chrisf97212

When the Arctic becomes ice free, can we expect Summer bombogenesis events?

If there's one thing to be worried about, in my opinion, it's the relative dampening of the equator-to-pole thermal gradient. This is what drives keeps the circulatory network stabilized (Hadley/Ferrel/Polar). The paleoclimate data suggests that before we entered the Pleistocene era, the NH was dominated by a single Hadley cell for the majority of the solar year. A broad Hadley Cell is a weak Hadley Cell, so tropical convection and wind speeds are significantly reduced in this scenario (we can already easily this in modern day observations, including ENSO).

 

How much dampening are you talking about?  Any ideas on what the CO2-Hadley Cell link would be?

I don't take lectures from an incompetent moderator.

That's out of line.

Now I'm even more confused....
 
It was just a few years ago that strong trades were blamed for the hiatus, as they transported surface heat down below.  Now weaker winds are also causing the ocean to warm, via less mixing and evaporating.  By the way, how long does it take heat to transport down 700 meters?  It seems like the top 50 meters would be a much better way to measure how much heat the ocean is taking up.
 
As long as I'm asking questions that no one will answer...
Weren't the higher SST's supposed to be caused by broad Hadley cells and reduced cloud coverage?

There are 3886 free drifting floats around the world.  The oceans are 139 millions square miles.  This gives us a float on average of every 35,000 square miles.  Is there also satellite data to measure SST?

That's how "Mother Earth" expels heat....

I would expect the UAH numbers to start increasing.  Kind of suprised they haven't shown more of a bump.

No, the PDO thing. We will never have a -PDO again. From now on land will be playing 'catch-up' with the ocean (thanks hiatus).

 

Point taken nflwxman. I am a skeptic on the other side of the spectrum.

You need to re-read the definition of -PDO.

Why should I listen to people who can't even read a graph? Everyone here is in denial. Same old crew coming to back up the so-called 'go-to' source on these forums.

 

and the constant stream of belligerence and small talk. This is not a scientific forum.

Weren't you the one quoting the Unabomber?

We'd have to see a noticeable cooling by 2017-2018 or so because by that point, we'd be more than 3 years beyond the weak solar max we had in cycle 24. It's been argued by some that the weak solar maxes are more important than the mins during decreased acitivty...so you can pretty much discard the theory if by 2018 the effects of the weak max and subsequent min have not been felt to a significant degree. I'm fairly skeptical though on it having a large impact. We may see a muted effect like we did from 2008-2012...we'll find out soon enough.

I'd give it the same amount of time as is given CMIP to verify.  Personally I suspect weak solar and aerosols are masking CO2 warming.

Before you dismiss his findings you should read his papers to see whether you agree with his methodology - there are a number of proxies for glacial extent, such as terminal morraines and sediment cores.  Also, annual layer thickness in ice cores can give an indication of snow accumulation - at least for recent decades where compression hasn't obscured the annual record.

I don't remember the thread, but Sokolov posted a nice description of how glacier movement and retreat can be understood through rock deposits.

What happened to Tacoman?  Haven't seen him around here in a while.  

He's been posting on theweatherforums a lot.  I'm not sure why he quit posting here.  Betheseda is also there.

There is a relevant post on ClimateCrocks today, which includes this excerpt from a Dr Michael Mann column in the Washington Post:

 

You could treat this as ordinary weather, or, you could think about it in a climate context. Counter-intuitive though it may sound, the fact remains that — as I have noted previously — some kinds of winter precipitationcould indeed be more intense because we’re in a warming world.

Consider, for instance, that sea surface temperatures off the coast of New England are flashing red, showing an extreme warm anomaly. That’s highly relevant — because warmer oceans have atmospheric consequences.

“Sea surface temperatures off the coast of New England right now are at record levels, 11.5C (21F) warmer than normal in some locations,” says Penn State climate researcher Michael Mann. “There is [a] direct relationship between the surface warmth of the ocean and the amount of moisture in the air. What that means is that this storm will be feeding off these very warm seas, producing very large amounts of snow as spiraling winds of the storm squeeze that moisture out of the air, cool, it, and deposit it as snow inland.”

Warmer oceans also increase the temperature contrasts that winter storms encounter when they hit the East Coast, notes Mann — and this ups their strength.

“Heavy snows mean the temperature is just below freezing, any cooler and the amount would be a lot less,” adds Kevin Trenberth, a climate expert at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “Warmer waters off the coast help elevate winter temperatures and contribute to the greater snow amounts. This is how global warming plays a role.”

 

It is axiomatic that weather occurs under the climatic conditions of the moment - and AGW has changed some important climatic parameters including global temperatures, SSTs, and atmospheric water vapor.  Because of AGW related changes to climatic conditions, every bit to today's weather, good or bad, mild or extreme, is influenced to some degree by AGW.  So IMO the question of whether to attribute weather events to AGW should be reframed as: how much influence does AGW have on weather, and how is this influence projected to change as we continue to dump gigatons of GHGs into the Earth's atmosphere?

I'd think the atmosphere/SST delta T would be the larger factor.