Jump to content

Global Warming in the Pacific NW Banter Thread


Jesse

Recommended Posts

2007-08 is my least favorite winter here. Enough 33-35 degree rain or snow for a lifetime.

That winter just underscored how much our climate had warmed to that point. A winter like that 40-50 years ago would have had multiple wet snow events for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That winter just underscored how much our climate had warmed to that point. A winter like that 40-50 years ago would have had multiple wet snow events for everyone.

 

There were multiple wet snow events most places. Pretty decent event early December for much of western WA, a big January snowstorm for Eugene, and March and even April lowland snow events. Let's not ignore what actually happened.

 

The April event brought close to 6" to the Everett area, and was basically unprecedented for that late in the season.

A forum for the end of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That winter just underscored how much our climate had warmed to that point. A winter like that 40-50 years ago would have had multiple wet snow events for everyone.

 

 

Pretty hard to say. Years like 1965-66 were pretty similar for the lowlands, although better. We certainly did use to see much more dynamic onshore flow driven snow setups around here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty hard to say. Years like 1965-66 were pretty similar for the lowlands, although better. We certainly did use to see much more dynamic onshore flow driven snow setups around here.

Absolutely. Their gradual demise has been largely responsible for some of the big drop offs in average snowfall for lots of lowland locations. Cold, offshore flow related snow events are generally well below freezing regardless and thus haven't suffered quite as much. The marginal, onshore flow based stuff is a canary in the coal mine, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely. Their gradual demise has been largely responsible for some of the big drop offs in average snowfall for lots of lowland locations. Cold, offshore flow related snow events are generally well below freezing regardless and thus haven't suffered quite as much. The marginal, onshore flow based stuff is a canary in the coal mine, though.

 

Of course if you go far enough back in the climate timeline you also find some pretty incredible offshore flow induced snow  events that we don't seem to currently capable of mimicking to a great extent. December 9-10, 1919 being an example, the Portland area generally had 18-24" of snow with a strong low pressure system immediately behind an arctic front. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely. Their gradual demise has been largely responsible for some of the big drop offs in average snowfall for lots of lowland locations. Cold, offshore flow related snow events are generally well below freezing regardless and thus haven't suffered quite as much. The marginal, onshore flow based stuff is a canary in the coal mine, though.

Warming temperatures are only part of the equation. Everything from the drought in the SW, to the northward migration of the +AAM belts, to the tightening of the PV can be attributed to a continuous broadening and poleward migration of the Hadley Cells (globally) since the 1970s. All of the climatological mainstays have shifted north.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Warming temperatures are only part of the equation. Everything from the drought in the SW, to the northward migration of the +AAM belts, to the tightening of the PV can be attributed to a continuous broadening and poleward migration of the Hadley Cells (globally) since the 1970s. All of the climatological mainstays have shifted north.

This much is strikingly obvious. I have been following the weather long enough now that this gradual northward shift has become apparent in almost every situation. And what effect that has in relation to our long term average is what tells the story. That is why I track departures so closely. I am a math person so following that aspect makes the most sense to me. What in the past would have been near normal patterns are now a few degrees above normal, well below normal patterns are now moderately below normal, etc, etc.

 

My question is, how do you know a warming globe is not in and of itself responsible for shifting the Hadley cells? Seems like a chicken or an egg type thing. But considering the vast majority of climate scientists seem to agree that greenhouse gases are responsible for the lion's share of warming in recent decades I can't see the logic in siding against them, unless some sort of groundbreaking revelation is made proving otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same thing is true with months like September and January. Even October to some extent. Those months are true "indicator" months whose averages are most susceptible to being shifted by a warming climate, locally. Canaries in the coal mine.

 

The case with January, in my opinion, is that we have essentially lost an entire phase of our winter season that was somewhat marginal to begin with. A "heart" of winter that was generally dominated by continental airmasses with the polar jet spending more time, on average, further south into Oregon or even in California. We were always on the edge with that part (at least for the past century, further back into the LIA it was likely much more dominant) and now in the last 30 years it has been all but lost. Hence the massive rise in January averages since the early-mid 80s. December and February have been less vulnerable due to the fact that they have, at least in our period of record, always been more shoulder seasons anyway. Although even they have seen slight warming. But January has taken a huge blow, because the predominant mid-winter pattern that used to fill one in every two or three Januaries has all but gone away. And what we saw in January occasionally throughout the 20th century was likely the echo of something that happened almost like clockwork during the heart of the LIA. A cold, drier, potentially snowy mid-winter period as the mean polar jet position sunk south.

