"Bundle up, It's Global warming"

[VAwxman]

I did read the whole article and it seems to flow like:

warming increases water vapor

increased water vapor snows on siberia

albedo effect causes cold air above snow cover

cold air buckles jet

buckled jet dumps arctic air on major cities

This chain of effects makes logical sense to me, but is it really true?

All of this is 100% true. And it is not new. Cohen has been researching this for years and only now is it becoming mainstream, since it has actually been cold and snowy recently. The part I disagree with is not what you have quoted here, but the idea that this is totally unprecedented. The overall climate cycles seem to have shifted back to where they were in the 50s and 60s, though it could be argued that the fact that globally, we are warmer than back then is playing a role.

[VAwxman]

But why is this NOW only being explained to us??? Maybe, just maybe because it is WHAT is happening?? Did the Inconvienient Truth mention harsher winters? Nope. Only a chance that snowy winters were to end.

This on the fly "rule making" by the hypothesis creators/believers is making their hole into a crater, which, at it's base lies quicksand. They can't even admit that their first "thoughts" about how "it" was going to all transpire (shorter, warmer winters) were wrong!! Nope....just readjust their prognostications on a wing and a prayer....throw in some technical wizardry in and hope they can hold their followers, and convince some fence sitters that everything is going according to script.....Pathetic!

Again, to Cohen's credit, he has been on this idea for years. No one would give him an ear until now though.

[VAwxman]

What a silly article. I'm sure AGW has some small effect on snowcover in Siberia and in turn snowcover in Siberia has some small effect on global winter weather patterns, but the article greatly exaggerates both causal links. Their role in winter weather patterns is dwarfed by ENSO, solar, QBO, PDO, AMO, IO etc.

Wrong. Eurasian snow cover's impact on the pattern makes perfect sense as explained in the article. Like any variable, can it be dwarfed by other things? Sure, of course it can. But to say it doesn't have a meaningful impact on the pattern is 100% incorrect.

[BethesdaWX]

Wrong. Eurasian snow cover's impact on the pattern makes perfect sense as explained in the article. Like any variable, can it be dwarfed by other things? Sure, of course it can. But to say it doesn't have a meaningful impact on the pattern is 100% incorrect.

huh? Skier is correct.

The snowcover alone does not affect the global pattern, the snowcover is a side effect. OK....lets say we have a raging +NAO right now....what happens? Remember 1998 & 1999...US blowtorch, with alot of siberian snowcover, that being one example out of alot.

Maybe the last few years have matched up well, but the correlation in the LR is maybe 65-35, that based soley upon what the stratosphere is doing in relation to Solar effect... (low solar = blocking).

Its not all that difficult to debunk this.

[BethesdaWX]

All of this is 100% true. And it is not new. Cohen has been researching this for years and only now is it becoming mainstream, since it has actually been cold and snowy recently. The part I disagree with is not what you have quoted here, but the idea that this is totally unprecedented. The overall climate cycles seem to have shifted back to where they were in the 50s and 60s, though it could be argued that the fact that globally, we are warmer than back then is playing a role.

I'm not sure how you can argue this. The 1950's opened up with a huge several years La Nina....give this thing a chance to become multi year...or wait a few months, and we'll match that no problem.

Please tell me you're not using GISS to base your obs off...

[VAwxman]

huh? Skier is correct.

The snowcover alone does not affect the global pattern, the snowcover is a side effect. OK....lets say we have a raging +NAO right now....what happens? Remember 1998 & 1999...US blowtorch, with alot of siberian snowcover, that being one example out of alot.

Maybe the last few years have matched up well, but the correlation in the LR is maybe 65-35, that based soley upon what the stratosphere is doing in relation to Solar effect... (low solar = blocking).

Its not all that difficult to debunk this.

I said it can be dwarfed by other factors, as can ANY variable, like ENSO itself (see this winter). You can't just randomly grab one year (1998) and claim it is wrong. You can do that with anything in this field if you want to. You know better than this.

