more destructive and costly winter weather. In essence, if this is true, then global warming is causing dangerous climate change, and it’s happening now.
In regards to this topic, this means that global warming is true if winters get warmer, with less snow and more rain. And global warming is true if it means colder winters, with more snow.
This is not some sarcastic poke at climate science, it’s actually what is being put forth, probably by the idiot press. Since no climate scientist would ever propose global warming is making it colder in the winter.
Let me repeat: I put some effort into describing, in post #325, what Cohen was saying – and significantly, what he was NOT saying – in his papers of the last several years, and provided some quotes from the latest paper and some of his recent informal public comments. There has been no response from you to the substance of that post. You keep telling us how it’s a “problem” that AGW can simultaneously be producing both colder and warmer winters. It’s not. AGW produces all kinds of circulation changes, some more predictable than others, on various timescales and regional extents. Those interested in science follow the data where it leads. Those interested in something else get up on their soapboxes, distort and cherry-pick the data, and pontificate.
Cohen is more of a seasonal meteorologist than a climate scientist, but since he’s a good enough investigator and since he’s apparently your hero for some reason, I addressed the substance of his research. The anomalies in NH winter temperatures are at this point short-term and inconsistent regional effects that may or may not be natural variability. AGW always has and always will produce a massive complex of regional and microclimate changes, some of which are important and some not; some of which are random and some of which may be systemic; some of which are predictable but many of which are not. These are usually driven by ocean and atmosphere circulation changes over a wide variety of spatial and temporal timeframes, and their prediction is a tremendous challenge on the boundary between climate and weather, requiring finer levels of granularity in circulation models than we generally have today, with the worst complexities of both. But, contrary to your hysteria, none of it has any bearing on the reality or the basic theory of AGW or its macroscopic predictions. Science is constantly seeking to improve the accuracy of its predictions. What you seem to be interested in is something else.
Your hysterically hyperbolic misrepresentation of Cohen’s work and refusal or inability to respond to Cohen’s own statements is typical of someone whose attacks on climate science included the duly noted series of cherry-picked temperature maps, and among other wonders the humorously priceless claim that water vapor couldn’t possibly be a climate feedback (because otherwise it would go on forever), and those things certainly put your scientific bona fides into serious question.
I’m not trying to be either insulting or dismissive. Deal with the facts and I’ll be happy to discuss them on an objective level. I haven’t seen much of that from you. I’ve seen things like those noted above, or references to Cohen 2012, 2014, with sarcastic implications that I don’t know even know who Cohen is, and then attempts to represent his research as some kind of prediction of an apocalyptic ice age and the demise of “global warming theory”. Cut the crap and maybe we can have a real discussion.
So far you haven’t countered what I said. The theory of AGW is the topic. I’ve repeated the same point multiple times.
You avoid it. I mention Cohen et al to introduce a new idea, as well as a scientific basis for the cooling boreal winter trend,
He plainly says that global warming theory does no predict colder winters. Nor does it explain them. Which is why it’s so interesting.
It seems like you are hedging, avoiding the issue. If winters were still showing a clear warming trend, like Gavin talked about in 1999, and 2001, and what the models predicted, you would claim it means the theory is sound.
If instead we see boreal winters trending colder, you would claim that is also global warming.
There is the essence of this topic. Avoid it all you want. It will still be the essence of the topic.
You are making a logic error. AGW is a theory, it isn’t causing anything. What you mean is the enhanced greenhouse effect, which predicts warming winters, in your view can make boreal winters warmer, or colder, but you can’t say which is will do.
That essential point is what you are avoiding. Just saying “it’s not a problem” isn’t an argument. The feedback from warming winters, in the high latitudes, is a key mechanism for global warming. This feedback leads to even more warming, one of the main reasons a small increase from rising CO2 levels is supposed to cause a lot of warming.
If it is causing colder boreal winters (Cohen et al etc etc), something by no means settled, then the theory is wrong. Or part of the theory is.
This does not mean CO2 or greenhouse warming will stop, doesn’t exist, or doesn’t matter. It just means a key assumption about the consequences may be wrong.