 

September and October are a similar story. There is just less of a sharp drop off from summer in September than there used to be. Warmer airmasses in the mid-low latitudes, and weaker cold airmasses in the high latitudes that just take more time to get their acts together, and are much more prone to being "pushed around" by warm airmasses as opposed to they themselves dominating the pattern. Summer holds on for longer and prolonged penetration of any true cold gets pushed farther and farther back into the season.

 

Of course, there are always outliers and years that temporarily buck the overall trend, but on the whole, this is where things have been moving for decades now.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're screwed forever.  Way more now than 18 months ago.  

 

Nice thing is soon busts won't even be an issue as a bust in the models will simply show a near-miss/close call set up as the zenith of potential while verification will be +10 to +15 anomalies.  

My preferences can beat up your preferences’ dad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same thing is true with months like September and January. Even October to some extent. Those months are true "indicator" months whose averages are most susceptible to being shifted by a warming climate, locally. Canaries in the coal mine.

 

The case with January, in my opinion, is that we have essentially lost an entire phase of our winter season that was somewhat marginal to begin with. A "heart" of winter that was generally dominated by continental airmasses with the polar jet spending more time, on average, further south into Oregon or even in California. We were always on the edge with that part (at least for the past century, further back into the LIA it was likely much more dominant) and now in the last 30 years it has been all but lost. Hence the massive rise in January averages since the early-mid 80s. December and February have been less vulnerable due to the fact that they have, at least in our period of record, always been more shoulder seasons anyway. Although even they have seen slight warming. But January has taken a huge blow, because the predominant mid-winter pattern that used to fill one in every two or three Januaries has all but gone away. And what we saw in January occasionally throughout the 20th century was likely the echo of something that happened almost like clockwork during the heart of the LIA. A cold, drier, potentially snowy mid-winter period as the mean polar jet position sunk south.

 

September and October are a similar story. There is just less of a sharp drop off from summer in September than there used to be. Warmer airmasses in the mid-low latitudes, and weaker cold airmasses in the high latitudes that just take more time to get their acts together, and are much more prone to being "pushed around" by warm airmasses as opposed to they themselves dominating the pattern. Summer holds on for longer and prolonged penetration of any true cold gets pushed farther and farther back into the season.

 

Of course, there are always outliers and years that temporarily buck the overall trend, but on the whole, this is where things have been moving for decades now.

 

 

And what about the increased frequency of cold outbreaks in November/early December? Doesn't fit with your narrative, which I'm afraid is an overly simplified summary.

A forum for the end of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does get old though when you insist on bringing climate change into just about every discussion now. This thread in and of itself had nothing to do with AGW, as Dewey pointed out. But of course, you chose to immediately go there. As you have so many times in recent months.

 

Climate change is kind of an overarching theme when it comes to discussing the weather. Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what about the increased frequency of cold outbreaks in November/early December? Doesn't fit with your narrative, which I'm afraid is an overly simplified summary.

 

Of course it simplified. It's a summary. Nothing is truly linear and there are always quirks and exceptions, despite an overall background theme. The trick is to see the background theme through the short term/small scale fluctuations.

 

Generally speaking, what I have stated fits what we have observed, and makes sense logically. Again, I'm sorry if you have a problem with that. You will have to take it up with our warming climate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is, how do you know a warming globe is not in and of itself responsible for shifting the Hadley cells? Seems like a chicken or an egg type thing. But considering the vast majority of climate scientists seem to agree that greenhouse gases are responsible for the lions share of warming in recent decades I can't see the logic in siding against them, unless some sort of groundbreaking revelation is made proving otherwise.

The two go hand in hand, in many respects. It's a complex problem rooted in differential heating, and there are a slew of chickens and eggs involved because there's no way to isolate the important signals due to their overlapping frequencies.

 

For example, using the data we have on the global radiative budget, the observed changes in the macroscale global circulation(s), alone, argues for a planetary-scale warming that is most anomalous towards the polar regions, and less anomalous in the tropical regions (which is what we have observed). However, this distribution is exactly what would favor these circulatory changes in the first place.

 

So, obviously there's a negative feedback in there somewhere, and the underlying causative mechanisms are probably low frequency forcing(s) that stem from, influence, and/or serve as an intermediary through the tropical domain. This implicates a number of potential forcings on varying timescales, including anthropogenic-radiative forcing on dynamics in the upper troposphere, and numerous solar-radiative and geomagnetic forcings on dynamics/chemistry, (and subsequent wind-flow and circulation) in the troposphere, stratosphere, and mesosphere.