As Cohen correctly points out, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, higher snowcover leads to pressure builds and subsequent MT spike and thus an extension of the east Asian jet, amplifying the pattern across the Pacific, which of course has downstream impacts on the U.S. and the Atlantic side as well. This was precisely what led to the "surprise" cold of Jan 2009, as the extension of the east Asian jet actually forced the MJO into phases 7-8 when other factors (SSTs, etc) suggested it would not be able to do. It also played a role last year, helping send us into the cold December pattern, when many, including mets in my field, had dismissed it after the warm November. Everything is tied together of course, so yes, the global indices will modulate the snowcover, just as they do SSTs, etc, but the snowcover can also feedback and modulate the other global indices, again, just like anomalous SSTs can. It's not that hard to see. The dive into more of a -PDO has allowed this to become more clear in recent years, whereas it was masked more before.

[VAwxman]

I'm not sure how you can argue this. The 1950's opened up with a huge several years La Nina....give this thing a chance to become multi year...or wait a few months, and we'll match that no problem.

Please tell me you're not using GISS to base your obs off...

Huh? Now you are just babbling nonsense.

[VAwxman]

I said it can be dwarfed by other factors, as can ANY variable, like ENSO itself (see this winter). You can't just randomly grab one year (1998) and claim it is wrong. You can do that with anything in this field if you want to. You know better than this.

As Cohen correctly points out, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, higher snowcover leads to pressure builds and subsequent MT spike and thus an extension of the east Asian jet, amplifying the pattern across the Pacific, which of course has downstream impacts on the U.S. and the Atlantic side as well. This was precisely what led to the "surprise" cold of Jan 2009, as the extension of the east Asian jet actually forced the MJO into phases 7-8 when other factors (SSTs, etc) suggested it would not be able to do. It also played a role last year, helping send us into the cold December pattern, when many, including mets in my field, had dismissed it after the warm November. Everything is tied together of course, so yes, the global indices will modulate the snowcover, just as they do SSTs, etc, but the snowcover can also feedback and modulate the other global indices, again, just like anomalous SSTs can. It's not that hard to see. The dive into more of a -PDO has allowed this to become more clear in recent years, whereas it was masked more before.

I should have mentioned the low solar as well, as that is also contributing by making the stratosphere more "receptive" (to take wxmx's word) to these waves coming off Eurasia. This year has been the best example so far of this occurring.

And I guess I need a disclaimer here too, since all of you around here love to lump everyone squarely into one "side" or the other... I'm in no way making any claims about AGW... I'm only commenting on what Cohen said and has been saying for years regarding how snowcover can feedback on the pattern.

And Cohen didn't mention "AGW" either, to be fair.

[skierinvermont]

Wrong. Eurasian snow cover's impact on the pattern makes perfect sense as explained in the article. Like any variable, can it be dwarfed by other things? Sure, of course it can. But to say it doesn't have a meaningful impact on the pattern is 100% incorrect.

Read it again.. he greatly exaggerates it IMO. I'm not saying it has no effect..

[VAwxman]

Read it again.. he greatly exaggerates it IMO. I'm not saying it has no effect..

And my opinion is that you underplayed its significance, which is why I replied to you. Declaring the article "silly" is doing exactly that.

He does make it sound like "THE" factor, which yes I think is incorrect. It is very important, but like ENSO, NAO, or anything else, it can be muted.

[BethesdaWX]

I said it can be dwarfed by other factors, as can ANY variable, like ENSO itself (see this winter). You can't just randomly grab one year (1998) and claim it is wrong. You can do that with anything in this field if you want to. You know better than this.

As Cohen correctly points out, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, higher snowcover leads to pressure builds and subsequent MT spike and thus an extension of the east Asian jet, amplifying the pattern across the Pacific, which of course has downstream impacts on the U.S. and the Atlantic side as well. This was precisely what led to the "surprise" cold of Jan 2009, as the extension of the east Asian jet actually forced the MJO into phases 7-8 when other factors (SSTs, etc) suggested it would not be able to do. It also played a role last year, helping send us into the cold December pattern, when many, including mets in my field, had dismissed it after the warm November. Everything is tied together of course, so yes, the global indices will modulate the snowcover, just as they do SSTs, etc, but the snowcover can also feedback and modulate the other global indices, again, just like anomalous SSTs can. It's not that hard to see. The dive into more of a -PDO has allowed this to become more clear in recent years, whereas it was masked more before.

You're overblowing this like a nutjob. The snowcover in Siberia cannot drive a largescale pattern. You're telling me that the Snowcover is the CAUSE of the pattern that put it there in the first place? And that its the siberian snowcover that creates the -NAO & thus the cold Eastern US & Europe? I suppose the stratospheric warming event we're seeing now is a result of the high snowcover, right?

The snowcover would be more of an effect of a pattern, & act as an enhancer, rather than a cause for large scale devation.

[VAwxman]

You're overblowing this like a nutjob. The snowcover in Siberia cannot drive a largescale pattern. You're telling me that the Snowcover is the CAUSE of the pattern that put it there in the first place? And that its the siberian snowcover that creates the -NAO & thus the cold Eastern US & Europe? I suppose the stratospheric warming event we're seeing now is a result of the high snowcover, right?

The snowcover would be more of an effect of a pattern, & act as an enhancer, rather than a cause for large scale devation.

LOL you need to learn some basics. EVERYTHING is the result of something else. The PDO / ENSO / NAO... all of these are simply reacting to what drives them (sometimes they drive each other... all depends on the feedback). They are not an entity which just does it's own thing. Same goes for snowcover. It is no different from using SSTs as a pattern driver. Until you learn some basic physics, we're done. I forecast for a living, and have used all of these factors, many times successfully. You do not. There is no use debating someone who simply doesn't have a grasp of what is going on.

[Vandy]

LOL you need to learn some basics. EVERYTHING is the result of something else. The PDO / ENSO / NAO... all of these are simply reacting to what drives them (sometimes they drive each other... all depends on the feedback). They are not an entity which just does it's own thing. Same goes for snowcover. It is no different from using SSTs as a pattern driver.

No doubt about it. There are hundreds if not thousands of published articles out there dealing with land surface modifications of weather patterns. To ignore the boundary layer because it is small compared to the free troposphere is pure folly if you are looking to do anything beyond simple QG forecasts.

[nzucker]

No doubt about it. There are hundreds if not thousands of published articles out there dealing with land surface modifications of weather patterns. To ignore the boundary layer because it is small compared to the free troposphere is pure folly if you are looking to do anything beyond simple QG forecasts.

Yes agreed, more Eurasian snowcover in October does tend to correlate to a -NAO/-AO....but going back to the original point, the NY Times did oversimplify the Siberian snow cover relationship to the NAO/AO as well as how is it affected by global temperatures. I think I have to agree with Bethesda on this one. Most people believe the increased Siberian snow cover is a small part of why the major cities of the mid-latitudes have been colder/snowier lately, and that it is forced by factors other than the global temperature such as the PDO cycle.

[Vandy]

Yes agreed, more Eurasian snowcover in October does tend to correlate to a -NAO/-AO....but going back to the original point, the NY Times did oversimplify the Siberian snow cover relationship to the NAO/AO as well as how is it affected by global temperatures. I think I have to agree with Bethesda on this one. Most people believe the increased Siberian snow cover is a small part of why the major cities of the mid-latitudes have been colder/snowier lately, and that it is forced by factors other than the global temperature such as the PDO cycle.

I agree that it's more complex than simply land forcing -> cooling temps, but I don't think VA was ever arguing that. Bethesda might have had a point if he hadn't gone for the surface can't force patterns angle, which just isn't true. It, in concert with other forcings, certainly can and does.

[VAwxman]

I agree that it's more complex than simply land forcing -> cooling temps, but I don't think VA was ever arguing that. Bethesda might have had a point if he hadn't gone for the surface can't force patterns angle, which just isn't true. It, in concert with other forcings, certainly can and does.

Exactly. I only argued forcefully because many here were dismissing Cohen's research as silly, which is a bad move since a lot of what he says is correct. Now, did he oversimplify? Sure, I think so. And I tried to lay that out when mentioning how things like the current PDO phase and solar cycle are making the atmosphere more receptive to the snowcover now versus some other years mentioned.

[roardog]

The next few years will be real interesting to see where we go with global temp, weather patterns, etc.