 

So it's likely a combination of factors. Due to the fact that we understand so little about the aforementioned, and the general lack of computational power required to investigate the climate system more thoroughly, it's tough to make definitive statements without obvious naïveté.

 

That said, we have made major progress, and a number of fantastic papers are due to be published over the next 5-8 months. We have uncovered strong relationships between ENSO/PDO and Solar/QBO harmonics using a systematic inertial intermediary. We've discovered fascinating linkages between stratospheric dynamics and tropical convection that operate on multiple pathways, on numerous timescales. We've even uncovered potential long term linkages between the strength of the planetary magnetic field and microphysical processes in clouds as well as large scale temperature gradients/thermal winds in the upper atmosphere.

 

This is only just the beginning. There's so much still yet to be uncovered, so it's best to keep an open mind to everything out there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate change is kind of an overarching theme when it comes to discussing the weather. Sorry.

 

Disagree. There is a distinct difference between climate and weather. Most of the discussion here surrounds weather. It makes sense at times to look at the weather in the context of long term climate trends, but not EVERY discussion.

 

In the case of this thread, banging the same old climate change drum was pretty ham-handed.

A forum for the end of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it simplified. It's a summary. Nothing is truly linear and there are always quirks and exceptions, despite an overall background theme. The trick is to see the background theme through the short term/small scale fluctuations.

 

Generally speaking, what I have stated fits what we have observed, and makes sense logically. Again, I'm sorry if you have a problem with that. You will have to take it up with our warming climate.

 

You inferred that local trends you've seen with January and September are being caused directly by climate change. Logically, you'd have to apply that to November/December as well.

A forum for the end of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not gonna do a pointless semantics battle with you. I'd you are going to play obtuse be my guest.

 

:rolleyes:

 

There is zero semantics in that post. It's annoying when people throw out the "semantics" card just because they're unwilling to address the point. There's nothing obtuse about asking you to think logically.

 

Why are January/September influenced so much more by AGW than November/December? Simple question.

A forum for the end of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate is a description of weather. The only difference between weather and climate is that the former is bound by definition to a specific location, while the latter can be applied locally, regionally, or globally.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:rolleyes:

 

There is zero semantics in that post. It's annoying when people throw out the "semantics" card just because they're unwilling to address the point. There's nothing obtuse about asking you to think logically.

 

Why are January/September influenced so much more by AGW than November/December? Simple question.

I already explained the shoulder season thing. The roles that September and January have historically played, climatologically, have been more susceptible to a warming climate than other parts of the year. All you want to do is drag this out over pages and pages and muddy my point because you have an anti-AGW agenda. I realize I am already playing into that by responding right now.

 

How about instead of simply challenging my explanation, you try to find a better one? It is easy to sit back and snipe at theories but it is much harder to create a viable, superior one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate is a description of weather. The only difference between weather and climate is that the former is bound by definition to a specific location, while the latter can be applied locally, regionally, or globally.

Exactly. It's like saying that talking about the whole function as opposed to just its points over a small interval is irrelevant. It is a matter of scale. But the function itself is of ultimate relevance.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate is a description of weather. The only difference between weather and climate is that the former is bound by definition to a specific location, while the latter can be applied locally, regionally, or globally.

 

Just google "definition of climate": the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general over a long period.

 

The difference between weather and climate is time frame. 

A forum for the end of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already explained the shoulder season thing. The roles that September and January have historically played, climatologically, have been more susceptible to a warming climate than other parts of the year. All you want to do is drag this out over pages and pages and muddy my point because you have an anti-AGW agenda. I realize I am already playing into that by responding right now.

 

How about instead of simply challenging my explanation, you try to find a better one? It is easy to sit back and snipe at theories but it is much harder to create a viable, superior one.

 

I'm not anti-AGW. Like I said, it doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. You, the one who keeps on hammering home the same point over and over, saying I'm the one with an agenda is laughable.

 

I challenged your assertion because you made it: the burden of proof is on you. I asked you why November/December haven't been affected by AGW to the same extent has the other months you referenced. It would be nice, since you were the one who made the assertion, if you could answer this question.

 

A better assertion? AGW plays a role in regional climate trends, but it certainly doesn't explain everything.

A forum for the end of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not anti-AGW. Like I said, it doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. You, the one who keeps on hammering home the same point over and over, saying I'm the one with an agenda is laughable.