[BethesdaWX]

LOL you need to learn some basics. EVERYTHING is the result of something else. The PDO / ENSO / NAO... all of these are simply reacting to what drives them (sometimes they drive each other... all depends on the feedback). They are not an entity which just does it's own thing. Same goes for snowcover. It is no different from using SSTs as a pattern driver. Until you learn some basic physics, we're done. I forecast for a living, and have used all of these factors, many times successfully. You do not. There is no use debating someone who simply doesn't have a grasp of what is going on.

Thats kinda the point here archy. SST's such as PDO, AMO, even ENSO to an extent, are drivers that are driven. When a pattern supports higher snowcover, what do you think will happen?

A -NAO has many causes. You cannot link snowcover as a dominant cause for a miriad of effects in the stratosphere that run the show at higher lattitudes. I never argued that it doesn't have SOME effect in the LT, but theres alot more to it than snowcover.

The entire longwave global pattern will not be completely altered snowcover in siberia...............Its Covered in snow EVERY winter regardless, it may play a role, but its definitely not a driver.

[skierinvermont]

And my opinion is that you underplayed its significance, which is why I replied to you. Declaring the article "silly" is doing exactly that.

He does make it sound like "THE" factor, which yes I think is incorrect. It is very important, but like ENSO, NAO, or anything else, it can be muted.

That's all I was saying. It makes it sound like THE factor, which I think is silly.

Also, the article is not just saying Siberia snowcover influences blocking, the article is saying AGW is increasing snowcover which is increasing blocking.

Given AGW has a very limited effect on snowcover, and snowcover in turn is only one of many factors influencing blocking, the effect of AGW on blocking via snowcover is negligible. Of course, AGW could influence blocking in other ways.

If it had just said, snowcover is a major factor in determining blocking, that would be fine. Instead they try to work AGW in there.

Look at these quotes:

The not-so-obvious short answer is that the overall warming of the atmosphere is actually creating cold-weather extremes.

He's saying overall warming ---> more snowfall ---> more blocking ---> more cold

Each link in the chain weakens the total effect, especially the first link which is very weak.

[skierinvermont]

Thats kinda the point here archy. SST's such as PDO, AMO, even ENSO to an extent, are drivers that are driven. When a pattern supports higher snowcover, what do you think will happen?

A -NAO has many causes. You cannot link snowcover as a dominant cause for a miriad of effects in the stratosphere that run the show at higher lattitudes. I never argued that it doesn't have SOME effect in the LT, but theres alot more to it than snowcover.

The entire longwave global pattern will not be completely altered snowcover in siberia...............Its Covered in snow EVERY winter regardless, it may play a role, but its definitely not a driver.

I'm going to take an experienced meteorlogist and the peer-reviewed papers which have been posted on this forum on Eurasian snowcover over your ramblings. Eurasian snowcover is one of several major drivers of the NAO.

[BethesdaWX]

I'm going to take an experienced meteorlogist and the peer-reviewed papers which have been posted on this forum on Eurasian snowcover over your ramblings. Eurasian snowcover is one of several major drivers of the NAO.

And the NAO is also a driver of the snowcover.......its all interconnected, and the Solar Influence on the -NAO is alot higher than that of the snowcover......no way the global pattern is thrown off due to an area of snow, let alone a major stratospheric warming event.

You realize there is always snowcover up there regardless, right? Can it enhance certain patterning tendancies? Yes, but its no match to overwhelm ENSO/PDO/AMO/Solar. Its more of an effect in the formentioned

[nzucker]

And the NAO is also a driver of the snowcover.......its all interconnected, and the Solar Influence on the -NAO is alot higher than that of the snowcover......no way the global pattern is thrown off due to an area of snow, let alone a major stratospheric warming event.

You realize there is always snowcover up there regardless, right? Can it enhance certain patterning tendancies? Yes, but its no match to overwhelm ENSO/PDO/AMO/Solar. Its more of an effect in the formentioned

You sort of get into a chicken/egg scenario here because having a -AO/-NAO pattern in general makes for more Siberian snow cover in autumn, which reinforces the -NAO/-AO pattern the following winter. Siberian snow cover does affect propagating waves into the atmosphere, which means it is definitely a legitimate source of variation in the winter AO/NAO state due to the changes in radiation escaping the surface from having a widespread snow cover versus bare ground. BUT, I think most would agree it's a small factor in determining the AO/NAO during a specific year; thus, the New York Times article is oversimplifying the issue in order to create, once again, the impression that climate change is progressing as most of the authorities imagined.

[BethesdaWX]

You sort of get into a chicken/egg scenario here because having a -AO/-NAO pattern in general makes for more Siberian snow cover in autumn, which reinforces the -NAO/-AO pattern the following winter. Siberian snow cover does affect propagating waves into the atmosphere, which means it is definitely a legitimate source of variation in the winter AO/NAO state due to the changes in radiation escaping the surface from having a widespread snow cover versus bare ground. BUT, I think most would agree it's a small factor in determining the AO/NAO during a specific year; thus, the New York Times article is oversimplifying the issue in order to create, once again, the impression that climate change is progressing as most of the authorities imagined.

+1

I agree. My point was that they all intercorrelate, so basing an entire model off siberian snowcover alone will get you burned since other factors have a stronger correlation to HLB besides snowcover.

I also disagree with the statement that the melting sea Ice is the cause for the higher snowcover...Though I never argued that it doesn't enhance blocking

[nzucker]

+1

I agree. My point was that they all intercorrelate, so basing an entire model off siberian snowcover alone will get you burned since other factors have a stronger correlation to HLB besides snowcover.

I also disagree with the statement that the melting sea Ice is the cause for the higher snowcover...Though I never argued that it doesn't enhance blocking

A lot of snow cover anomalies are related to the PDO, and that's one aspect of the discussion the NY Times really ignored in favor of the anthropogenic theory.

[skierinvermont]

A lot of snow cover anomalies are related to the PDO, and that's one aspect of the discussion the NY Times really ignored in favor of the anthropogenic theory.

link? I see no correlation between fall Eurasian snowcover and the PDO.

[bombogenesis]

LOL you need to learn some basics. EVERYTHING is the result of something else. The PDO / ENSO / NAO... all of these are simply reacting to what drives them (sometimes they drive each other... all depends on the feedback). They are not an entity which just does it's own thing. Same goes for snowcover. It is no different from using SSTs as a pattern driver. Until you learn some basic physics, we're done. I forecast for a living, and have used all of these factors, many times successfully. You do not. There is no use debating someone who simply doesn't have a grasp of what is going on.

Care to explain the physics, equations included, of how the Siberian snow cover in the fall is leading to the higher heights in the arctic? I have simple explanation: it's called higher thicknesses and heights are due to the warmer troposphere which can be explained easily by the hypsometric equation. No solar influence or QBO explanation involved.

[nzucker]

link? I see no correlation between fall Eurasian snowcover and the PDO.

Can you pull up global snow cover data, and data for October?

This isn't my argument, I remember some mets mentioning it. Maybe they were incorrect.

[BethesdaWX]

Can you pull up global snow cover data, and data for October?

This isn't my argument, I remember some mets mentioning it. Maybe they were incorrect.

Wasn't me, but my original point still stands

[nzucker]

Wasn't me, but my original point still stands

I very much agree with your argument, Bethesda, that the NY Times article is once again "resetting the goalposts" about the influence of AGW on winter patterns and society. However, I think you do have to be careful not to make absolute statements such as "The Siberian snow cover can't affect the AO/NAO" without investigating the meteorology behind such a phenomenon, as you don't want to oversimplify matters given how complex the atmosphere's interactions are. Here is a good paper:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015%3C3488:ALEMSO%3E2.0.CO;2

(Gong, Entekahbi, Cohen 2001)

Cohen was involved in this paper and it's a good read for sure, although using its conclusions as a basis for making colder/snowier winters compatible with the theory of accelerating AGW is questionable science at best. We were just told several years ago that AGW's principal effect would be on the winter, making it shorter and less severe, so this definitely represents a reversal of the concept without suitable acknowledgment. Also, not discussing fully the most powerful solar minimum in 200 years, given the evidence of what winters were like in N. America and Europe during the Dalton/Maunder, is just inexcusable. They should know better.

[Vandy]

The AGW slant in this article, as pointed out by others, is indeed lazy journalism. At best, you could make the claim that a warming climate could affect these weather patterns. But to act like it is a definitive cause is bad science. Probably was written that way because it makes it easier to get published in the NYT.