 

I challenged your assertion because you made it: the burden of proof is on you. I asked you why November/December haven't been affected by AGW to the same extent has the other months you referenced. It would be nice, since you were the one who made the assertion, if you could answer this question.

 

A better assertion? AGW plays a role in regional climate trends, but it certainly doesn't explain everything.

I never said it explained everything. Good lord. Sometimes I think you just like to argue.

 

And November/December have certainly warmed, just not as much. I already went over my reasoning of what made January our golden month historically, though. It has since fallen the hardest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is obvious that the climate is warming and the main drivers of our weather are gradually shifting north, then why does someone have this insane obsession with monitoring the temperature departure at PDX? And judging all weather patterns and events by the anomaly at that station?

 

Even when there is a cold day or a cold month or even a cold season... the general warming and northward migration is still happening and a cold anomaly at PDX does not change anything.

**REPORTED CONDITIONS AND ANOMALIES ARE NOT MEANT TO IMPLY ANYTHING ON A REGIONAL LEVEL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED**

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is obvious that the climate is warming and the main drivers of our weather are gradually shifting north, then why does someone have this insane obsession with monitoring the temperature departure at PDX? And judging all weather patterns and events by the anomaly at that station?

 

Even when there is a cold day or a cold month or even a cold season... the general warming and northward migration is still happening and a cold anomaly at PDX does not change anything.

 

As pointed out before, it's painfully obvious that Jesse sees AGW through a very local lens. When PDX is setting all kinds of warm records, global warming is suddenly a major concern. Whereas before anomalies got "out of control" locally, climate change was not nearly as top of mind.

 

That's what's funny about it. It's not like the globe has warmed drastically in the past couple years (when you account for natural ENSO cycles). Nothing in the big picture has changed.

A forum for the end of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW...month by month trends at OLM from 1961-90 to 1981-2010.

 

Annual: +.5

 

Jan: +1.2

Feb: +.3

Mar: +.4

Apr: +.6

May: +.9

Jun: +.2

Jul: +.7

Aug: +.5

Sep: +.5

Oct: +.2

Nov: +.2

Dec: +.3

 

There's no doubt that January is far and away the outlier, but I don't see any seasonal trends that could be attributed to global warming. All seasons (spring, summer, fall, winter) have warmed very similar amounts, with fall having seen the least amount of warming. That's actually the opposite of what one would expect, and have in fact seen with global temps over the same time frame.

A forum for the end of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As pointed out before, it's painfully obvious that Jesse sees AGW through a very local lens. When PDX is setting all kinds of warm records, global warming is suddenly a major concern. Whereas before anomalies got "out of control" locally, climate change was not nearly as top of mind.

 

That's what's funny about it. It's not like the globe has warmed drastically in the past couple years (when you account for natural ENSO cycles). Nothing in the big picture has changed.

Actually, the past few years have also been the warmest on record globally.

 

Maybe if you actually read my other posts and didn't just have a predicable, kneejerk reaction against anything that smells global warming related you could see that I haven't said anything that outlandish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the past few years have also been the warmest on record globally.

 

Maybe if you actually read my other posts and didn't just have a predicable, kneejerk reaction against anything that smells global warming related you could see that I haven't said anything that outlandish.

 

Yes...did you notice the part where I said "when you account for natural ENSO cycles"? It's not like AGW has increased temps much since 2012. The world was still .5F warmer then than 1960, and it's about the same today.

 

I wouldn't call me out for knee jerk responses if I were you...see Dewey's post above.

 

What do you think of OLM's seasonal warming trends over the past few decades?

A forum for the end of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the past few years have also been the warmest on record globally.

Only at the sea surface. The global lower troposphere is nowhere near the prior records. Land surface temperatures are also below prior records.

 

The warmth at the sea surface in recent years can be quantitatively linked to significantly reduction in global wind speeds since January of 2013, which lead to a reduced rate of evaporative cooling at the sea surface --> reduced upper tropospheric latent heat release & subsequent condensation/cloud formation. Both the NIMBUS and CERES satellite suites have picked up on the increase in OLWR in the higher frequencies in the AW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already explained the shoulder season thing. The roles that September and January have historically played, climatologically, have been more susceptible to a warming climate than other parts of the year. All you want to do is drag this out over pages and pages and muddy my point because you have an anti-AGW agenda. I realize I am already playing into that by responding right now.

 

How about instead of simply challenging my explanation, you try to find a better one? It is easy to sit back and snipe at theories but it is much harder to create a viable, superior one.

 

I think you're dragging this out too much.

 

Ok. This is what I get for actually addressing your points.

A forum for the end of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...